Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

1. No Coercive Action Against Employers On MHA Order For Full Payment Of Wages : SC [ Batch Petitions ]

The Supreme Court on Thursday passed an interim order that no coercive action should be taken against employers for failure to comply with the March 2. A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, SK Kaul & MR Shah reserved orders for June 12 on the petitions challenging the MHA notification dated March 29, and restrained coercive action till then.

Also Read: If Workers Get Paid, They Will Not Migrate: Attorney General On Intent Of MHA Order For Full Payment Of Full Wages

Also Read: 'There Has To Be Some Proportionality; It's A Disaster For Us Too' : Employers On MHA Order For Full Payment Of Wages

Also Read: Authority Which Imposed Lockdown Responsible To Protect Those Affected : Sr Adv Indira Jaising Submits In Support Of MHA Order On Wages

2. Migrants Crisis : SC Reserves Order After Hearing Centre, States; To Pass Further Directions On June 9 [ In RE: Problems & Miseries Of Migrant Workers & Other Intervention Applications ]

The Supreme Court on Friday reserved orders for June 9 on the suo motu case registered on the issue of migrants crisis, after hearing the Centre, State Government and intervenors. A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, S K Kaul & M R Shah observed during the course of hearing that directions for ensuring the welfare of migrants who have now reached their native states will be passed.

3. No Law That The Person Accompanying Principal Culprit Shares His Intention In Respect Of Every Act Which The Latter Might Eventually Commit: SC [ Sonu @ Sunil V. State of Madhya Pradesh ]

The Supreme Court has observed that there is no law that a person accompanying the principal culprit shares his intention in respect of every act the latter might eventually commit. The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph made this observation while allowing an appeal filed by a theft and murder accused. Referring to Section 34 IPC, the bench observed that the principle which underlies criminal liability for the acts of another therein, is the shared intention or the common intention to commit an offence.

Also Read: [Theft And Murder] Not Safe To Draw An Inference That The Person In Possession Of Stolen Property Was The Murderer: SC 

4. [Article 113 Limitation Act] Limitation Period Begins To Run When The Right To Sue Accrues And Not When It 'First' Accrues [ Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. V. The Central Bank of India & Anr. ]

The Supreme court has held that in cases governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation begins to run "when the right to sue accrues" and not when the right to sue "first" accrues. A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Indira Banerjee and Dinesh Maheshwari said that the fact that the plaintiff had eventually sent a legal notice on 28.11.2003 and again on 7.1.2005 and then filed the suit on 23.2.2005 gave rise to a cause of action. The bench referred to two earlier decisions: Union of India & Ors. vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. & Anr (2004) 2 SCC 747 and Khatri Hotels Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India (2011) 9 SCC 126.

5. [Bhima Koregaon] SC Stays Gautam Navlakha's Bail Proceedings Before Delhi High Court [ National Investigating Agency V. Gautam Navlakha ]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the proceedings in the Gautam Navlakha's bail proceedings before Delhi High Court. The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the National Investigating Agency (NIA) against a May 27 order of the Delhi High Court whereby it directed the agency to furnish a complete record of the proceedings before the NIA Special Judges based on which he was transferred to Mumbai. A bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Abdul Nazeer & Indira Banerjee also issued notice to Navlakha, seeking his reply and posted the matter for further hearing on June 15.

6.  Amrapali : Ready To Do Needful For Stalled Project, Says SBI CAP; SC Directs Meeting Between SBI CAP, NBCC & Receiver [ Bikram Chatterji V. Union Of India ]

The Supreme Court ordered that the NBCC shall undertake the construction work and the funding will be done through the company for the purpose of construction. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra & UU Lalit granted time to the stakeholders and stated that a be convened between the NBCC, Receiver, the SBI CAP and UCO Bank to do the needful. The SBI CAP told the Supreme Court by way of an affidavit that it was ready to do the needful for the stalled Amrapali project. Further, the bench heard UCO Bank, which said that it was ready to take over the unsold inventory as security and ready to fund a sum of Rs. 2000 Crores in security of unsold inventory. In light of this, Court directed UCO Bank to finalise the complete proposal in this regard within seven days and let it be placed before the Court on the next date of hearing.

7. Unsafe To Convict An Accused Solely On The Basis Of Uncorroborated Testimony Of Accomplice: SC [ Somasundaram @ Somu V. The State Rep. By The Deputy Commissioner of Police ] 

The Supreme Court has held that it would be unsafe to convict an accused solely based on uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. The bench comprising of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, KM Joseph & V. Ramasubramanian said that an accomplice, to be believed, he must be corroborated in material particulars of his testimony. The Court upheld the convictions for the abduction and murder of Tamil Nadu politician and Ex MLA, MK Balan in 2001. 

Also Read: When Abduction Is Followed By Murder, Court Can Presume That Abductor Is The Murderer : SC

8. SC Asks Kin Of Malegaon Blast Victim To Approach Bombay HC CJ With Request For Extending Tenure Of Judge Holding Trial [ Nisar Ahmed Sayed Bilal V. Union of India & Ors.]

