- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round Up:...
Supreme Court Weekly Round Up: August 15 To August 21, 2022
Sohini Chowdhury
22 Aug 2022 9:15 AM IST
Talaq-E-Hasan Not So Improper Prima Facie, Women Have Option Of Khula Divorce : Supreme CourtCase Status: Benazeer Heena v. Union of India And Ors. WP(C) No. 348/2022 (PIL) The Supreme Court made a prima facie observation that the practice of divorce through the Muslim personal law practice of Talaq-E-Hasan, as per which a man can divorce his wife by pronouncing "talaq" once a month...
Talaq-E-Hasan Not So Improper Prima Facie, Women Have Option Of Khula Divorce : Supreme Court
Case Status: Benazeer Heena v. Union of India And Ors. WP(C) No. 348/2022 (PIL)
The Supreme Court made a prima facie observation that the practice of divorce through the Muslim personal law practice of Talaq-E-Hasan, as per which a man can divorce his wife by pronouncing "talaq" once a month for three months, is "not so improper".
"Prima Facie this (talaq e Hasan) is not so improper. Women also have an option. Khula is there. Prima facie I don't agree with petitioners. I don't want this to become an agenda for any other reason", Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, the presiding judge of the bench, orally remarked.
The Supreme Court agreed to list plea seeking transfer of a counter case filed against her by the father of Shubham Singh, one of the accused men, facing trial in New Delhi for the gang rape of the minor petitioner. The plea wherein the victim had sought interim relief for the stay of the non-bailable warrant issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao against her was mentioned by Advocate Vrinda Grover before the bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices JK Maheshwari and Hima Kohli.
Case Status: Most Rev Dr. Peter Machado v. UOI & Ors. WP (Crl) NO. 137 of 2022
The Central Government has opposed a PIL filed seeking directions to stop alleged attacks against Christians in the country by saying that the petitioners have resorted to 'falsehood and some selective self-serving document' and mere conjectures. The preliminary objection has been filed by the Central Government through the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs in response to the PIL filed by Archbishop Of Bangalore Diocese Dr. Peter Machado along with the National Solidarity Forum, the Evangelical Fellowship of India. The Centre's response states that the petitioners had relied on information gathered from press reports, "independent" online databases and from findings of various non-profit organisations. The Centre said that "enquiries reveal that the majority of the incidents alleged as Christian persecution in these reports were either false or wrongfully projected".
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Construction Of Lulu Mall At Thiruvananthapuram
Case Status: MK Salim v. State of Kerala SLP(C) 8363 of 2022
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging the construction of LuLu Mall, a popular shopping mall in Thiruvananthapuram, the Capital city of Kerala. The bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices JK Maheshwari and Hima Kohli upheld Kerala High Court's order dated August 13, 2021 passed by the bench of Justice S.V. Bhatti and Justice Bechu Kurian. The bench observed that the mall has been granted requisite permission by the statutory authorities.
Can A State Running Lottery Ban Lotteries From Other States? Supreme Court To Consider
Case Status: State of Nagaland And Ors. v. State of Kerala And Ors. Diary No. 21222/2022
The Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Kerala on a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Nagaland challenging the Kerala High Court's order which upheld the power of the State Government to regulate lotteries from other states. A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy was hearing the challenge against the judgment delivered by the High Court on May 17, 2021, which upheld the amendments brought to Kerala Paper Lotteries (Regulation) Rules in 2018 (Rules) to regulate marketing and sale of lotteries organised by other states in their own State.
Case Status: Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India WP(C) 43 of 2022
The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) is the latest party to approach the Supreme Court in the "freebies" issue, after the Aam Aadmi Party and the Indian National Congress, saying that welfare schemes intended to ensure social and economic justice can't be termed "freebies". The application moved by the DMK seeking to implead itself in the PIL filed by former BJP Spokesperson Ashwini Upadhyay stated :
"It is humbly submitted that a welfare scheme providing a free service are introduced with an intent to secure a social order and economic justice under Article 38 to minimise the inequalities in income, status, facilities and opportunities. In no imaginable reality, it could be construed as a "freebie". Such schemes have been introduced in order to provide basic necessities which the poor households cannot afford. They cannot be imputed to be luxuries".
