Index Medical College Hospital and Research Center V. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: C.A. No.-000867-000867 / 2021
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee
Date of Judgement : 03-02-2021
Issue: Whether Rule 12(8) of the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 is violative of the fundamental rights of the students taking admission to MBBS course and the management of state medical colleges or not?
Judgement: The Supreme Court, held that Rule 12(8) of the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 which reads “The vacant seats as a result of allotted candidates from MOP-UP round which is the process for counselling of seat allotment in medical colleges by states against the reverted seats from all India 15% quota not taking admission or candidates resigning from admitted seat shall not be included in the college level counselling being conducted after MOP-UP round" spans to an unreasonable restriction which confines right to admit students under article 14 and the college management’s right to occupation under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, which stands defeated by Rule 12(8) as it prevents them from admitting students on the forfeited seats post mop-up round excluded from the process of counselling of seat allotment in state medical colleges. According to the court, restriction of not filling up the seats post mop-up round imposed by the State government is unreasonable and accountable for financial losses incurred by the management of the institution. The court opined that the impugned order cannot be sustained therefore, set aside and the appeal was allowed.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences V. Srikeerthi Reddi Pingle
Citation: C.A. No.-000390-000390 / 2021
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Date of Judgement: 16-02-21
Issue: Whether the direction declaring the action of the University in considering the applicant as ineligible for admission to the MBBS Course for the academic year 2020-21, as illegal?
Judgement: The Supreme court, in this case, declared that the applicant who is a NRI student should produce clear and categorical material to show that they undertook the necessary years of study in all the stipulated subjects while taking admission for MBBS, further such conditions are to be regarded as essential, given that the course in question, i.e., MBBS primarily if not predominantly, involves prior knowledge theoretical and practical, of senior secondary level in biology. The equivalence in qualification is not merely at the level of a 10+2 requirement and that the candidate should have passed an examination equal to the intermediate science examination at an Indian University. The court opined that the impugned order cannot be sustained therefore, set aside and the appeal was allowed.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Harshit Agarwal & Ors V. Union of India
Citation: W.P.(C) No.-000054 / 2021
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Date of Judgement: 08-02-21
Issue: The question under consideration is whether the decision of the Government Medical Institutions of not reducing the qualifying cut-off percentile for the admission of candidates to BDS medical course on the recommendation of the Executive Committee, Dental Council of India is valid?
Judgement: In this case, the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Government Medical Institutions to not reduce the minimum marks for admission to the Bachelor of Dental Surgery course as it suffers from the vices of illegality and irrationality. The court also opined that the Private Medical Colleges must reduce their fees to accommodate more candidates as majority vacant seats are from private colleges. That the Central Government has the option to lower the minimum marks required for admission to Bachelor of Dental Surgery course in consultation with the Dental Council of India.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
M/s Daddys Builders Pvt ltd & ANR V. Manisha Bhargava & ANR
Citation: SLP(C) No.-001240 / 2021
Bench: Hon'ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Date of Judgement: 11-02-21
Issue: The question before the court was, whether the State Commission has the power to condone the delay beyond 45 days for filing the written statement under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Judgement: The Supreme Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition, upheld the decision of the National Commission in the first appeal from the State Commission that there was no directive that in all the cases where the written statement was submitted beyond the specified period of 45 days, the delay must be excused and the written statement must be taken on record.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Punatsangchhu I Hydroelectric Project Authority V. Larsen and Toubro Limited
Citation: C.A. No.-000693-000693 / 2021
Bench: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Date of Judgement: 22-02-21
Issue: The question before the Supreme Court was, the applicability of the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to the contract agreement and the seat of arbitration at New Delhi.
Judgement: Supreme Court in this case revised the Order of the High Court to the extent that all disputes arising out of the Agreement between the parties shall be conducted following the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of Bhutan, 2013 with the seat of arbitration at Thimphu.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Union Of India V. A. Alagam Perumal Kone & Ors
Citation: C.A. No.-000680-000680 / 2021
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Date of Judgement: 22-02-21
Issue: The question before the court was the grant of Freedom Fighter’s Pension to the Respondent under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme.
