Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - Judgments [July 11-16, 2022]
By : Aishwarya Iyer
Update: 2022-07-18 07:15 GMT
- [Bail] The Supreme Court has observed that any arrest made in violation of Sections 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") would entitle the accused to bail. Top Court further noted that the bail application of accused charged with offences punishable upto 7 years do not even require the accused to be taken into custody. They can be even granted interim bail, while their bail application is disposed and are not, by law, required to languish in prison.
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh
Case Title: Satender Kumar Antil v Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
Click here to read more - [2009 Chhattisgarh Tribal Killings] While dismissing the plea by Himanshu Kumar seeking independent investigation into alleged extra judicial killings in Chattisgarh by Security forces, the Supreme Court allowed an application at the instance of Union of India seeking to initiate appropriate proceedings against the writ petitioners. Court has left it to the better discretion of the State of Chhattisgarh/CBI to act accordingly keeping in mind the seriousness of the entire issue.
Bench: Justices Khanwilkar and Pardiwala
Case Title: Himanshu Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh
Click here to read more - [IBC] The Supreme Court, while distinguishing between the nature of debt given by a Financial Creditor and Operational Creditor, has held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) certainly does not aim to penalize solvent companies, temporarily defaulting in repayment of its financial debts, by initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Court has also delved into the legislative intent behind the use of the word 'may' in Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC and the word ‘shall’ in Sub-Section (5) of Section 9.
Bench: Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice JK Maheshwari
Case Title: VIDARBHA INDUSTRIES POWER LIMITED vs. AXIS BANK LIMITED
Click here to read more - [Appeal against conviction] The Supreme Court has held that an appeal against conviction filed by an accused under Sub-Section (2) of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr. P.C.') cannot be dismissed on the ground that the accused is absconding.
Bench: Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice MM Sundresh
Case Title: Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai vs. State of Bihar
Click here to read more - [Specific Relief Act, 1963] Depositing of balance consideration after lapse of seven years would not establish a party's readiness to discharge his part of the contract under explanation (ii) to clause (c) of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which says the plaintiff must aver performance or readiness and willingness to perform the contract according to its true construction, the top court has held,
Bench: Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Hrishikesh Roy
Case Title: U.N. KRISHNAMURTHY (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS. vs. A. M. KRISHNAMURTHY
Click here to read more - [Extradition] Supreme Court has held that separation of Judicial and Executive powers and the scheme of the Indian Constitution cannot bind the Indian courts in proceedings under the Extradition Act. ".., the courts must proceed in accordance with law and impose the sentence as the law of the land requires, while simultaneously the Executive is bound to comply with its international obligations under the Extradition Act as also on the principle of comity of courts, which forms the basis of the extradition....", a division bench of the top court remarked.
Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundaresh
Case Title: ABU SALEM ABDUL KAYYUM ANSARI vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Click here to read more