It also questioned why the petitioner has only added the Union Government and the Election Commission of India as the respondents in the case when the policies of the state governments were under scrutiny. The DMK also said that only a welfare scheme introduced by a State Government cannot be judged to be classified as a freebie. The ruling government at the Union giving tax holidays to foreign companies, waiver of bad loans of influential industrialists, granting crucial contracts to favoured conglomerates etc. also have to be considered and cannot be left untouched.
Case Status: Eparchy of Bathery v. State of Kerala and others SLP(Crl) No.1487/2022
The Kerala Catholic Church reformation movement, a registered Catholic Association, approached the Supreme Court supporting the Kerala High Court's judgment which held that Bishops have no power to alienate the church assets and that their powers are confined to religious and spiritual matters. The Association has filed impleading applications opposing the Special Leave Petitions moved by the Catholic Diocese of Thamarassery and Eparchy of Bathery challenging the remarks made by the Kerala High Court in its judgment delivered in August 2021 which refused to quash the criminal cases against Cardinal Mar George Alencherry over the sale of properties belonging to Ernakulam-Angamaly Archdiocese. The Court has adjourned the matter for hearing to September 7.
Teesta Setalvad Moves Supreme Court Seeking Bail; Bench Led By Justice UU Lalit To Hear On August 22
Case Status: Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat SLP(Crl) No. 7413-14/2022
Social activist Teesta Setalvad has approached the Supreme Court seeking bail in the case registered by Gujarat ATS alleging falsification of records to implicate high state functionaries in the Gujarat riots conspiracy case. The petition was mentioned by Advocate Aparna Bhat before a bench led by the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing. The CJI agreed to list the matter before a bench led by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit on August 22. Teesta has approached the Supreme Court against the Gujarat High Court's refusal to grant her interim bail. She was arrested on June 26 from Mumbai by the Gujarat ATS, a day after the Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Zakia Jafri challenging the SIT's clean chit to high ranking State functionaries and the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2002 riots.
Other States Should Not Ban Our Lotteries : Meghalaya & Sikkim To Supreme Court
Case Status: State of Meghalaya v. Union of India And Ors. Original Suit No. 1/2021
The Supreme Court heard a suit filed by the State of Meghalaya and Sikkim against the decision to ban their state lotteries in other states. The context of the suit is that as per Section 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act 1998, the Central Government authorised State Governments to prohibit the sale of tickets of a lottery organised, conducted or promoted by another State. The State of Meghalaya, submitting that the regulation of lotteries organised by other states was not a State subject, but fell within the domain of the Central government, thus sought to be granted permission to sell lotteries in other States. The State of Sikkim also supported the stand of Meghalaya. The matter is listed for next week.
Case Status: Deepika Singh v. CAT SLP(C) No. 7772/2021
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, held that a woman cannot be denied maternity leave under the Central Services (Leave Rules ) 1972 with respect to her biological child on the ground that her spouse has two children from his earlier marriage.According to Rule 43, only a female employee with less than two surviving children can seek maternity leave. In this case, the woman's husband had two children from his previous marriage and she had previously availed child care leave for her non-biological child. When a child was born to her in the marriage, the authorities denied her maternity leave, citing the bar under Rule 43. A Bench presided by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud held that Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave Rules) 1972 has to be given a purposive interpretation in terms of the Maternity Benefit Act and Article 15 of the Constitution of India, under which the State is to adopt beneficial provisions for protecting the interest of women.
Case Status: Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 677
In a case of conflicting dying declarations, the Supreme Court relied on the one recorded after a medical examination with regard to the fitness of the deceased. The bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice PS Narasimha opined that the court was required to examine as to whether a dying declaration was true and reliable; as to whether it had been recorded by a person at a time when the deceased was fit physically and mentally to make the declaration and; whether it had been made under any tutoring/duress/prompting.
Case Status: Shinde Mohan Kalu v. State of Nagaland Writ Petition (Crl) No. 228/2022
The concept of human rights is being limited to webinars and symposiums and does not see proper implementation at ground level, the Supreme Court of India lamented on Tuesday.
"Human rights and all these are things that are said in discussions and symposiums. Are we not required to do it at the ground level?", a Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari orally queried.