Judgement: Supreme Court in this case observed that in the absence of eligibility criteria for grant of pension, as mentioned in the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, no applicant can claim such pensions as a matter of right where documentary evidence filed by the Respondent does not comply with such scheme. The court allowed the civil appeal arising out of the Special Leave Petition and dismissed the writ petitions of 2017 and 2018.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust & Anr V. Union Of India & Ors
Citation: W.P.(C) No.-000040 / 2018
Bench: Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Date of Judgement: 24-02-21
Issue: In this case, a Writ Petition has been filed by Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust challenging the notice issued by the Second Respondent i.e., Medical Council of India by which the Saraswati Medical College was directed to discharge 132 out of 150 students admitted in the first-year Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) course for the academic year 2017-2018.
Judgement: Supreme Court, in this case, observed that admission of 132 students in the College for the academic year 2017-2018 being completely contrary to the Regulations and noted the fact that the students have completed the second year MBBS course, cancelling their admissions at this stage would not serve any useful purpose and directed that this case not be treated as a precedent.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Narayan Sitaram Badwaik (Dead) Thr Lrs V. Bisaram And Ors
Citation: C.A. No.-006124-006124 / 2011
Bench: Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose
Date of Judgement: 17-02-21
Issue: Whether the document executed was only collateral for a loan extended by the appellant to respondents?
Judgement: The Narayan Sitaramji sued for possession of the property in dispute, based on a sale deed from some respondents. The respondents contend that no such sale took place and in fact the document executed was only collateral for a loan extended by the appellant to respondents. The Supreme Court, in this case, set aside the order of the High Court and remand the matter to the said Court for fresh consideration of the appeal, on facts and law and further clarified that we have made no observations as to the merits of the case, or the correctness of holding of the High Court on the legal issue.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Upendra Choudhury V. Bulandshahar Development Authority & Ors
Citation: W.P.(C) No.-000150 / 2021
Bench: Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Date of Judgement: 11-02-21
Issue: The petitioner in this case seeks writs of mandamus against respondents involved in the construction project ‘Sushant Megapolis’ for refund of money invested by consumers or possession of the promised structure.
Judgement: The Supreme Court in this case disposed of the writ of Mandamus under Article 32 on the following grounds. Entertaining a petition of this nature will involve the Court in virtually carrying out day-to-day supervision of a building project. That Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and its successor legislation, The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 similarly contains specific provisions and remedies for dealing with the grievance of purchasers of real estate.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
The High Court Of Judicature At Madras V. M. C. Subramaniam
Citation: SLP(C) No.-003063-003064 / 2021
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran
Date Of Judgement: 17-02-2021
Issue: The question before the Supreme Court was whether refusal of refund of court fee by Registrar deposited by respondent before the High Court despite the orders of the High Court to refund the said amount was valid?
Judgment: Supreme Court in this case observed that the fact remains that they get their dispute settled without the intervention of the Court. If they get their dispute settled by invoking Section 89, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (C.P.C., 1908) in that event the State may have to incur some expenditure but, if they get their dispute settled between themselves without the intervention of the Court or anyone else, such as arbitrator/mediator, the State would not be incurring any expenditure and that the parties to litigation get their dispute settled by invoking Section 89, C.P.C.,1908 or they get the same settled between themselves without invoking Section 89, C.P.C., 1908 the party paying Court Fees in respect thereof should be entitled to the refund of full Court Fees as provided under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.”
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Ravindra Nath Agrawal V. Yogender Nath Agrawal
Citation: T.P. (C) No.-000970-000970 / 2016
Bench:
Date Of Judgement: 12-02-2021
Issue: Whether the suit for partition, pending on the file of the Additional District Judge, Saket Court, New Delhi, be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction in the District of Nainital, Uttarakhand?
Judgment: Supreme Court in this case dismissed the transfer petition and observed that three out of the surviving five children are citizens of other countries living out of India and therefore they cannot have any objection to the proceedings being tried in Uttarakhand. It would have been open to the petitioner to raise such contention and further stated that in these days of virtual hearings, the location of the parties is hardly a matter of concern.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Lalitha R Nath V. Kannur Medical College
Citation: C.A. No.-000596-000596 / 2021
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Date Of Judgement: 18-02-2021
Issue: Whether the College be denied affiliation for conducting MBBS and postgraduate courses for the academic year 2020-21 and cancel all admissions made by Kannur Medical College because the college had neither called for online applications nor had it complied with the requirements in the revised approval.
