DRAFT| Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - Judgments [May 2-7, 2022]

[Judicial Misconduct] While upholding an order of the Allahabad High Court which curtailed pensionary benefits to the extent of 70% of a judicial officer found guilty of misconduct, the Supreme Court on Friday said, a judge, like Caesar’s wife, must be above suspicion. "..showing undue favour to a party under the guise of passing judicial orders is the worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct",
added a division bench. Supreme Court was further of the view that an extraneous consideration for showing favour need not always be a monetary consideration.
Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi.
Case Title: Muzaffar Hussain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr
Click here to read more
[Ratio Decidendi] Noting that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, the Supreme Court on Thursday remarked,
".... generality of the expressions which are found in a judgment cannot be considered to be intended to be exposition of the whole law. They will have to be governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found." The Court reiterated that one additional or different fact can make a world of a difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts.

Bench: Justices L Nageshwar Rao and BR Gavai,
Case Title: Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Click here to read more
[Section 188, Companies Act] The Supreme Court upheld the order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) wherein it had held that the bar of voting, as per Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013 on related parties, operates only at the time of entering into a contract or arrangement. Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) approached the Top Court in an appeal wherein its notice alleging violation of Regulation 23 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 and penalty imposed on RT Agro Pvt Ltd with a cumulative sum of Rs. 35 lakhs for the alleged violation of the said Regulation 23 was set aside by the SAT.
Bench: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose
Case Title: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA vs. R.T. AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Click here to read more
[Departmental promotions] The Supreme Court has noted that limited departmental examination aims to encourage meritorious candidates who may be comparatively junior in service, by opening a window of opportunity. A three-judge bench thus said that those candidates who pass the examination are entitled to have an accelerated promotion, but this process does not change the character of movement to the higher post and it continues to be a promotional channel.
Bench: Justices UU Lalit, PS Narasimha and S Ravindra Bhat
Case Title: Akhilesh Prasad vs Jharkhand Public Service Commission And Ors.
Click here to read more
[Double Insurance] Supreme Court has held that in the case of specific risks, such as those arising from loss due to fire, etc., the insured cannot profit and take advantage by double insurance. “Double Insurance”, is a scenario where an entity seeks to cover risks for the same or similar incidents through two different overlapping policies.
"Such double insurance is per se not frowned upon in law. The courts however, adopt a careful approach in considering policies which seeks to exclude liability on the part of the insurer....", the bench opined.
Bench: Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha
Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Levis Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Click here to read more

DRAFT| Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - Judgments [May 2-7, 2022]

Articles