The Bench was considering a petition moved by an army man seeking transfer of prison from Kohima Central Jail, Nagaland to one in Pune. He was sentenced to five years in jail through a court martial for the aggravated sexual assault of a minor under the Army Act, 1951 and the the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012.
Case Status: All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra SLP(C) 30748/2017
The Supreme Court told the Central Government to take "proactive steps" with the FIFA to ensure that India can get to host the Under 17 women's world cup and that the suspension of the All India Football Federation (AIFF) is lifted. The FIFA has suspended the All India Football Federation (AIFF) with immediate effect citing "undue influence from third parties". This means that India will not be able to host the FIFA Under 17 Women's World Cup, which was scheduled to be held in October 2022. In a press statement issued on August 16, the FIFA said that the suspension will be revoked once the order appointing the Committee of Administrators to assume the powers of the AIFF Executive Committee is repealed. A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and JB Pardiwala adjourned the hearing in the matter related to AIFF as per the Solicitor General's request in view of the "active discussions" between the Government of India and FIFA to resolve the issue.
Case Status: Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) 43 of 2022
The Supreme Court, while considering a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to not permit political parties to promise freebies during election campaigns, orally opined that the issues raised in the matter were getting increasingly complicated. The matter was listed before the bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Hima Kohli. The plea has been filed by former BJP Spokesperson Ashwini Upadhyay and political parties like AAP, Congress and DMK have sought to intervene in the matter.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Allow NRIs To Vote In Elections From Abroad
Case Status: Kerala Pravasi Association And Anr. v. UoI And Anr. WP(C) No. 506/2022
The Supreme Court has issued notice in a petition seeking directions to the Central Government to permit citizens residing outside India to exercise their franchise, under Section 20A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (1950 Act), from their place of residence or employment. The petition has thus asked for alternative options/external modes to be provided to citizens residing outside India for exercising their right to vote, without insisting on their physical presence in their respective polling stations in India, on the day of polling. The matter was listed before the bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Hima Kohli.
Case Status: M/s Patil Automation Private Limited and others versus Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678
In a judgment having far reaching impact in commercial litigations, the Supreme Court on Wednesday declared that Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, which mandates pre- institution mediation, is mandatory and suits which are filed violating this mandate are liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court has however made this declaration effective from August 22, 2022.A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy gave this ruling in the batch case M/s Patil Automation Private Limited and others versus Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd and connected matters.
Case Status: P Varavara Rao v. National Investigation Agency Diary No.24350/2022
The Supreme Court granted liberty to 82-year old Telugu poet Varavara Rao, facing accusations under the UAPA in the Bhima Koregaon case over alleged links with Maoists, to approach the Special NIA Court at Mumbai seeking permission to go to his native place Hyderabad for cataract surgery. Asking Rao to make such an application within 2 weeks, the Court directed the trial court to make a decision within three weeks of the filing of the same. Clarifying that it has not expressed anything on the merits of the plea, a bench led by Justice UU Lalit disposed of Rao's petition with the above directions.
Case Status: Hemant Soren v. Shiv Shankar Sharma SLP(C) No.11364-11365/2022
The Supreme Court stayed proceedings before Jharkhand High Court on PILs filed against Chief Minister Hemant Soren alleging money laundering through shell companies and obtaining a mining lease while he was in power. A Bench of Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia was considering the petitions moved by the Jharkhand State government and CM Soren challenging the High Court's order which accepted maintainability of PIL seeking probe against him. While staying the High Court proceedings, the bench also reserved its judgment in the matter.
Case Status: Neil Aurelio Nunes & Ors v. Union of India and Ors WP(C) No. 961/2021
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, assured that, the petitions challenging the validity of Centre's Rs. 8 lakhs annual income upper limit criteria for seeking Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation in the All India Quota for NEET admissions, would be taken up on priority, either next week or the week thereafter. Appearing before a Bench comprising Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna and J.B. Pardiwala Senior Advocate, Mr. Arvind Datar apprised it that the counselling for NEET-PG 2022 is to commence from 1st September, 2022, he requested the matter to be listed at the earliest. He informed the Bench that as per his instructions, the Pandey Committee recommendation to not include agricultural land has also not been implemented. Mr. Datar urged for early hearing for interim directions in this regard.