Judgment: This Appeal was preferred against impugns final order and judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court by staying operation of the order passed by the Kerala University of Health Sciences. Supreme Court in this case set aside the impugned orders and ordered Kannur Medical College to claim affiliation and admit students only after they have deposited Rs.15,72,89,020 and Rs.25 crores and if the amount is not paid, the order passed by the Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges in Kerala and Kerala University of Health Sciences rejecting Kannur Medical College application for continuance of affiliation for the academic year 2020-21 and future academic years would continue.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Gajanan Babulal Bansode V. The State Of Maharashtra
Citation: C.A. No.-000104-000104 / 2021
Bench: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Date Of Judgement: 05-02-2021
Issue: Whether Government Resolution passed by the Home Department, Government of Maharashtra dated 22.04.2019 directing the accommodation of the additional 636 candidates to the post of Police Sub-Inspector, was contrary to the Recruitment Rules, and would have the inevitable effect of distorting the ratio for recruitment through the Limited Departmental Examination?
Judgment: The Supreme Court in this case directed the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench to decide the pending Original Applications and the tribunal will ensure that the additional 636 candidates are given notice of the pending Original Applications through the State, to enable them to appear and take part in the proceedings.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Ram Vijay Singh V. State Of U.P.
Citation: Crl. A. No.-000175-000175 / 2021
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Date Of Judgement:25-02-2021
Issue: Whether the appellant convicted for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was a juvenile on the date of the incident?
Judgment: The appellant applied for bail on the ground that on the date of the incident he was a juvenile. The Supreme Court observed that there is an application submitted by the appellant himself for obtaining an Arms Licence before the date of the incident. In such application, he has given his date of birth which would make him 21 years of age on the date of the incident. Since there is a document signed by the appellant much before the date of occurrence, therefore, the appellant cannot be treated to be juvenile on the date of the incident as he was more than 21 years of age as per his application submitted to obtain the Arms Licence.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Tata Motors Ltd V. Antonio Paulo Vaz & Anr
Citation: C.A. No.-000574-000574 / 2021
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Date Of Judgement: 18-02-2021
Issue: Whether the appellant (Manufacturer of car) is jointly and severally liable to refund the money or replace the car purchased?
Judgment: Antonio Paulo Vaz bought a car after paying the agreed total consideration price to the car Dealer, Vistar Goa (P) Ltd., a 2009 model car that had run 622 kilometres was sold to him in place of a new car of 2011.The Supreme Court in this case set aside the findings of the National Consumer Commission and the lower forums against the appellant and observed that the car now would have deteriorated; in these circumstances, it is open to the respondent, Vaz to execute the order for alternative relief through the district forum concerned.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Najiya Neermunda Vs Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust
Citation: C.A. No.-000606-000616 / 2021
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Date Of Judgement: 25-02-2021
Issue: The dispute in these Appeals pertains to fee fixation by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee for MBBS students in private self-financing medical colleges in the State of Kerala. The issue that requires to be considered relays to the restrictions placed by the High Court in the matter of fixation of fee by the Committee.
Judgment: Supreme Court directed the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee to re-examine the proposals of the Management of Medical College for the fixation of fee 2017-2018 onwards and that no fetter could be placed on the exercise of power for fee fixation by the Committee.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Opto Circuit India Ltd. Vs Axis Bank
Citation : CRL.A. NO.-000102-000102 / 2021
Bench: Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian
Date Of Judgement: 03-02-2021
Issue: The appeal questions the validity of order passed by the Enforcement Directorate to freeze the accounts of the appellant under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C., 1973)
Judgment: The Supreme Court in this case observed that although the High Court was correct in holding the impugned order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 it ought to have examined whether the due procedure contemplated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was compiled. The Court noted that in the present case, there was nothing on record to suggest the authority issuing the order for freezing the bank accounts had recorded the reasons in writing as required under Section 17 (1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act or forwarded a copy thereof to the Adjudicating Authority as required under Section 17 (2) and further noted that the order directing freezing of accounts need not contain all details, it should necessarily record the belief as provided under Section 17 (1) and disallowed the respondent’s submission that the order of freezing was made under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C.,1973, stating that Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 being a separate provision and having the necessary powers, the powers and procedure are to be obeyed; When power is available under a special enactment, resorting to power under a general law does not arise; the power under Section 102, Cr.Pc is concerning the Police Officer in the course of an investigation and is different from the scheme under Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Thus, the Court allowed the appeal to the extent of the illegality of freezing of the bank accounts, while reserving the right of the respondents to sue afresh following the law.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
National Highway Authority Of India V. M/S Progressive Construction Ltd
Citation: C.A. No.-000542-000542 / 2021
Bench: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Date Of Judgement: 12-02-2021
Issue: The appeal arises out of the Judgment passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 wherein the Single Judge has substantially set aside the Award passed by a three-member tribunal on the ground that the arbitral tribunal has drawn incorrect inferences from the documents on record and has not considered vital and relevant evidence in reaching its conclusions.
