- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round Up-...
Supreme Court Weekly Round Up- November 15 To November 21, 2021
Nupur Thapliyal
21 Nov 2021 11:06 AM GMT
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Tenants Ought To Be In Actual Possession Of Premises To Avail Benefit Of Section 9 Of TN City Tenants Protection Act: Supreme CourtCase Title: National Company, Represented by its Managing Partner v. The Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6726 of 2021] Citation : LL 2021 SC 647The Supreme Court this week reiterated that...
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK
Case Title: National Company, Represented by its Managing Partner v. The Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6726 of 2021]
Citation : LL 2021 SC 647
The Supreme Court this week reiterated that the tenants ought to be in actual possession of the premises to avail the benefit of Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1972, which deals with the application filed by the tenant before the Court to direct the landlord to sell the land.
A bench comprising Justices L. Nageshwara Rao and B.R. Gavai allowed a civil appeal filed by National Company (appellant) against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ("BPCL") for not vacating the premises leased out to them even after the term of the lease agreement had expired. In the factual context of the case, the Court further thought it fit to impose a cost of INR 1,00,000 (One Lakh) on BPCL, payable to the appellant.
Observing that in its judgment, the Division Bench had made reference to ABL International Ltd. and another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. And Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 553, which held that a party disputing facts in a writ jurisdiction would not bind the court to relegate the parties to a suit, the Apex Court inferred that the Division Bench was not inclined to entertain the plea of BPCL challenging maintainability of writ on account of alternate remedy. Another judgement of the Supreme Court viz., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Anr v. Dolly Das (2006) 1 SCC 228 wherein in similar fact situation, HPCL was directed to hand over vacant possession and pay rent in a writ jurisdiction, was also relied upon by the Division Bench.
Case name: Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd vs Ramesh Kumar and Company
Citation: LL 2021 SC 648
The Supreme Court observed that the jurisdiction in a first appeal arising out of a decree in a civil suit is distinct from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act arising from the disposal of a petition challenging an arbitral award.
In this case, the arbitrator rejected the claims made by a party. This award was challenged under Section 34 before the District Judge who dismissed the petition. The High Court reversed the judgment of the District Judge and allowed Arbitration appeal under Section 37 decreeing the claim in its entirety.
The court noted that it was on the basis of the evidence that the sole arbitrator upheld the defence of the appellants. It observed:
"While considering a petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, it is well-settled that the court does not act as an appellate forum. The grounds on which interference with an arbitral award is contemplated are structured by the provisions of Section 34. The District Judge had correctly come to the conclusion that there was no warrant for interference with the arbitral award under Section 34. The High Court seems to have proceeded as if it was exercising jurisdiction in a regular first appeal from a decree in a civil suit. The jurisdiction in a first appeal arising out of a decree in a civil suit is distinct from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 37 of the 1996 Act arising from the disposal of a petition challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the 1996 Act."
Case name: Honda Cars India Limited vs Sudesh Berry
Citation: LL 2021 SC 649
The Supreme Court observed that a vehicle manufacturer cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service by the dealer or the authorized centre in rendering assistance for repairs of the vehicle.
In this case, the complainant purchased a 'Honda City' Car in the year 1999. In 2010, the car suffered damage in an accident and was taken to the authorized service centre for repairs. Alleging deficiency on part of the Manufacturer as well as the dealer and the service centre, a complaint was filed before District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint but held that the manufacturer cannot be held liable since there was no claim that the vehicle had some manufacturing defect. This finding was affirmed by the State Commission (SCDRC). However, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, allowed the revision petition filed by the complainant and directed the manufacturer to provide a brand new Honda City car to the complainants on payment of a nominal sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.
The court observed that the District Forum was justified in making only the dealer and the authorized centre, liable for the deficiency on their part. "These findings were rightly affirmed by the State Commission and the National Commission ought not to have passed direction putting the burden on the appellant and asking the appellant to provide a brand new vehicle as a "goodwill gesture".", the court said while allowing the appeal.
