CITATION: AIR
2021 SC 402
BENCH:
JUSTICES UU LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA AND KRISHNA MURARI
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 05 Jan 2021
CRIMINAL LAW
ISSUE:
Whether the impugned judgment of death
sentence was perverse and Appellants were entitled to benefit of the doubt.
JUDGMENT:
Supreme Court held that testimony and evidence against the accused are not free
of doubts and defects. As the evidence shows that the accused would naturally
be present inside the house where the crime had occurred. And the testimony
shows inconsistencies on whether he had witnessed the incident, who is a
5-year-old child. And it is difficult to rely on lifted fingerprints when there
was nothing on record regarding the competence of the police officer doing it.
It cannot solely depend on the fact that fingerprints of the accused were
present on an object.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
MURALI VS. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CITATION: 2021 LATEST CASELAW 8 SC
BENCH- JUSTICES N.V RAMANA,
SURYA KANT, AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE.
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 05 JAN 2021
CRIMINAL LAW
ISSUE:
Whether the Sentence of the Convict can be reduced because of an amicable
settlement?
JUDGMENT:
Supreme Court observed that Section 324
and 307 IPC are not compoundable offences as per Section 320 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. While referring to the case of Ram Pujan vs. State of UP [(1973) 2 SCC 456] and Ishwar Singh vs. State of MP [(2008) 15
SCC 667], with similar circumstances and the court had reduced
the sentence of the convicts even in the serious non-compoundable offences. The
court considered reducing the sentences of the convict because parties had made
an amicable settlement. And at the time of the incident accused was less than
22 years ago and did not have any criminal antecedents. Accused served a
significant portion of sentences, the court reduced the sentences for the
convict.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD. V. RAMJAN ALI & ORS.
CITATION: AIR 2021 SC 326
BENCH:
JUSTICES ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY
AND M.R.SHAH
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 05 JAN 2021
CRIMINAL AND MOTOR VEHICLE
LAW
ISSUE:
Was the decision of the High Court to allow the application under Section 482
Cr. P.C and releasing the vehicle in favour of 2nd owner was sound in law or
not?
JUDGMENT:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and
set aside the order of the High court. The court observed that the High court
committed an error while directing the vehicle’s release favouring Ramjan. The
high court ignored the application for release of the vehicle filed by SEF and
an objection to Ramjan’s application of release. The objection was claiming
ownership of the vehicle as the hypothecation entry was fraudulently removed. Court
referred to Rule 61 of The Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and directed Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur to ensure that vehicle is received back from
Ramajan and released in favour of SREI Equipment Finance on such terms and
conditions.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
PADIA TIMBER COMPANY (P) LTD. V. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST
CITATION: 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 1
BENCH-
JUSTICES NAVIN SINHA AND INDIRA BANERJEE
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 05 JAN 2021
CONTRACT
ISSUE:
Whether the acceptance of a conditional
offer with a further condition results in a concluded contract?
JUDGMENT:
Supreme Court held that acceptance
of an offer with variation is not an acceptance. When the acceptance is conditional,
the offer can be withdrawn before the absolute acceptance. While relying
on Haridwar Singh AIR 1972 SC 1242 case. It could not be said that
there was a concluded contract as responded imposed a new condition. And there
cannot be a question of breach of the contract.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
RAJEEV SURI V. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITATION: 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 7
BENCH- JUSTICES AM
KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI AND SANJIV KHANNA
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 05 JAN 2021
DELHI DEVELOPMENT ACT AND RULES, ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW, CONSTITUTION OF INDIAN
ISSUES:
Whether there is any
violation of Municipal law of Delhi, Environmental law, and Public Trust
Doctrine?
Whether Vista Project is proper or not?
JUDGMENT:
The Supreme Court gave a
green signal to Central Vista Project and held approval need to be taken by the
Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) to the Central Vista Project. The court
directed the set up of smog towers and the use of smog guns at the construction
site throughout the construction phase. Court also held that the public trust
doctrine does not prohibit the government from utilizing the resources for the
public interest which are held in public trust. It was also held that the
absence of sufficient public participation in the clearing process does not
make it unreasonable to quash the whole process.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
THE CHAIRPERSON, GOVERNING BODY DAULAT RAM COLLEGE V. DR ASHA
CITATION: (2021) 3 SCC 121
BENCH- JUSTICES ASHOK BHUSHAN AND MR SHAH
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 05 JAN 2021
SERVICE
AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ISSUE: Whether the Principal or the Governing Body of the
college has the power to appoint the Warden of the Hostel of the College?