Judgment: Supreme Court in this case set aside the judgement passed by Single Judge and directed that the arbitral proceedings be conducted afresh by the Indian Council of Arbitration and appointed Justice G. S. Singhvi, former Judge of this Court, as the Sole Arbitrator, who will adjudicate all the claims and counterclaims afresh.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Boloram Bordoloi V. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank
Citation: C.A. No. 004394-004394 / 2010
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Date Of Judgement: 08-02-2021
Issue: Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement inflicted on the appellant was valid?
Judgment: The Supreme Court, in this case, affirmed the decision of the division bench of the Gauhati High Court which had confirmed the order of compulsory retirement arising out of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant while directing the respondent Bank to pay all retiral benefits. The appellant had argued that the disciplinary authority had issued a show-cause notice indicating the proposed punishment of compulsory retirement even before furnishing a copy of the enquiry report. It was further argued that the punishment was disproportionate to the gravity of charges and no reasoned order had been passed by the disciplinary authority. The court while referring to the case Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (1993) 4 SCC 727 stated that, mere issuing show cause notice with the proposed or tentative punishment is not the same as a final decision taken by the disciplinary authority. Further, it held that if a punishment is imposed based on an enquiry report, then no elaborate reasons are required to be given while stating that since the role of a bank manager is to deal with public money, the misconduct of the Appellant was grave enough to warrant the present punishment, disciplinary authority itself was liberal in punishing compulsory retirement.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs Union Of India Government Of India Through Secretary
Citation: C.A. No.-000150-000150 / 2021
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy
Date Of Judgement: 10-02-2021
Issue: In this case, the High Court of Patna had rejected the sailor’s claim for disability compensation under clause 21 of the National Maritime Board Agreement of the Shipping Corporation of India. According to the Shipping Corporation of India, the appellant's case was not a case of accidental injury during duty on the vessel and therefore, only severance compensation is payable to the appellant. This is because the Seaman can perform other kinds of jobs and his day-to-day normal work is not affected.
Judgment: Supreme Court, in this case, held that Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PwDA, 1995) would not assist the petitioner as under Clause 5.9.F (ii) of the National Maritime Board Agreement, 100% compensation was payable to a seaman where the person was found medically unfair for sea service because of the injury while in employment, a case that neither the parties articulated. The bench noted that Dilated Cardiomyopathy was not listed either under the PwDA, 1995 or the PwDA, 2016 and further that while the person was unfit for a seaman’s job; he was fit for other jobs. The bench, while dismissing the appeal said that in the absence of any connecting link between the job and the medical condition, the disability compensation is not merited.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Rachna V. Union Of India
Citation: W.P.(C) No.-001410 / 2020
Bench: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Date Of Judgement: 24-02-2021
Issue: The case involved a writ petition filed by various aspirants of Civil Service Examination (CSE), 2020, who had exhausted their attempts in 2020 either because of the upper age limit or upper attempt limit and were seeking an additional attempt on the ground that their preparation time had been adversely affected due to COVID-19 pandemic. Article 32 of the Constitution seeks mandamus to the 1st respondent to extend one additional attempt to the petitioners/intervenors as they are being barred from attempting the examination in future on account of exhausting of attempts or on account of age bar after Examination 2020.