Case name: Gurjant Singh vs State of Punjab
Citation: LL 2021 SC 650
The Supreme Court observed that an appeal against conviction cannot be treated as infructuous merely for the reason that the convicted appellant had served out the sentence awarded by the Trial Court.
Merely for execution of the sentence, an appeal against conviction cannot be treated as infructuous, the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath said.
In this case, a regular criminal appeal filed by the appellant-convict was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the ground that no one appeared for the appellant. The Court had also accepted the submission of the State counsel that the appeal was rendered infructuous for the reason that the appellant had served out the sentence. [The accused- appellant was convicted under Section 18 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the sentence awarded was only of five months' imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-.
"Though learned counsel for the respondent has attempted to support the conviction and sentence of the appellant but could not dispute the position that merely for execution of the sentence, an appeal against conviction cannot be treated as infructuous," the Court said.
Case title: Wahab Uddin And Ors. v. Km. Meenakshi Gahlot And Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6477 of 2021]
Citation : LL 2021 SC 651
The Supreme Court has held that two persons cannot be appointed on one sanctioned post as the same would impose a serious financial burden on the State.
A bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna dismissed a petition filed by the appellants, three Stenographers in the judgeship of Moradabad, whose appointments had been initially quashed by the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court and later affirmed by the Division Bench.
The Supreme Court noted that the applicants had never applied for the post of Hindi Stenographers. The initial application of the appellants were only for the post of English Stenographer. On perusal of the appointment letters of the appellants, the Court observed that the appellants were appointed temporarily against leave vacancies in the post of Hindi Stenographers, and were to be terminated once the regular employees resumed duties. The Court pointed out that instead of being terminated, the appellants had remained in service and had indeed unjustly benefitted.
"There cannot be appointment of two persons on one sanctioned post. Otherwise there will be a financial burden on the State of two persons on one sanctioned post. Under the circumstances the prayer of the appellants to continue them in services and to pay them pensionary benefits etc. also cannot be granted. Appellants are not entitled to any relief."
6. Imposition Of Onerous Conditions For Grant Of Bail Tantamount To Denial Of Bail: Supreme Court
Case Title: Mithun Chatterjee v. State of Odisha
Citation : LL 2021 SC 652
The Supreme Court of India has recently observed that imposition of onerous conditions for grant of bail is tantamount to denial of bail.
"We are of the considered view that imposition of onerous conditions for grant of bail tantamount to denial of bail", the Court said.
A Bench comprising Justice Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai made the observation while setting aside Orissa High Court's order directing petitioner to deposit cash of Rs.20 lakhs and providing security of immovable property to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs for grant of bail.
The present petitioner is an accused in a criminal case for committing offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act.
He was granted bail by the Orissa High Court on 25th March 2021, subject to him depositing cash of Rs.20 lakhs and providing security of immovable property to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs.
Case name: Principal Karuna Medical College vs Admission Supervisory Committee And Fee Regulatory Committee For Professional Colleges Of Kerala
Citation: LL 2021 SC 653
The Supreme Court has held that Admission Supervisory Committee in Kerala has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings suo motu in respect of admissions made by the self-financing colleges.
"We are in agreement with the findings recorded by the High Court on the powers conferred on the Committee including the power of suo motu action that can be taken by the Committee in respect of admissions made by the self-financing colleges", the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Abhay S. Oka said while upholding a judgment of the Kerala High Court.
"After hearing the learned senior counsel and examining the judgment of the High Court, we are of the considered view that the judgment of the High Court does not warrant any interference. We are in agreement with the findings recorded by the High Court on the powers conferred on the Committee including the power of suo motu action that can be taken by the Committee in respect of admissions made by the self-financing colleges.", the Court held.
Case Title : The Chairman, State Bank of India and another versus MJ James
Citation : LL 2021 SC 654
The right to be represented by a counsel or agent of one's choice in a disciplinary proceedings is not an absolute right, the Supreme Court observed.
