Supreme Court Weekly Round Up: August 1 To August 6, 2022

Supreme Court Judgments 1. Sec 24(1) RFCTLARR Act- Land Acquisition Proceedings Get "Initiated" From Publication Of Sec 4(1) Notification Under 1894 Act : Supreme Court Case details: Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation vs Deepak Aggarwal | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 644 | SLP (C) 6631-16632/2018 In a judgment delivered on Thursday (28 July 2022), the Supreme Court explained the meaning of 'Initiation' for the purpose of Section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shall be treated as initiated on publication of a notification under Section 4(1) thereof, for the purposes of Section 24(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, the Court held. 2. Provisions Of Limitation Act Has No Application When A Statute Extinguishes The Right Itself: Supreme Court Case Title: Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani vs British Airways | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 645 | CA 4978 of 2022 The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Limitation Act will not have apply when a Statute extinguishes the right itself. The distinction between barring a remedy as exception is well established, the bench observed in a judgment in which it dealt with the Rule 30 of the Second Schedule of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. Also Read: Carriage by Air Act 'Expressly Excludes' Provisions Of Limitation Act : Supreme Court 3. Vehicle Owner Can't Be Expected To Verify Genuineness Of Driver's Licence If He Was Satisfied With Driving Skills : Supreme Court Case details: Rishi Pal Singh vs New India Assurance Co Ltd. | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 646 | CA 4919 OF 2022 The Supreme Court observed that an owner of a vehicle cannot be expected to verify the genuineness of his driver's licence if he was satisfied with his driving skills. The owner of the vehicle is expected to verify the driving skills and not run to the licensing authority to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath observed. 5. Section 141 NI Act - Not Necessary To Specifically Plead That Managing Director Is In Charge Of The Company's Affairs : Supreme Court Case Details: Sunita Palita vs Panchami Stone Quarry 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 647 | SLP(Crl) 10396 of 2019 The Supreme Court observed that it is not necessary to make an averment that a Managing Director or Joint Managing Directors were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of a company to make them accused under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court reiterated that impleading of independent and non-executive directors of a Company on the basis of a statement that they are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, without anything more, does not fulfil the requirements of Section 141 NI Act. 6. Entries In Book Of Accounts/Balance Sheet Of Corporate Debtor Can Be Treated As Acknowledgment Of Liability Of Debt Payable To Financial Creditor: Supreme Court Case Title: Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs Tulip Star Hotels Limited | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648 | CA 84-85 OF 2020 The Supreme Court observed the entries in Books of Account/Balance sheet of a company can be treated as acknowledgement of liability in respect of debt payable to a financial creditor. An application under Section 7 of the IBC would not be barred by limitation, on the ground that it had been filed beyond a period of three years from the date of declaration of the loan account of the Corporate Debtor as NPA, if there were an acknowledgement of the debt by the Corporate Debtor before expiry of the period of limitation of three years. the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed. In such a case the period of limitation would get extended by a further period of three years. 7. Promise Of Marriage Made In Good Faith But Subsequently Not Fulfilled : Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Case details: Mandar Deepak Pawar vs State of Maharashtra | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 649 | CrA 442/2022 While quashing a rape case, the Supreme Court observed that there is a distinction between a false promise to marriage and a breach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled. The court noted that, in this case, both parties were admittedly in a consensual relationship from 2009 to 2011. Though the victim contended that this relationship was on an assurance of marriage by the accused, the complaint was filed only in 2016 after three years, which led to registration of FIR under Section 376 and 420, IPC. The Bombay High Court had earlier dismissed the writ petition filed by the accused observing that rape 'is said to be an offence against the society'. 8. Murder Trial - Supreme Court Applies ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up: August 1 To August 6, 2022

Shruti Kakkar

Tags