JUDGMENT:
Supreme Court while
examining the 1987 letter of UGC held that it did not confer any power on the
Principal to appoint the warden. However, the Principal is entrusted with the
overall internal administration of the college, so the Governing Body, while
making appointments of the warden, should give due weight to the recommendation
of the Principal.
To Read fullJudgment, Click Here
KIRTI V. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
CITATION: 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 3
BENCH- JUSTICES N.V. RAMANA, S.A. NAZEER AND SURYA
KANT
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 05 JAN 2021
INDIAN PENAL CODE AND
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988
ISSUE: Whether the value of housemakers
should be considered equal to their office-going husbands for calculating the
compensation?
Whether the subsequent death of a person
will be a reason for the reduction of motor accident compensation?
JUDGMENT:
Supreme Court held Grant
of compensation on a pecuniary basis concerning a homemaker, which is a settled
proposition of law. Court noted the gendered nature of housework where the
percentage of women engaged is overwhelming as compared to men, so fixing of
national income of a homemaker attains special significance. It recognizes the
work, labour, and sacrifices of homemakers. Court also held that the deceased’s
mother died subsequently will not be a reason for the reduction of motor
accident compensation, as claims and legal liabilities crystallize at the time
of the accident itself.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
BHAVEN CONSTRUCTION V. SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LTD.
CITATION: 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 8
BENCH- JUSTICES SURYA KANT, N.V.
RAMANA AND HRISHIKESH ROY
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 06 JAN 2021
ARBITRATION LAW
ISSUE: Whether the arbitral process could interfere under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution?
JUDGMENT:
Supreme Court set aside
the order of High Court of Judicature at Gujarat stating that High Court has
erred in exercising its discretionary power available under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution. Court emphasized the intent of Section 5 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by referring to the Deep
Industries case 2019 SCC Online SC 1602. The State could not demonstrate
an exceptional circumstance of “bad faith” to invoke Article 227.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
IREO GRACE REALTECH (P) LTD. V. ABHISHEK KHANNA
CITATION: 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 14
BENCH- JUSTICES D Y
CHANDRACHUD, INDU MALHOTRA AND INDIRA BANERJEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11 JAN 2021
REAL ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 2016
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986
ISSUE:
Whether the contract was one-sided and
unfair for the allottees?
Whether Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 must be given primacy over the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
JUDGMENT:
Supreme Court held that clause was
one-sided and unreasonable in the Apartment Buyer‘s Agreement. It constitutes
an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1) ® of the Consumer Protection Act.
Court also held that the developer cannot compel the apartment buyers by such
to be bound by such one-sided contractual terms. Court by referring M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. V. Anil Patni judgment
upheld the applicability of provisions of Consumer Protection Act as an
additional remedy under RERA. Stating Section 79 of the RERA Act does not bar
the Consumer forum from the entertaining complaint on behalf of an allottee.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
HIGH COURT OF KERALA V. RESHMA A. & OTHERS ETC.
CITATION: (2021) 3 SCC 755
BENCH-
JUSTICES DY CHANDRACHUD AND INDIRA BANERJEE
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 11 JAN 2021
SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW
ISSUE: Whether Respondents and
candidates of similar position who find a place in merit list approved by
Governor could be appointed to vacancies arising within one year from date of
approval of merit list, more than those specified in notification?
JUDGMENT:
Supreme Court set aside the judgment of
the division bench of the High Court while observing the case of Prem
Singh (1996) 4 SCC 319. Stating that when selection advertises a specific
number of posts, selection cannot exceed the number of posts that have been
advertised. Court held that ‘probable’ mentioned in the advertisement has to be
interpreted with constitutional requirements under Article 14 and Article 16.
And will not include vacancies of the future year. So the court held that
vacancies arising in the next year cannot be filled from the merit list from
that year, if not being advertised.