The Supreme Court asked the kin of a Malegaon Blast victim seeking speedy trial of the case to move the Bombay High Court, for purposes of extending the tenure of the Trial Judge who is hearing the case. A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna & Hrishikesh Roy gave liberty to the father of the victim to move the learned Chief Justice of High Court of Judicature at Bombay with the instant plea and stated that the learned Chief Justice may take an appropriate decision in this regard.

9. Plea To Change 'India' As 'Bharat' : SC Refuses Interference; Asks Centre To Treat Writ Petition As Representation [ Namah V. Union of India ]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Central Government to treat a writ petition seeking direction to change the name of the country as "Bharat" from "India" as a representation and to take a decision on the same. A bench comprising Chief Justice SA Bobde, AS Bopanna & Hrishikesh Roy observed that the Court cannot pass any directions to amend the Constitution for such name change.

10. SC Declines To Stay Presidential Order Excluding Assam From 'Inner Line Permit' Area; Seeks Centre's Response [ All Tai Ahom Student's Union (ATASU), Asom Jatiyabadi Yuba Chatra V. Union of India ]

The Supreme Court refused to stay the 2019 Presidential Order, whereby the State of Assam has been excluded from Inner Line Area, in light of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019. A bench comprising Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna & Hrishikesh Roy, however issued notice on the plea and sought the Centre's response. CJI SA Bobde stated that an ex-parte stay would not be granted as it was imperative to hear the other side.

11. SC Seeks Centre's Response In Plea Seeking Changing Name Of Bombay High Court To 'Maharashtra High Court' [ V.P. Patil V. Union of Indoa & Ors. ]

The Supreme Court sought the Centre's response in a PIL seeking seeking directions to change the name of 'High Court of Bombay' to 'High Court of Maharashtra'. A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices SA Bopanna & Hrishikesh Roy took up for hearing, the petition filed by Retired Labour Court Judge VP Patil averring that the word "Maharashtra" denotes special significance in the life of a Maharashtrian and that its usage must also find expression in the name of the High Court as an expression of cultural and right to heritage as protected under Articles 19, 21, 29 of the Constitution of India.

12. SC Seeks Centre's Response In Plea Seeking Cap On Covid19 Treatment Rates At Private Hospitals [ Avishek Goenka V. Union of India ]

The Supreme Court sought the Centre's response in a PIL seeking cap on fees to be charged by private hospitals in treating Covid patients as well as transparent mechanism for purposes of admission to hospitals for quarantine and post infection facilities. A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, M R Shah & V Ramasubramanian asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to file Centre's response on putting an upper limit on fees to be charged by private hospitals for treating Coronavirus patients. Court listed the matter after a week.

13. SC Accepts Lawyer's Offer To Deposit Rs 25 Lakhs To Cover Cost Of Migrants' Travel From Mumbai To UP [ Sagheer Ahmed V. Union of India ]

The Supreme Court accepted a Mumbai based lawyer's request to pay Rs. 25 lakhs towards the travel of migrant workers and directed him to do so in a week. A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, SK Kaul and MR Shah directed advocate Sagheer Ahmed to deposit the amount with the Supreme Court Registry, in the name of the Secretary General after he offered to pay rail expenses for migrant workers from Mumbai to the district of Sant Kabir Nagar in Uttar Pradesh.

14. INX Media Case : SC Dismisses CBI's Review Petition Against Bail Granted To P Chidambaram [ CBI V. P. Chidambram ]

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by Central Bureau of Investigation against the order granting bail to former Union Minister P Chidambaram. "We have perused the review petition and the connected papers carefully and are convinced that the order of which the review has been sought does not suffer from any error apparent warranting reconsideration", said a bench comprising Justices R Banumathi, A S Bopanna & Hrishikesh Roy.

15. There Should Be Uniform, Consistent Policy On Travel Across Delhi-NCR : SC [ Rohit Bhalla V. Union of India ]

The Supreme Court directed all three stakeholder State governments in the National Capital Region (NCR) to come together and hold a meeting along with the Centre to devise a common plan for the regulation of movement of individuals within NCR. Agreeing that people are suffering due to contradictory policies of the Governments of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi, the Bench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan, SK Kaul & MR Shah was of the opinion that there should be only one consolidated policy to govern movement across NCR.

16. SC Raises Concerns Over RBI Allowing Levy Of Interest During Moratorium; Adjourns Hearing Till June 12 [ Gajendra Sharma V. Union of India]

The Supreme Court made oral observations raising concerns over the Reserve Bank of India allowing levy of interest during the moratorium period allowed for loan repayments. A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, S K Kaul & M R Shah was hearing petitions filed Gajendra Sharma and few others challenging the RBI Circulars of March 27 and May 22 to the extent they allowed financial institutions to levy interest on loans during the 6-month moratorium.

17. SC Refuses To Recall Order Dismissing Mahua Moitra's Plea On Migrants Issue [ Mahua Moitra V. Union of India ]

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to recall the order passed on April 13 which dismissed the suo moto writ petition taken by the Court on a letter petition sent by TMC MP Mahua Moitra. A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, S K Kaul & M R Shah dismissed the fresh interlocutory application filed by Moitra in the suo moto case taken by the Court on the migrants issue.