Case Status: Satyender v. Saroj 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 679
The Supreme Court observed that a counter claim can be set up only "against the claim of the plaintiffs". The bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed. observed that though the requirement of formulation of a substantial question of law was not necessary, yet Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, requires that only such decisions are to be considered in second appeal which are contrary to law or to some custom or usage having the force of law or the court below have failed to determine some material issue of law or custom or usage having the force of law.
Subramanian Swamy's Plea On Ram Setu Assigned To Bench Led By Justice Chandrachud
Case Status: O. Fernandes (Dead) v. TNPCB And Ors. SLP(C) No. 20758 of 2005
Rajya Sabha MP Dr Subramanian Swamy mentioned the plea seeking National Heritage Status for Ram Setu before the Supreme Court for early listing. As the matter was mentioned before the Bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud informed Mr. Swamy that he would consult with the other members of the concerned Bench and take a call as to when the matter can be next listed.
"I will discuss it with my Ld brother and see when we can list it."
The State of Kerala has filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against the order mandating minimum one kilometer Eco Sensitive Zone(ESZ) from protected forests.
"If the ESZ is uniformly fixed as 1 kilometer from the boundaries of protected areas in the State of Kerala, the State will face insurmountable difficulties in implementing the same", the review petition stated.
Case Status: Hemant Soren v. Shiv Shankar Sharma SLP(C) No.11364-11365/2022
The Supreme Court asked the Enforcement Directorate why it furnished a report in sealed cover before the Jharkhand High Court in a PIL seeking enquiry against Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, even before the allegations are substantiated. During the hearing today, a Bench of Justices UU Lalit, Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ravindra Bhat asked the ED "Can you act on an individual citizen's unsubstantiated allegations and proceed? You cannot take it as an opportunity to act"
Case Status: University of Kerala And Ors. Etc. v. Merlin J.N. And Etc. Etc. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 680
The Supreme Court held that the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to It) Regulations, 2016 would be applied retrospectively. Relying on a catena of judgments, a Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia reiterated that when an amendment is merely clarificatory in nature it ought to have retrospective application.
Case Status: Indian Olympic Association v. Union of India And Ors. Diary Number 25767/2022
The Supreme Court ordered status quo with respect to the Delhi High Court's order which placed the affairs of Indian Olympic Association under a Committee of Administrators constituted by the High Court. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justice CT Ravikumar passed the order on an urgent mentioning made by the Indian Olympic Association. The bench was informed that the Committee of Administrators is yet to take over the IOA. In this backdrop, the bench passed the status quo order and listed the case next Monday.
Case Status: BLA Industries Pvt Ltd versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 683
The Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rupees one lakh on the Union Government for incorrectly mentioning the name of a coal mining company in the list of the illegal coal block allotments made in the "Coalgate" scam. The Court noted that the petitioner-company, BLA Industries Pvt Ltd, had applied through the legal route, following the procedure under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), and that it was granted the mining lease by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after the approval of the Central Government, on May 21, 1998.
Case Status: P.A. Josseph v. Election Commission of India And Anr. SLP(C) No. 12895/2022
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to freeze the AIADMK's "Two Leaves" symbols. The matter was listed before the bench of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice C.T. Ravikumar. The CJI, while stating that the petition was a "waste of time", dismissed the same. The petitioner, PA Joseph, had earlier approached the Madras High Court praying for a direction to the Election Commission to take necessary action against the rival groups of the AIADMK and freeze the "Two Leaves" symbol, until the disputes between Edappadi K Palaniswami and O Panneerselvam were solved, to protect public order and peace in the state. The bench of Chief Justice M N Bhandari and Justice N Mala of Madras High Court, while stating that the petition was filed purely for publicity had dismissed the petition and a cost of Rs. 25,000 was imposed on the petitioner.
Spicejet & Credit Suisse Settles Dispute, Plea In Supreme Court Withdrawn
Case Status: Spicejet Limited v. Credit Suisse AG SLP(C) No. 1046/2022
The Supreme Court on Thursday heard the plea of airline company SpiceJet Ltd., challenging the winding order passed by the Madras High Court on Thursday. The airline company stated that it had reached a settlement with the creditor and agreed to withdraw the Special Leave Petition filed against the Madras High Court winding up order. The matter was listed before the bench of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice C.T. Ravikumar.