The court said that such right to be legally represented depends on how the rules govern such representation.However, if the charge is of severe and complex nature, then the request to be represented through a counsel or agent should be considered, the bench observed.
Referring to the decisions in Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi and National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. K.V. Rama Reddy, the court observed:
The right to be represented by a third person in domestic inquiries/tribunals is based upon the precept that it is not desirable to restrict right of representation by a counsel or agent of one's choice. The ratio does not tantamount to acceptance of the proposition that such a right is an element of principles of natural justice, and its denial would immediately invalidate the inquiry. Representations are often restricted by a law, such as under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as also by certified Standing Orders. The aforementioned two decisions ascribe to catena of decisions, including English case law on this subject, which accept that the right to be legally represented depends on how the rules govern such representation. Further, if the rules are silent, the party has no absolute right to be legally represented. However, the entitlement of a fair hearing is not to be dispensed with. What fairness requires would depend upon the nature of the investigation and the consequences it may have on the persons affected by it.
Thus, the right to be represented by a counsel or agent of one's choice is not an absolute right but one which can be controlled, restricted, or regulated by law, rules, or regulations. However, if the charge is of severe and complex nature, then the request to be represented through a counsel or agent should be considered. The above proposition flows from the entitlement of fair hearing, which is applicable in judicial as well as quasi-judicial decisions.
Case Title: Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali & Anr. v. Shyam Kishore Murmu & Anr.| Civil Appeal No.6902 Of 2021
Citiation: LL 2021 SC 655
While dealing with a civil appeal preferred by appellant claimants aggrieved by the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi's judgement the Supreme Court observed that despite repeated directions, Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has not been amended yet.
The bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy in Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali & Anr. v. Shyam Kishore Murmu & Anr. while partly allowing the civil appeal observed that,
"In this case, it is to be noted that the accident was on 06.09.2004. In spite of repeated directions, Schedule-II is not yet amended. Therefore, fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum for non- earning members is not just and reasonable."
Considering that the accident was on September 6, 2004 and discussing the law laid down in Puttamma & Ors. v. K.L. Narayana Reddy & Anr. (2013) 15 SCC 45, R.K. Malik & Anr. v. Kiran Pal & Ors. (2009) 14 SCC 1 and Kishan Gopal & Anr. v. Lala & Ors. (2014) 1 SCC 244 4 (2020) 7 SCC 256, the bench observed that it was a fit case to increase the notional income by taking into account the inflation, devaluation of the rupee and cost of living.
Case Title : Attorney General for India versus Satish and another
Citation : LL 2021 SC 656
The Supreme Court set aside the controversial judgment of the Bombay HC which held that 'skin-to-skin' contact is necessary for the offence of sexual assault under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences(POCSO) Act.
A bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela M Trivedi pronounced the judgment in the appeals filed by the Attorney General of India, National Commission for Women and the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of the High Court.
Justice Bela Trivedi, who read out the operative portion of the judgment, stated that restricting 'touch' or 'physical contact' under Section 7 of POCSO is absurd and will destroy the intent of the Act, which is enacted to protect children from sexual offences.
Restricting the meaning of expression 'touch' and 'physical contact' under Section 7 of POCSO to "skin to skin contact" would not only be narrow and pedantic interpretation but will also lead to absurd interpretation of the provision.
If such an interpretation is adopted, a person who uses gloves or any other like material while physical groping will not get conviction for the offence. That will be an absurd situation.
The Construction of rule should give effect to rule rather than destroying it. The intention of legislature cannot be given effect to unless wider interpretation is given do. The purpose of the law cannot be to allow the offender to escape the meshes of the law.
10. Constitutional Court Can't Interfere In Daily Rituals Of A Temple : Supreme Court In Tirupati Temple Case (order to be uploaded)
Case Title: Srivari Daadaa v. Tirupathi Tirumala Devasthanam| SLP(C) No 6554/2021
In a petition filed by a devotee alleging irregularities in the rituals at the iconic Tirupati Tirumala temple, the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that a constitutional court cannot interfere in the daily rituals of a temple.