To Read fullJudgment, Click Here
NN GLOBAL MERCANTILE PVT LTD V. INDO UNIQUE FLAME LTD.
CITATION: 2021 SCC
ONLINE SC 13
BENCH- JUSTICES DY CHANDRACHUD, INDIRA BANERJEE AND
INDU MALHOTRA
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 11 JAN 2021
ISSUE:
Does non-payment of the stamp duty in
a commercial contract invalidate the arbitration clause?
JUDGMENT: Supreme Court held that the arbitration agreement
would not become invalid, unenforceable or non-existent. Even if the
substantive contract is not admissible as evidence or cannot be acted upon
because of non-payment of Stamp Duty. Court referred the matter to a
constitutional bench after realizing that it differed from the earlier Supreme
Court judgments of SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. Pvt.
Ltd, Garware Wall Ropes Limited v. Coastal Marine Constructions
and Engineering Limited and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading
Corporation.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
ANVERSINH ALIAS KIRANSINH FATESINH ZALA V. STATE OF GUJARAT
CITATION: 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 19
BENCH- JUSTICES NV RAMANA, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND SURYA KANT
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 12 JAN 2021
CRIMINAL LAW
ISSUE: Whether
a consensual affair can be a defence against the charge of kidnapping a minor?
Whether
the punishment awarded is just, and ought to there be leniency given the unique
circumstances?
JUDGMENT:
Supreme Court held that in the case of
kidnapping, the element of enticement is important. And the same being is present
in the case and the girl is a minor. Plea of a consensual affair cannot be a
valid defence in the offence of kidnapping. For the leniency for the
punishment, the court observed the case of Surendra Singh (2015) 1 SCC
222 reduced the quantum of sentence to the period of imprisonment
already undergone by the accused. As there was no force was used in the act of
kidnapping and there was no preplanning, use of any weapon, or any vulgar
motive.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALICUT & ANR
CITATION: AIR 2021 SC 612
BENCH- JUSTICES R.F. NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA AND K.M. JOSEPH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12 JAN 2021
TAXATION
ISSUE- The
question arose as to the deductions that can be claimed under Section
80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act 1961, after the introduction of Section
80P(4) with effect from 01.04.2007.
JUDGEMENT:
Allowing the appeals Supreme Court held
that allowed the deduction contained in section 80P(2)(a)(i), notwithstanding that they may also be
giving loans to their members which are not related to agriculture. Court held
that object of Section 80P(4) is to exclude cooperative banks
that function at par with other commercial banks. And the proviso cannot be
used to cut down the language of the main enactment. Section 80P encourages and
promotes the credit of the cooperative sector and must be liberally
interpreted.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
ASHARAM TIWARI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
CITATION: (2021) 2 SCC 608
BENCH- JUSTICES
R.F. NARIMAN AND NAVIN SINHA
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 12 JAN 2021
CRIMINAL LAW
ISSUE: Appellant
contention was that at the time of the occurrence of crime, he possessed a
lathi whereas the co-accused were armed pistols and therefore had no common
intention.
JUDGMENT:
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld
the conviction and sentence of the Appellant under Sections 302/34, 324/34,
325/34 and 323, IPC. The court observed that the sequence of events and
cumulative appreciation of evidence shows the common intention between all the
accused. Court also noted that the quality of evidence is more important than
the number of witnesses. So failure to examine any independent witness is
inconsequential.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
HIMACHAL PRADESH BUS STAND MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. THE CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE ETC. & ORS
CITATION: AIR 2021 SC 657
BENCH- JUSTICES DY CHANDRACHUD,
INDU MALHOTRA AND INDIRA BANERJEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12 JAN 2021
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
ISSUE: Whether NGT order of demolishing the
structure of Hotel-cum-Restaurant in Bus Stand Complex was sustainable?