Case Status: X v. Amit Kumar Tiwari 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 681
The Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which discharged a rape accused on the ground of delay in the registration of the First Information Report (FIR). The bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and J.B. Pardiwala observed that the High Court judgment is perverse and utterly incomprehensible.
"..The impugned order of the High Court is utterly incomprehensible. We have yet to come across a case where the High Court has thought fit to discharge an accused charged with the offence of rape on the ground of delay in the registration of the FIR.", the bench remarked.
Case Status: Syed Shahnawaz Hussain v. GNCTD SLP(Crl) No. 7653/2022
BJP Leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain has moved the Supreme Court against Delhi High Court order directing registration of FIR against him in an alleged 2018 rape case. The matter was mentioned for an urgent hearing before the bench of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice C.T. Ravikumar. Advocate Mohit Paul, counsel appearing for Hussain, argued that if an FIR was registered against him, the petition would become infructuous. Further, it was submitted that Hussain had a 30-year-long career in politics and a registration of FIR would destroy his reputation. CJI Ramana agreed to list the matter for next week.
Case Status: Gajanand Burange v. Laxmi Chand Goyal 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 682
The Supreme Court observed that a cheque bounce complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice by the drawer of the cheque is not maintainable. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna noticed -
"Can an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act be said to have been committed when the period provided in clause (c) of the proviso has not expired? Section 2(d) of the Code defines "complaint". According to this definition, complaint means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate with a view to taking his action against a person who has committed an offence. Commission of an offence is a sine qua non for filing a complaint and for taking cognizance of such offence. A bare reading of the provision contained in clause (c) of the proviso makes it clear that no complaint can be filed for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act unless the period of 15 days has elapsed. Any complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date on which the notice has been served on the drawer/accused is no complaint at all in the eye of the law. It is not the question of prematurity of the complaint where it is filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date on which notice has been served on him, it is no complaint at all under law. As a matter of fact, Section 142 of the NI Act, inter alia, creates a legal bar on the court from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 138 except upon a written complaint. Since a complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act before the expiry of 15 days from the date on which the notice has been served on the drawer/accused is no complaint in the eye of the law, obviously, no cognizance of an offence can be taken on the basis of such complaint. Merely because at the time of taking cognizance by the court, the period of 15 days has expired from the date on which notice has been served on the drawer/accused, the court is not clothed with the jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence under Section 138 on a complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice by the drawer of the cheque."
Case Status: Baiju KG v. Dr VP Joy Conmt. Pet (C) No. 244/2021
The Supreme Court, directed the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Kasaragod, Kerala to visit the medical and healthcare facilities at various levels, including district hospitals, general hospital, community healthcare centres, primary healthcare centres, assigned for treatment of Endosulfan victims in the district and submit a status report within 6 weeks. The Apex Court was of the opinion that the said exercise would enable it to have an objective assessment of medical and healthcare facilities provided to the victims of Endosulfan.
Case Status: Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 684
The Supreme Court, while noting the plight of a physically disabled employee, stated that disabled employees should not be forced to forfeit seniority for choosing posting place as per a beneficial circular. The circular in question was issued by the Finance Department of the Rajasthan Government. It directed the appointing authorities to consider the posting of persons with disabilities at or near the place for which they opt at the time of appointment.
Case Status: Veera Brahma Rao v. UOI & Anr W.P.(C) No. 1020/2021
In a plea challenging the exclusion of NCLT members from the Eighth Schedule of the Finance Act, 2017, Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2020 and the subsequent Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 and the benefits accruing thereunder, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. K.M. Nataraj apprised the Supreme Court that the Union Government is coordinating with the concerned departments, namely Law and Finance, in this regard.
Case Status: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UoI WP(C) No. 327/2021
"This will create a lot of complications", the Supreme Court of India orally observed on Thursday, while considering petitions filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay and BJP leader Kapil Mishra seeking a uniform compensation code for victims of wrongful prosecution. A Division Bench of Justices UU Lalit and Ravindra Bhat, observed, "This will create a lot of complications….This involves law making."