Observing that a constitutional court cannot interfere in the day to day affairs of a temple, the Court disposed of the devotee's special leave petition, which was filed challenging the order of Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing his PIL which sought directions to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam to rectify the method of performing rituals and seva to Lord Sri Venkateshwara Swamy at the Temple.
"The relief sought by the petitioner is in the nature of interfering in day to day affairs of temple, which cannot be gone into by a constitutional court. If ritual or Seva isn't performed according to established practices is a question of facts to be gone into by the Trial Court by appreciating the evidence", the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli noted in the order.
The Supreme Court added that it can only look into issues relating to temple administration not following the prescribed rules and regulations. But it is not feasible for the Court to interfere into issues related to rituals and sevas.
Case name: National Confederation of Officers Association of Central Public Sector Enterprises vs Union of India
Citation: LL 2021 SC 658
The Supreme Court observed that the summary dismissal of an earlier writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution does not operate as res judicata.
There is a trend of poorly pleaded public interest litigations being filed instantly following a disclosure in the media, with a conscious intention to obtain a dismissal from the Court and preclude genuine litigants from approaching the Court in public interest, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna observed.
The court said that it must be alive to the contemporary reality of "ambush Public Interest Litigations".
The court was considering the PIL filed by National Confederation of Officers Association of Central Public Sector Enterprises challenging the disinvestment of the residual shareholding of the Union Government in Hindustan Zinc Limited, representing 29.54 per cent (approx.) of the equity capital.
Case name: State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ashish Awasthi
Citation: LL 2021 SC 659
The Supreme Court reiterated that the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee is required to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground.
"The claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into.", the bench of Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna observed.
In this case, the deceased employee (who was working on the post of Chowkidar in the office of Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineer, District Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh) died on 08.10.2015. At the time of death, he was working as a work charge employee. As per the policy/circular prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee, in case of death of the employee working on work charge, his dependents/heirs were not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground and were entitled to Rs. 2 lakhs as compensatory amount. Subsequently, the policy came to be amended in 2016, under which even in the case of death of the work charge employee, his heirs/dependents will be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground.
Case name: Meena Pawaia vs Ashraf Ali
Citation: LL 2021 SC 660
The Supreme Court observed the even in case of a deceased who had no income at the time of death, their legal heirs shall also be entitled to future prospects by adding future rise in income.
It is not expected that the deceased who was not serving at all, his income is likely to remain static and his income would remain stagnant, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna said.
In this case, in an accident which occurred on 12.09.2012, the son of the claimants, who was a bachelor aged 21 years studying in 3rd year of B.E (Engineering Course), died. The High Court reduced the amount of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs.12,85,000/¬ to Rs.6,10,000/¬ assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/¬ per month instead of Rs.15,000/¬ per month as awarded by the Tribunal.
"We see no reason why the aforesaid principle may not be applied, which apply to the salaried person and/or deceased 12 self employed and/or a fixed salaried deceased, to the deceased who was not serving and/or was not having any income at the time of accident/death. In case of a deceased, who was not earning and/or not doing any job and/or self employed at the time of accident/death, as observed herein above his income is to be determined on the guesswork looking to the circumstances narrated hereinabove. Once such an amount is arrived at he shall be entitled to the addition over the future prospect/future rise in income. It cannot be disputed that the rise in cost of living would also affect such a person. As observed by this court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment and/or in case of a deceased who was on a fixed salary and /or self employed would only get the benefit of future prospects and the legal representatives of the deceased who was not serving at the relevant time as he died at a young age and was 13 studying, could not be entitled to the benefit of the future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite."
Case name: Veena Pandey vs Union of India
Citation: LL 2021 SC 661
The Supreme Court directed to disburse pension to a deceased employee's widow who has been litigating for over a decade.