JUDGEMENT: Supreme Court held that the construction of the
Hotel-cum-Restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex was illegal and a
violation of the law. Permission of construction of a parking space and bus
stand granted only McLeod Ganj. Court referred to the judgment of Hanuman
Laxman Aroskar (2019) 15 SCC 401, Sudhakar Hegde 2020 SCC OnLine SC 328 and Lal
Bahadur (2018) 15 SCC 407 while discussing the importance of
protecting the environmental rule of law.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
DIPIKA JAGATRAM SAHANI V. UNION OF INDIA
CITATION: 2021 SCC
ONLINE SC 22
BENCH: JUSTICES ASHOK BHUSHAN,
R. SUBHASH REDDY AND M.R. SHAH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13 JAN 2021
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
ISSUE: PIL
under Article 32 of the Constitution had been filed questioning the closure of
Anganwadi Centers across the country.
Whether
there is a violation of the fundamental right to health or the right to
live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution?
JUDGMENT:
Supreme Court held that unless is any specific reasons for
not opening, all Anganwadi centres beyond containment zones. It should be
functioning. The court directed that Anganwadi Centres which had not yet opened
should open the same on or before 31-01-2021 outside containment zones. The
court stated that the decision for not opening Anganwadi Centres outside the
containment zone should be taken only after the State Disaster Management
Authority directs so.
Court
also stated that it is the statutory obligation of states and centre to provide
nutritional support to pregnant women, lactating mothers, and children. And to
take necessary steps to identify and provide meals for children who suffer from
malnutrition.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
M/S VELLANKI FRAMEWORKS VS. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VISHAKHAPATNAM
CITATION: 2021 LATEST CASELAW 21 SC
BENCH- JUSTICES A.M KHANWILKAR AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13 JAN 2021
TAXATION
ISSUE: Whether the sales in
question took place in the course of the import of the goods into the territory
of India and qualify for exemption under Section 5(2) of the CST Act?
JUDGMENT: Supreme Court stated
appellant raised debit notes on the end-buyers, after clearing the goods by
filing the bill of entry for home consumption. Once it is found that the
appellant had been the importer of goods and had cleared them for home
consumption. The movement of goods to such end-buyers would come under the
transactions in the category of inter-State sales in terms of Section 3(a) of
the CST Act. And the raising of such debit notes on the end-buyers is situated
in different States. So the appellant was not entitled to the exemption of
Section 5(2) of the CST Act. Court held that High Court has rightly denied such
exemption to the appellant.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
ASHOK KUMAR V. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
CITATION: 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 24
BENCH-
CJI S.A. BOBDE, AND JUSTICES A.S. BOPANNA AND V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 18 JAN 2021
SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW
ISSUE: Whether High Court erred in quashing administrative
Order of Chief Justice prescribing certain qualifications for promotion to the
post of Head Assistant?
JUDGMENT:
Supreme Court set order
of Jammu and Kashmir High Court which quashed an administrative Order of the
Chief Justice prescribing certain qualifications for promotion to the post of
Head Assistant. Court held that it is permissible under Article 14 and 16 of
the Constitution to differentiate between people drawn from different sources
and integrated into one class based on educational qualifications. The high
court erred in thinking the Chief Justice violated Article 14 by creating a
distinction between graduates and non-graduates among the same category of
persons who constituted a homogenous class. Higher educational qualifications
could be the basis for barring promotion and restricting the scope of
promotion.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
BAJRANGA V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
CITATION:2021 SCC
ONLINE SC 27
BENCH- JUSTICES DINESH MAHESHWARI, SANJAY
KISHAN KAUL, AND HRISHIKESH ROY
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 19 JAN 2021
MADHYA
PRADESH LAND REVENUE CODE, 1959, MADHYA PRADESH CEILING ON AGRICULTURAL
HOLDINGS ACT, 1960, AND CONSTITUTION
ISSUE: Whether obtaining possession was according to the procedure established
by law? Whether Jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred?
JUDGMENT: Supreme Court set aside the
judgment of the High Court stating that Respondent fails to serve the draft statement to Jenobai, who
was an interested person under Section 11 (3) of the Ceiling Act about the land
held in excess, so possession was not in according to the procedure
established by law.
The court observed that the issue of jurisdiction of Civil Court was decided by
the Court in the case of Competent Authority, Tarana District, Ujjain
(M.P) 1991 Supp (2) SCC 631. The proceedings of the acquisition have
to be kept suspended under Section 11 (4) of the Ceiling Act until Jenobai’s
civil suit is disposed of.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
RAMA NARANG V. RAMESH NARANG
CITATION: 2021 SCC
ONLINE SC 29
BENCH- JUSTICES B.R.