Case Status: Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India and Ors. v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 323/2021
The Federation of Medical & Sales Representatives Association of India informed the Supreme Court that the Central Board for Direct Taxes have accused the Pharma Company manufacturing DOLO tablets, a fever reducing drug, of distributing INR 1000 crore worth freebies to doctors for prescribing dosage of 650mg. Senior Advocate, Sanjay Parikh appearing on behalf of the Association, informed a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna that the market price of DOLO upto 500mg is regulated, however the dosage beyond 500mg can be priced at the will of the manufacturer. In order to ensure higher profits, the freebies were distributed amongst doctors to prescribe a dosage of 650mg, which Mr. Parikh referred to as an "irrational dose combination".
Case Status: Sulekha v. Pradeep Pachouri SLP(C) No. 5726/2021
While setting aside a divorce decree granted in favour of a husband, the Supreme Court orally remarked that marital status is important for women in India given the social situation here.A Division Bench of Justices UU Lalit and Ravindra Bhat was considering a petition filed by the appellant wife seeking to challenge a divorce decree granted by the High Court on the ground of desertion.
Case Status: Vernon v. State of Maharashtra and Anr SLP(Crl) No. 5423/2022
The Supreme Court asked the Special NIA Court to decide on framing charges in the Bhima Koregaon case within a period of three months. The Court also directed the NIA Court to decide the discharge applications filed by the accused in the case simultaneously. A bench comprising Justice UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat passed the direction while considering a petition filed by accused Vernon Gonsalves seeking bail in the case. The bench also directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take apt steps to segregate trial of activist Gonsalves from other accused persons who are absconding in the Bhima Koregaon case. It also asked the NIA to issue proclaimed offender notices for the absconding accused persons.
Case Status: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. M/s. ABC Papers Limited 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 686
Settling a crucial issue, the Supreme Court held that appeals against orders of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) will lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the assessing officer is situated. The Apex Court clarified that even if the case is transferred in exercise of power under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, which enables a higher authority to transfer a 'case' from one Assessing Officer to another Assessing Officer, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer has passed the order, shall continue to exercise the jurisdiction of appeal. The same principle would be applicable even if the transfer under Section 127 is for the same assessment year.
Section 304B IPC -Message Should Go That Dowry Death Shall Be Dealt With An Iron Hand: Supreme Court
Case Status: Ajhola Devi & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 695
Observing that "the legislative intent of incorporating IPC section 304ÂB was to curb the menace of dowry death with a firm hand" and that "in dealing with cases under section 304ÂB, such legislative intent has to be kept in mind", the Supreme Court has asserted that in the imposition of sentence for the offence of dowry death, "a strong message must go in the society that a person who commits such an offence of dowry death and/or the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act shall be dealt with an iron hand".
Case Status: S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685
The Supreme Court observed that an erroneous decision of a court cannot be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction, but can only be corrected by the Superior Court. An error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review, the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed.
High Court Cannot Enhance Sentence Without Putting Accused To Notice : Supreme Court
Case Status: Radheyshyam And Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 687
The Supreme Court opined that High Courts are required to give notice to the accused before enhancing sentences. It set aside an enhancement, wherein the Rajasthan High Court had modified sentence of imprisonment for life simplicitor to life imprisonment till death, without giving prior notice to the accused; depriving them of an opportunity to defend themselves. A Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and P.S. Narasimha was of the opinion that the High Court can exercise suo moto powers and enhance the sentence, but it ought to have given prior notice to the accused persons.
Case Status: M/S Chopra Fabricators And Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Pumps And Compressors Ltd. And Anr. SLP(C)No. 4654/2022
The Supreme Court asked for the Allahabad High Court to look into and respond on whether not transferring the pending arbitration matters/commercial cases to the concerned Commercial Courts can be said to be contrary to Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act. The bench of Justices M. R. Shah and B. V. Nagarathna was hearing the matter where the Court had in May issued certain directions to tackle the problem of delay in deciding the matters related to commercial disputes in the state of UP. The direction was issued after being apprised of the burgeoning pendency in the execution proceedings of arbitral awards and applications to set aside award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the state of UP. The bench had earlier expressed its displeasure at huge pendency of cases filed under two statutes i.e. the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which envisages the speedy disposal of cases.