"Pension as is well known, is the deferred portion of the compensation for rendering long years of service. It is a hard-earned benefit accruing to an employee, in the nature of property,", the bench comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
Following the employee's death on 12.01.2011, as per the Pension Scheme, 1998 the widow of the pensioner made claim for a sum equivalent to 100 times the full monthly pension of her husband. Vide letter dated 30.09.2012, she applied for payment of the lump sum amount in pursuance of para 15(1)(b) read with para 15(2) of the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998.
As her representation was rejected, she approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. This petition was dismissed by the High court on the ground that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Patna. It was observed that the services rendered by the pensioner were outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Patna High Court and hence the writ petition filed by the widow of the pensioner was not maintainable.
Case: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. vs. Union of India [WPC 534/2020]
Citation : LL 2021 SC 662
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a slew of directions regarding disbursement of compensation and expeditious adjudication of motor accident claims by online mechanism.
The bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh hearing the writ petition filed by Insurance Company Bajaj Allianz seeking slew of directions in the matter and had in earlier directed the petitioner, to come up with draft directions and guidelines it sought for facilitating compensation disbursement process and expedition of cases before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in terms of previous orders of the High Court.
On February 24, 2021 Top Court had decided to consider the issue of payment of victim compensation online pan India while adjudicating cases under Motor Accidents Claims Act and contemplate on the other issues that would help speed up the adjudication process.
The bench while passing the following directions in their order said,
"We categorically hold that all directions passed today must be duly and properly implemented and post implementation the learned Additional Solicitor General be informed."
Case Title: Vinod Kumar Sharma and Anr v State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr| Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6057/2021
Citation : LL 2021 SC 663
The Supreme Court has observed that merely because it was kept open for the parties to surrender and apply for Regular Bail after filing of the charge sheet, the same did preclude them to apply for anticipatory bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. after filing the charge sheet.
"Merely because it was kept open for the petitioners to surrender and apply for Regular Bail after filing of the charge sheet, the same does not preclude the petitioners to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. after filing of the charge sheet. It also cannot be said, that same is a second application for grant of anticipatory bail as pleaded by learned counsel appearing for respondents, on the same cause of action"
The bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy in the present matter was hearing a special leave petition assailing Allahabad High Court's order dated July 23, 2021 ("impugned order").
Case: Mohd. Mustafa v Union of India
Citation : LL 2021 SC 664
While rejecting the challenge against the appointment of Dinkar Gupta IPS as the Punjab Director General of Police in 2019, the Supreme Court observed that a person can't take the plea of bias after having participated in the selection process with full knowledge about the composition of the selection panel.
In this case, the appellant officer, who challenged the DGP's appointment, argued that the selection was vitiated due to the presence of the incumbent DGP in the empanelment committee, as he had professional proximity with Dinkar Gupta.
The Supreme Court turned down this argument, noting that the presence of incumbent DGP in the committee was a legal requirement, as per the directions issued in the Prakash Singh case. The appellant, being an IPS officer, was aware about the presence of the incumbent DGP in the selection process. Therefore, he can't raise this plea of bias after participating in the process.
"When a person takes a chance and participates, thereafter he cannot, because the result is unpalatable, turn around to contend that the process was unfair or the selection committee was not properly constituted", the bench remarked.
18. Injunction Orders Cannot Be Passed Against Third Parties Without Hearing Them: Supreme Court
Case Title: Acqua Borewell Pvt. Ltd. v. Swayam Prabha & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 6779-6780 of 2021
Citation : LL 2021 SC 665
The Supreme Court has held that injunction orders with respect to a suit property cannot be passed in detriment to the interest of third parties who are directly affected by it, without impleading them or giving them an opportunity of being heard.
A bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna set aside the common judgment and order passed by the Karnataka High Court, which had granted injunction against alienation to the extent of 1/7th share in the suit property, without giving the third parties (appellants), who have right, title or interest in the property by way of development agreements and/or otherwise, an opportunity of being heard.