GAVAI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19 JAN 2021
CONTEMPT
ISSUE: Petitioner contended that it would be contempt to
invoke the jurisdiction of the CLB and entertaining the said proceedings.
JUDGMENT:
Supreme Court held that
while relying in the case of Niaz Mohammed (1994) 6 SCC 332 action on civil contempt, the petitioner has to
satisfy the court that there has been a willful for bringing disobedience of
any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other processes of the Court. Petitioner
failed to make out a case of willful, deliberate disobedience by the Court.
Supreme Court dismissed the Contempt Petition. Court also stated that merely
taking recourse to the statutory remedy available to the respondents would not
amount to contempt.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA V. PANDARINATHAN GOVINDARAJULU
CITATION: 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 28
BENCH-
JUSTICES AJAY RASTOGI, L. NAGESWARA RAO, AND HEMANT GUPTA
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 19 JAN 2021
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
ISSUE:
Whether segmentation is permissible for National Highway projects beyond a
distance of 100 km and, if permissible, under what circumstances.
JUDGMENT:
Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal by
stating that NHAI strictly conforms to the EIA notifications for the
acquisition of land restricting 40 meters on the existing alignments and 60
meters on realignments and also directed to re-afforestation as the requirement
of the existing laws. Court held for the NH 45-A Villuppuram-Nagapattinam
Highway, in the places where the land acquisition is not more than 40 meters on
existing alignments and 60 meters on realignments. There is no requirement for
environmental clearance. The court observed that development should not be at
the cost of the environment and development should be done while ensuring the
protection of the environment. The court gave instruction to form an Expert
Committee to examine segmentation is permissible for National Highway projects
beyond a distance of 100 km and, if permissible, under what circumstances.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
MANISH KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA
CITATION: 2021 SCC ONLINE 30
BENCH- JUSTICES ROHINTON FALI
NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA AND K.M. JOSEPH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19 JAN 2021
INSOLVENCY
AND BANKRUPTCY CODE
ISSUE: The petitioners challenged the
constitutional validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act
2020, which inserted three provisos to Section 7(1), an additional explanation
to Section 11, and Section 32 A in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.
JUDGMENT: Supreme Court upheld first and third Proviso to
Section 7, Explanation II to Section 11 and Section 32 A. As for the second
proviso to Section 7, Court referred to the State of Gujarat and Another vs. Shree Ambica Mills (1974) 3
SCC 656 and stated that mere difficulty in complying
with the provision cannot be a reason for striking down the law. Court
clarified threshold mentioned under proviso has to be met on the date of the
application.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
LAKHVIR SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB
CITATION: 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 25
BENCH-
JUSTICES SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HRISHIKESH ROY
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 19 JAN 2021
CRIMINAL LAW
ISSUE:
A compromise deed was between the
complainant and the appellants where the complainant did not want to pursue any
legal action against the appellants and had no objection to their release on
bail. But the state contended that Section 397 of IPC provides a minimum
sentence of 7 years and it cannot be reduced below that period. So appellant
applied for the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
JUDGMENT Supreme Court held
while referring to the case of CCE v. Bahubali (1979) 2 SCC 279 that
benefits under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was not excluded
under Section 397 of IPC because of the mandatory minimum sentence. Court
observing the appellants settlement with the victim and appellant had served
about half of his sentence. There was no adverse report against the appellant
about the conduct in jail. The court directed release on probation under
Section 4 of the Act furnishing a bond and two sureties.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
X V. STATE OF JHARKHAND
CTATION: 2021 LATEST CASELAW 31 SC
BENCH- JUSTICES ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
M.R. SHAH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20 JAN 2021
INDIAN PENAL CODE AND
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
The
writ petition was filed by a rape victim whose identity was disclosed by the
media. After her identity is exposed as a victim no one is ready to give her
accommodation on rent.
ISSUE: The
writ petition was invoked for the matter of rehabilitation of the
petitioner.
Seeking
direction for the respondent to protect the petitioner and her children's life.