Prosecution Under PMLA Not Possible After Accused Is Acquitted Of Scheduled Offence: Supreme Court
Case Status: Parvathi Kollur v. State by Directorate Of Enforcement 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 688
The Supreme Court reiterated that a person acquitted of scheduled offence cannot be prosecuted under Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari noted the following observations made in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633:
"The offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It is concerning the process or activity connected with such property, which constitutes the offence of money-laundering. The Authorities under the 2002 Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum. If the person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or the criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of money laundering against him or any one claiming such property being the property linked to stated scheduled offence through him.""
Financial Criteria In A Compassionate Appointment Scheme Cannot Be Ignored: Supreme Court
Case Status: Central Bank of India v. Nitin 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 690
The Supreme Court observed that the financial criteria for compassionate appointment given in a Compassionate Appointment Scheme cannot be ignored.
"Rules which provide for a financial criteria for appointment on Compassionate ground are valid and lawful rules which have to be construed strictly, as otherwise the quota reserved for compassionate appointment would be filled up excluding others who might be in greater and/or far more acute financial distress", the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
Case Status: Khema @ Khem Chandra vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 689
The Supreme Court observed that some corroboration is necessary when an ocular testimony falls into the category of "neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable". The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha noted that in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [1957] SCR 981, oral testimony was classified into three categories, namely: (1) Wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the said judgment, it was observed thus: "In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way — it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial..……"
State Has No Public Duty To Indicate HSN Code For GST Rate In Public Tender: Supreme Court
Case Status: Union of India And Ors. v. Bharat Forge Ltd. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 691
The Supreme Court held that there is no public duty on the State to indicate HSN Code in public tender documents.
A Bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy quashed the mandamus issued by the Allahabad High Court, inter alia, directing Central Government to verify the HSN Code from taxing authorities and indicate the same on bid documents, at the instance of a writ petitioner that claimed the non-disclosure of HSN Code in the public tender violates the doctrine of "level playing field" embodied in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
Case Status: Mehmood Pracha v. Central Administrative Tribunal 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 692
The Supreme Court has held that the Central Administrative Tribunal has no power to dispense with trial before punishing for contempt committed in the face of it, if the alleged contemnor is denying the charges.
The Court noted that unlike the Supreme Court, which has powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India, the CAT cannot punish for contempt in the face of it without trial. It held that trial ought to be conducted in terms of Section 14(1)(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and other relevant statues, otherwise denial of right to a trial would result in miscarriage of justice.
Supreme Court Dismisses PIL To Stop Private Zoo In Gujarat From Acquiring Animals
Case Title : Kanhaiya Kumar v. Central Zoo Authority and another WP(C) No. 547 of 2022
The Supreme Court has dismissed a PIL filed against the recognition granted to Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre, an upcoming private zoo, at Jamnagar, Gujarat.
A bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari dismissed the PIL filed by one Kanhaiya Kumar observing "we are unable to find any logic or basis in this petition". The Court noted that the petition was filed on the basis of certain newspaper reports and the petitioner, who is not an expert in the field, has not carried out the requisite research before invoking PIL jurisdiction.
Case Status: JSW Steel Limited v. South Western Railway And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 693
Noting that there exists conflicting decisions on the issue of appointment of Arbitrators under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Supreme Court referred it to a larger Bench. Given the frequent recurrence of the issue, the Apex Court also observed that the question of law be resolved at the earliest.
A Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhuliawas apprised that in its order dated 11.01.2021 a 3-judge Bench of the Apex Court in Union of India v. M/s. Tantia Constructions Ltd. have already made a reference to a larger Bench to look into the correctness of the decision in Central Organisation forRailway Electrification V. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company (2020) 14 SCC 712(CORE), which, was stated, to have taken a divergent view.
Case Status: M/s Chauhan Builders Raibareli v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 694
The Supreme Court observed that a contractor cannot be blacklisted for life.
"One cannot be blacklisted for life. The order of blacklisting to the extent that it has not specified the period cannot be sustained", observed a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath.
The blacklisting order was passed over an allegation that the contractor used foul language against the government officers in the process of tender of certain construction works. The blacklisting order was passed on February 7, 2013. The period of blacklisting was not mentioned in the order.
The Court clarified that this blacklisting will not debar the appellant from seeking fresh enlistment in accordance with law, so as to act as contractor in respect of works to be advertised by the State.