Judgment: Supreme Court in this case examined the legislative scheme Rule 4 and Rule 6 of the Rules for Competitive Examination, 2020 and held that they prescribe an upper and lower limit for both attempts and age, with exceptions for those classes that have been specifically granted concessions. The Court held that the 2020 Rules do not grant the Central Government with the discretion of providing any relaxation in the number of attempts or age limits except to those classes specifically mentioned. It held that previous concessions in the number of attempts or age limit were policy decisions taken by the Central Government and cannot become a precedent to be relied upon in the future, relying upon M. Selvakumar (2017) 3 SCC 504, that, policy decisions are open for judicial review by this Court for a very limited purpose and this Court can interfere into the realm of public policy so framed if it is capricious, totally arbitrary, or not informed of reasons. It further held that judicial review of a policy decision is entirely different from issuing a mandamus for framing of policy and that it is within the remit of the executive to make a policy decision based on prevailing circumstances for better administration.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
V.N. Public Health And Educational Trust V. State Of Kerala And Ors Etc
Citation: C.A. No.-000703-000704 / 2021
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari
Date Of Judgement: 24-02-2021
Issue: Whether Essentiality Certificate and Consent of Affiliation (CoA) should be granted for the year 2020-2021 to the appellant. The other issues which need to be addressed are :-(i) whether the grant of Essentiality Certificate by the State Government is only a Ministerial Act? (ii) Whether Essentiality Certificate, once issued, can be withdrawn?
Judgment: These appeals arise out of the Judgment and Order passed by the Kerala High Court wherein the Division Bench of the said High Court changed the directions of the learned Single Judge to the extent of consideration for the establishment of Medical College by the appellant for the Academic Year 2021-2022 The Supreme Court, in this case, examined the legislative scheme emerging from Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Regulation 3 of Medical Council of India Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 and Chapter XXI Clause 10 of the Kerala University of Health Sciences First Statute, that the issuance/re-issuance of an Essentiality Certificate is not a mere ministerial act because by granting the same, the State Government undertakes the obligations of the private educational institution in case of the institution being unable to set up the medical college or impart education within it. It further held that an Essentiality Certificate legitimizes the medical college and gives an assurance to the concerned stakeholders that the college shall fulfil the basic norms mandated by the Medical Council of India. On the aspect of withdrawal of an Essentiality Certificate, relying on Sukh Sagar Medical College and Hospital (2020) SCC Online SC 851, it was held that an Essentiality Certificate once granted can be withdrawn provided that it was obtained by playing fraud on the State Government or where the very substratum on which the Essentiality Certificate was granted vanishes or any other reason of like nature.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Joginder V. The State Of Haryana
Citation: SLP(C) No.-001829 / 2021
Bench: Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Date Of Judgement: 05-02-2021
Issue: Rule 12(4) was incorporated in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 Rules in terms of the notification allows Gram Panchayat to sell its non-cultivable land in Shamlat Deh to the inhabitants of the village who have constructed their houses, subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in Rule 12 (4) of the 1964 Rules.
Judgment: The Supreme Court in this case held that the cap of 200 square yards, beyond which regularization had to be done following the 1964 rules applied to a total area comprising constructed area and appurtenant area or open space. The Court held that the illegal occupation of Panchayat land could be regularized provided the area of the illegal occupation was up to a maximum of 200 square yards and that a fair reading of Rule 12(4) was that in case of illegal occupation of the area up to a maximum of 200 square feet, the area could be regularized and sold at not less than collector rate (the higher of floor or market rate).
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Franklin Templeton Trustee Services Pvt Ltd V. Amruta Garg And Ors Etc
Citation: C.A. No.-000498-000501 / 2021
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Date Of Judgement: 12-02-2021
Issue: In this case, the challenge before the Court was the winding up, and the procedure adopted for winding up of six schemes of the Franklin Templeton Mutual Fund and which emanated from the judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court.
