SUPREME COURT MONTHLY ROUNDUP- JANUARY Legal New
1. CBI v. CBI Judgment and Aftereffects
Alok Kumar Verma v. Union of India
On January 8, the Apex Court set aside the orders of the Central government and the CVC that had divested CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma of the charge of the probe agency, reinstating him to the post with immediate effect. However, it refrained him from taking any major policy decisions until such time his case is finally disposed of by the Selection Committee under Section 4A of the DSPE Act. Subsequently, the CJI nominated Justice AK Sikri to the Special Committee.
2. No Gratuity to Teachers? The Judgment and Prima Facie Error
Birla Institute of Technology s. State of Jharkhand
On January 7, the Apex Court bench comprising of Justice AM Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra held that, irrespective of the type of educational institute he/she is working, is not an ’employee’ under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and, therefore, has no right to invoke the Act for claiming gratuity from his/her employer.
3. Constitutional Validity of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code Upheld
Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
The Apex Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 in its “entirety”. The court, however, held that to attract the bar under Section 29A from participating in resolution process, “related person” should be a person connected to the defaulting entity. The bench of Justices RF Nariman and Navin Sinha had reserved orders on January 15 on the petitions challenging the validity of IBC.
4. Death Sentence Only When Alternative Option Is Unquestionably Foreclosed
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court commuted death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a 9-year-old girl and sentenced him to 30 years of imprisonment without remission. The bench comprising Justice SA Bobde, Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice R Subhash Reddy observed that even though the murder involves exceptional depravity and the manner of commission of the crime is extremely brutal, a death sentence can be imposed only when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.
Legitimate V. Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu
The Apex Court held that stipulating a limit of 50 percent disability in hearing impairment or visual impairment as a condition to be eligible for the post of a judicial officer is a legitimate restriction. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph observed thus while dismissing the appeal filed by a V Surendra Mohan, who was held ineligible for the post of judicial officer (civil judge) as it was found that he was having 70 percent disability.
6. Child Born Out Of Marriage between Muslim Man and a Hindu Woman Entitled To Claim His Father’s Property
Mohammed Salim v. Shamsudeen & Ors.
The Apex Court held that a child born out of a marriage between a Muslim man and his Hindu wife is entitled to claim a share in his father’s property. The bench comprising of Justice NV Ramana and Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar also observed that the marriage of a Muslim man with an idolater or fire-worshipper is neither a valid (sahih) nor a void (batil) marriage, but is merely an irregular (fasid) marriage.
7. Candidates Clearing Prescribed Qualification After Cut-Off Date Can’t Be Considered Qualified
Rakesh Bakshi& Anr v. State of Jammu &Kashmir &Ors
The Supreme Court observed that eligibility of the candidates must be decided with reference to the qualification possessed as on the cut-off date and the qualification acquired later in point of time cannot make a candidate eligible. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph, however, granted relief to two such employees (who were appointed in spite of the fact that they acquired requisite qualification after the cut-off date) who continued in employment for about two decades.
8. Writ Under Article 32 Not Maintainable For Enforcement Of Personal Contractual Rights
Ramesh Sanka v. Union of India
The Supreme Court held that employees cannot be granted a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for claiming enforcement of any personal contractual rights against their employers. The bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice R Subhash Reddy ruled, “Even otherwise, no writ lies under Article 32 of the Constitution at the instance of any employee or the employer for claiming enforcement of any personal contractual rights inter se the employee and his employer.”
9. No Authority Can Claim Privilege Not To Comply With SC Judgment
Anil Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court observed that no authority can claim a privilege not to comply with its judgment. The bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta made this observation while allowing an appeal filed by an employee of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).
10. Offence Under Sec. 307 IPC Can’t Be Quashed On The Basis Of Settlement Between Parties
State of Madhya Pradesh V. Kalyan Singh & Ors.
The Supreme Court observed that under Section 307 of the IPC (Attempt to Murder) cannot be quashed, even when there is any settlement between the complainant and the accused, as it is a non-compoundable offence.
11. If The Promise To Marry Wasn’t Made With Sole Intention To Seduce Woman To Indulge In Sex, It Isn’t Rape
Dr. Dhruvaram Muralidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra
12. No Arrest Under Section 91 Finance Act Without Notice And Hearing Under Section 73A(3)(4)
Union of India v. M/s Make My Trip India Ltd
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of Delhi High Court which held that following the procedure under Section 73 A (3) and (4) of the Finance Act 1994 is compulsory before arresting a person under Section 91.
13. Sabarimala: Constitutional Bench will hear Review petition on 6th Feb
Last year 49 review petition in Sabarimala judgment has been filed, a bench of Chief Justice Gogoi and Justices R. F. Nariman, A. M. Khanwilkar, D. Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, while refraining from staying the previous decision, had agreed to hear the review petitions in Open Court on 22nd January, 2019.
14. Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Supreme Court will hear additional compensation plea in April
The Supreme Court today agreed to hear plea in April, the case concerning demand for additional compensation from US based Union Carbide company (which is now owned by Dow Chemicals) towards the victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.
The Bench of CJI, Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna proceeded to direct that the matter be listed in April 2019.
15. Apex Court upholds Allahabad High Court order on department-wise reservation in faculty posts
A bench of apex court Justices U U Lalit and Indira Banerjee refused leave to appeal to Ministry of Human Resources Department to challenge the Allahabad High Court judgment delivered in the case Vivekanand Tiwari v Union of India on April 7, 2017
16. Supreme Court Allows Operation of Dance Bars in Maharashtra
The apex Court’s verdict came in response to a batch of petitions instituted by “Bharatiya Bargirls Union” against Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (working therein) Act, 2016 on the ground that the same is violative of their right to earn a livelihood.
![Tax Law Internship Opportunity at Legum Attorney [Chamber of Ashish Panday], Delhi [Tax Litigation]: Apply by 2nd November](https://www.ourlegalworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Legum-Attorney-Intern.png)