JUDGMENT: Supreme Court referred to Nipun Saxena and
another vs. Union of India and others, (2019) 2 SCC 703, A rape victim
suffers not only a mental trauma but also discrimination from the society.
Court held that Section 228-A of the Penal Code, 1860 disclosure of the
identity of the victim an offence.
Certain
directions were issued by the Court, The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to ensure
the children of the petitioner get free education in any Government
Institution. To provide house under Central or State Scheme. The Senior
Superintendent of Police, Ranchi will have to check the Police security
provided that has been given to the petitioner and take proper measures.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
HARYANA SPACE APPLICATION CENTRE (HARSAC) AND ANR. V. M/S PAN INDIA CONSULTANTS PVT LTD.
CITATION: (2021) 3 SCC 103
BENCH-
JUSTICES INDU MALHOTRA L. NAGESWARA RAO, AND AJAY RASTOGI
DATE
OF JUDGMENT:
20 JAN 2021
ARBITRATION
ISSUE:
Challenge on the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where on an
application filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
1996, extension of 3 months was granted to enable parties to conclude their
arguments and a further period of 1 month for the arbitral tribunal to pass the
Award.
JUDGMENT:
Supreme Court appointed a sole arbitrator
under Section 29A (6) after taking parties consent to the substitution of the
existing tribunal. It was observed that even after 4 years of constitution of
arbitral tribunal award was not pronounced. And the constitution of the
arbitral tribunal was against the provision of the Act, as the nominee
arbitrator of the petitioner had a controlling influence over the Petitioner
Company, which was barred under Section 12 sub-section 5 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND V. SURESHWATI
CITATION: 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 34
BENCH-
JUSTICES INDU MALHOTRA L. NAGESWARA
RAO, AND NAVIN SINHA
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 20 JAN 2021
LABOUR LAW
ISSUE:
The complaint was filed of illegal retrenchment
and Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had abandoned her service when she
got married and moved to Dehradun.
JUDGMENT:
Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set
judgment of Uttaranchal High Court. Held that had failed to discharge the onus
of proof that she had been working continuously as claimed by her, by relying
on the case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corpn v. Jadega Govubha Chhanubha
(2014) 16 SCC 130, where it is stated to show that termination of the services
of a workman to be held illegal on account of non-payment of retrenchment
compensation. The workmen have to show continuous service of the employer i.e.,
240 days for within the meaning of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. Court also noted where an employer has failed to enquire dismissal or
discharge of a workman, he can justify the same before the labour court and
this was done by the employer in the present matter. And sufficient
evidence was shown by the Petitioner before the Labour Court to prove
that the Respondent had abandoned her service from 01.07.1997 when she got
married.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
IN RE: ADVOCATE ON RECORD INCLUDES A PROPRIETARY FIRM ETC
CITATION: 2021 LATEST CASELAW 34 SC
BENCH- JUSTICES DINESH MAHESHWARI, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,
AND HRISHIKESH ROY.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20 JAN 2021
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
ISSUE: Whether an Advocate on
Record can have an entry in the Advocate on Record register in the form of his
style of carrying on the profession?
JUDGMENT: Supreme Court held that
different styles of writing names for Advocate on Record can be done by
amending the Rules, which the Court was not willing to interfere with the
present case. The Supreme Court had permitted the style of writing of the
Petitioner to state “Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka sole proprietor
Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka” along with his registration number in his
letterhead and while filing the Vakalatnama.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
INDIAN BANK AND ANOTHER V. MAHAVEER KHARIWAL
CITATION:
(2021) 2 SCC 632
BENCH-
JUSTICES ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND M.R. SHAH
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 22 JAN 2021
SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW
ISSUE:
Whether rejection of the request of the
employee for voluntary retirement was legal and in consonance with Regulation
29 of Pension Regulations, 1995?