The Court took notice of the fact that the Trial Court had rejected to grant injunction on the very ground that the suit property was owned by firms, trusts and companies that were not made parties to the suit. Therefore, the Court thought it fit to quash and set aside the unsustainable injunction order of the High Court.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors v Pankaj Kumar| Civil Appeal No. 6860 Of 2021
Citation : LL 2021 SC 666
The Supreme Court has rejected the argument of a candidate that the intimation given through SMS about physical fitness test and document verification is not sufficient. The Court noted that the SMS intimation was given in the mobile number furnished by the candidate.
"When a requirement is stated in the application to provide the mobile number, it is with a purpose to communicate and in the instant case, the appellants have sent the SMS to the very number which had been furnished by the appellant", the Court said.
Further, the Court observed that a line has to be drawn at some stage as otherwise, the recruitment process undertaken by the competent authorities would be meaningless without a timeline and the next recruitment process will also get affected as determination of the number of vacancies for the next process would keep fluctuating.
The observation has been made by the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna while considering a special leave petition assailing the order passed by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court ("impugned order").
Case Title: Rishipal Singh Solanki vs State of UP& Ors
Citation : LL 2021 SC 667
The Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, the age recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board or the Child Welfare Committee of the person so brought before it will be deemed to be the true age of the person.
A Bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice BV Nagarathna has made the observation while delivering its judgement in a plea challenging Allahabad High Court's order sustaining the judgment of the District & Sessions Court as well as of the Juvenile Justice Board declaring the accused a juvenile delinquent. The Bench has held that the deeming provision Section 94 (3) of the JJ Act, 2015 is significant inasmuch as 'the controversy or the doubt regarding the age of the child brought before the Committee or the JJ Board is sought to be set at rest at the level of the JJ Board or the Committee itself'.
In the present matter, victim of the crime had approached the Supreme Court challenging the declaration of the accused as a juvenile, arguing that the matriculation certificate can't be a conclusive document for determining the age of the juvenile irrespective of other material discrepancies in the oral testimony of the witnesses or other documents being produced.
"The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of the person so brought before it shall for the purpose of the JJ Act, 2015 be deemed to be the true age of the person. The deeming provision in sub-section (3) of section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 is also significant inasmuch as the controversy or the doubt regarding the age of the child brought before the Committee or the JJ Board is sought to be set at rest at the level of the JJ Board or the Committee itself"
21. [Punjab Security Of Land Tenures Act] Civil Court Would Retain Jurisdiction In Cases Where the Landlord-Tenant Relationship Itself Is Disputed: Supreme Court
Case Title: Assa Singh (D) By LRs v. Shanti Parshad (D) By LRs. & Others
Citation : LL 2021 SC 668
The Supreme Court has held that if the landlord-tenant relationship itself is disputed, the Civil Court would continue to have jurisdiction to look into the illegality of the eviction orders passed by the Revenue Court, despite the bar of Section 25 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 ("the Act"), whereby exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on the Revenue Court to, inter alia, order eviction of tenants.
A bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat dismissed a civil appeal, wherein it was enjoined upon to decide on the ambit of Section 25 of the Act in respect of the bar of the Civil Courts to determine validity of proceedings or order passed in accordance with the provision of the Act.
IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES
1. 'People In 5-Star Hotels Blaming Farmers; No Action Against Gas Guzzling Hifi Cars' : Supreme Court In Delhi Pollution Case
The Supreme Court this week made strong oral remarks against farmers being blamed for contributing to Delhi's pollution through stubble burning without any consideration of their plight and circumstances forcing them to do the same.
The observations were made by a bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant while hearing a PIL which seeks urgent measures to improve the air quality of the national capital.
The critical remarks were made in response to arguments on behalf of the Central government, Delhi government and the petitioners regarding the percentage of pollution attributable to stubble burning by farmers.