Judgment: Supreme Court in this case confined itself to deciding the aspect of unitholders consent to winding up of schemes and directed the winding up of the six schemes to ensure disbursement of funds and liquidation of assets/ securities. Referring to Regulation 18 (15) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Funds) Regulations 1996 (‘Mutual Fund Regulations/ Regulations’), the Court held that consent of the unitholders would mean a simple majority of the unitholders present and voting, and not the consent of a majority of all the unitholders of the scheme. The primary objection regarding the appointment of K.Fin Technologies Pvt Ltd for providing e-voting platform services was rejected as it was certified by the MCA and no instances of the indictment were pointed out. The Court further rejected the objections made to the manner of conduct of the poll and its results and held that the majority had given their consent for winding up of the schemes.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Chintels India Ltd V. Bhayana Builders Pvt Ltd
Citation: C.A. No.-004028 / 2020
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta, Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai
Date Of Judgement: 11-02-2021
Issue: The question before the division bench of the High Court was whether the order of the single judge refusing to condone the appellant’s delay in applying under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is an appealable order under Section 37 (1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The division bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal considering the Ramdas Construction Co. case being upheld by the Supreme Court.
Judgment: In this case, the appeal arose out of a certificate issued by the High Court of Delhi under Article 133 read with Article 134A of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court, in this case cited its judgment in Essar Constructions (2000) 6 SCC 94 where it examined the provision under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act 1940, which is pari materia to Section 37 (1)(c) of the 1996 Act, to hold that an order rejecting the application to set aside an award because of delay in filing is an appealable order, by applying the effects test. i.e., the effect of a refusal of condonation of delay results in a refusal to set aside the award, whereas the condonation of delay does not result in setting aside the award. The Court also noted that the effects test stands incorporated in the language of Section 37 of the 1996 Act and also the express language of Section 37 (1)(c) which provides for appeal for orders setting aside or refusing to set aside the award under Section 34 and not just under Section 34 (2) of the 1996 Act and distinguished its order under Ramdas Construction noting that the Court had refused to interfere in the judgment of the High Court by citing Himachal Pradesh Techno Engineers (2010) 12 SCC 210 and that such refusal to interfere could not be said to be approving the judgment of the High Court.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Ramesh Kymal V. M/S. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private Limited
Citation: C.A. No.-004050 / 2020
Bench: Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Date Of Judgement: 09-02-2021
Issue: The question before the Court was whether as per Section 10A an application filed before the date on which the provision came into force regarding a default occurring before 25 March 2020 is maintainable?
Judgment: In this case an appeal was filed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code challenging a decision of the NCLAT affirming the decision of the NCLT holding that in view of Section 10A, the application filed by the appellant as an operational creditor was not maintainable. Supreme Court, in this case, held that the expression ‘shall ever be filed’ was a clear indicator that the legislative intent was to ban any institution from filing applications commencing corporate insolvency resolution process regarding defaults occurring on or after 25 March 2020 for 6 months, extendable up to one year as notified, therefore, if the debt occurred on or after March 25 2020, merely because the application was filed before 05 June 2020 was not a reason to permit such applications and affirmed the conclusion made by NCLAT and also noted further that embargo in Section 10A must receive a purposive construction which will advance the object which was sought to be achieved by enacting the provision.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Parmar Samantsinh Umedsinh V. State Of Gujarat
Citation: C.A. No.-000706-000706 / 2021
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Date Of Judgement: 24-02-2021
Issue: In this case a writ petition challenging Section 5(3)(iii)(a) and Section 29A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, on the grounds that it violates the one member one ward mandate.
Judgement: The Supreme Court in this case noted that Article 243R, which provides the composition of municipalities, has two constitutional requirements:-
- Municipality members must be elected through a direct election.
- The territorial constituencies in the Municipal area which are to be divided into wards. Article 243ZA deals with election to municipalities and provides that the State Legislature must provide for all matters related to the election to the Municipalities. It then examined Article 243S(3) and held that it does not provide for the composition of a Municipality but only mandates that a member of a Municipality representing a ward must be a member of the Ward Committee and relying upon the decision in L.V.A. Dixitulu (1979) 2 SCC 34, that to bar the State Legislature from providing multi-member wards, there must be an express or implied limitation within the Constitution. The Court held, after examining the constitutional scheme emerging from Articles 243R, 243ZA and 243S, that none of these Articles prohibits having over one member for a ward.
Relevant Links:
- To Read Important Supreme Court Judgements of January 2021, Click Here
- To Read Important Supreme Court Judgements of March 2021, Click Here
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.
For More Case Briefs, Click Here
0 Comments