JUDGMENT:
Supreme Court held that bank decision for
rejecting the request of employee’s voluntary retirement application with a
request for curtailment of notice of 3 months was bad in law and not in
accordance with Pension Regulations, 1995. Regulation 29 mentions that appointing
authority has to decide before the expiry of the period specified in the notice
and if does not refuse to grant permission for retirement before the expiry
period. It shall be deemed acceptance of the voluntary retirement application
on the expiry date. Rejection on the
90th day from the date of submitting the voluntary retirement application was
not on merits.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
ANKITA MEENA V. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
CITATION: 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 36
BENCH-
CJI SA BOBDE AND JUSTICES AS BOPANNA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 22 JAN 2021
RULE OF LEGAL EDUCATION,
BCI
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to obtain her degree and mark sheet?
JUDGMENT:
In the present matter, University had
declared the results of the 4th and 6th Semester examinations of the Applicant.
But the results of the 5th Semester Examination of the Applicant were not
declared by University. Applicant reached Supreme Court to seek direction for
the declaration of the results of the applicant for the 5th Semester Examination
by the Respondent. And grant the provisional degree with a consolidated mark sheet
and character certificate. Supreme Court directed Respondent to declare the
applicant of the results and issue the provisional degree along with necessary
certificates if she had passed the examinations, subject to the applicant
clearing other formalities.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
ANJALI BRAHMAWAR CHAUHAN V. NAVIN CHAUHAN
BENCH-
FORMER CJI
S.A. BOBDE, AND JUSTICES L. NAGESWARA RAO AND VINEET SARAN
CITATION: 2021
SCC ONLINE SC 38
DATE
OF JUDGMENT DATE: 22 JAN 2021
FAMILY LAW
CONCERNING THE TRANSFER OF PETITION
ISSUE: Whether proceeding by video conferencing is
permissible in matrimonial-related cases?
JUDGMENT: Supreme Court directed the Family Court of Gautam Budh
Nagar, to conduct proceedings by video conferencing. The court stated that in
normal circumstances we would not have directed video conferencing in respect
of matrimonial matters. However, due to the pandemic, the functioning of the
Courts has been stopped since March 2020. And proceeding in all the Courts is
conducted through video conferencing.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. V. GILLAPUKRI TEA CO. LTD.
CITATION: 2021 SCC
ONLINE SC 44
BENCH- JUSTICES S. ABDUL NAZEER AND
SANJIV KHANNA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28 JAN 2021
LAND ACQUISITION LAWS
ISSUE:
Whether an award in respect of the first respondent’s
land was approved by the Government on 05/03/2010 or the approval was for the
estimation only?
JUDGMENT: Supreme Court held that the letter dated 05.03.2010
mentions a land acquisition estimate and not an award. But it is clear by a
combined reading of letter dated 30.01.2010, in which approval of award was
sought, and the latter conduct of the parties the award stood approved on
05.03.2010.
However, in respect of the second award on
04.01.2014 Court stated that the State Government couldn't reinitiate
acquisition proceedings in respect of land which had already been acquired by
referring to the judgment of D. Hanumanth SA (2010) 10 SCC 656.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
AMRUTA BEN HIMANSHU KUMAR SHAH V. HIMANSHU KUMAR PARVINCHANDRA SHAH
CITATION: 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 46
BENCH- JUSTICE V.
RAMASUBRAMANIAN
JUDGMENT DATE: 29 JAN 2021
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT
ISSUE: Petition for transfer
the proceedings restitution of conjugal rights when in the stage of judgment
and once request for transfer already rejected. Can the second petition for the
transfer be maintained?
JUDGMENT: Supreme Court held that dismissal of a petition for
transfer may not act as res judicata when a fresh petition
is filed if there is a change of circumstances. However, when a case is at its
final stage, Court will be extremely reluctant to order the transfer, as it may
derail the entire process. Hence Court rejected the Transfer petition. The
court issued some directions which will the Petitioner to overcome the
problems.
To Read full Judgment, Click Here
Relevant Links:
- To Read Important Supreme Court Judgements of February 2021, Click Here
- To Read Important Supreme Court Judgements of March 2021, Click Here
About the Author: This Case Brief is prepared by Mr. Naveen Toppo, a 5th-year law student at the National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi and is an intern at MyLawman. He can be reached at naveennusrl@gmail.com
MyLawman is now on Telegram (t.me/mylawman) Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter or join our whats app group .You can also subscribe for our Newsletter for Email Updates.
0 Comments