Also Read: Stop Construction, Ban Entry Of Trucks, Introduce Odd-Even : Suggestions By Centre If Delhi Air Quality Worsens Beyond 'Severe'
2. Attempt To Overreach Directions' : Supreme Court Pulls Up Gujarat Govt For Constituting Scrutiny Committee To Compensate COVID Deaths
The Supreme Court this week rapped Gujarat Government for issuing a notification dated October 29, 2021 as per which a Scrutiny Committee was constituted for granting ex-gratia compensation to COVID victims.
The Court observed that the constitution of the scrutiny committee was an attempt to overreach the directions in the judgment delivered on October 4 in the case Gaurav Kumar Bansal versus Union of India, where a slew of directions were issued regarding the procedure for issue of death certificates and disbursal of compensation to COVID victims.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna in their order said, "It appears that an attempt has been made to overreach the directions issued by this Court
3. Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Ex-Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh's Plea Seeking CBI's Preliminary Enquiry Report
The Supreme Court refused to entertain the Writ Petition filed by Anil Deshmukh, former Home Minister of Maharashtra invoking jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking directions to CBI to produce the records including file notings, internal correspondence of preliminary enquiry report, legal opinions and other documents related thereto before the Court.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh thought it fit not to entertain a petition invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 32, leaving it open for the Petitioner to appear before the competent court.
4. Supreme Court Waives Hardik Patel's Bail Condition That He Should Seek Court Permission To Go Outside Gujarat
The Supreme Court has waived the bail condition imposed on Gujarat Congress Working President Hardik Patel that requires him to seek prior court permission before travelling out of Gujarat.
A Bench comprising Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari allowed Patel's plea challenging Gujarat High Court's order that refused to delete the bail condition, imposed in relation to a sedition case against him.
While the Bench was initially inclined to only issue notice in the plea, it decided to allow the plea after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the State of Gujarat, submitted that the condition can be waived.
5. Supreme Court Dismisses CBSE-ICSE Students' Plea Seeking Hybrid Option For Class X-XII Term Exams
The Supreme Court this week dismissed a writ petition filed by students seeking urgent directions to conduct Class X and XII CBSE and ICSE Term I exams in hybrid manner for November 18, 2021.
The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar dismissed the petition observing that the CBSE term exams have already commenced on November 16 and an intervention at this juncture will disturb the process. The bench also noted in the order that the ICSE term exams are commencing from next Monday, November 22.
"...as the exam has commenced on November 16, it will be inappropriate to intervene now and disturb the entire process. At this belated stage, the Writ Petition cannot be entertained. We hope and trust that all the precautions will be taken by the authorities and COVID SOP will be adhered to", the bench noted in the order.
6. [Gujarat Riots]'Evidence Not Collected, If Collected Not Analysed, Leads To The Inference That SIT Was Hiding Something': Kapil Sibal To Supreme Court In Zakia Jafri Matter
The Supreme Court this week heard Senior Advocate Kabil Sibal in the plea challenging the SIT report giving clean chit to the former Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi and other high functionaries of the State in the Gujarat riots of 2002.
While making submissions, before a Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of Zakia accentuated that the crucial aspects of the tragic incident was not investigated by the SIT, appointed by the Supreme Court. He emphasised that the evidence required to establish the elements of a larger conspiracy had been overlooked by the investigating agency. Evidence was not collected and those collected were not analysed, which Mr. Sibal noted would lead to the inference that something was hidden or protected by SIT.
7. Lakhimpur Kheri Case : Supreme Court Appoints Justice RK Jain, Former P&H HC Judge, To Monitor Investigation
The Supreme Court has appointed Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, former judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to monitor the investigation in the Lakhmipur Kheri violence of October 3, which claimed the lives of 8 persons, including 4 farmers, who were allegedly mowed down by vehicles in the convoy of Ashish Mishra, the son of Union Minister and BJP MP Ajay Kumar Mishra.
A Bench comprising comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli said that the appointment of the retired High Court judge is done to "ensure fairness, transparency and absolute impartiality" in the outcome of the investigation.
