Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - Judgments [July 25-30, 2022]

Read Time: 11 minutes

  1. [Custody Cases] In a matter involving the question of custody of a child, it has to be borne in mind that the question ‘what is the wish/desire of the child’ is different and distinct from the question ‘what would be in the best interest of the child’, the Supreme Court remarked last week. Court further observed that when couples are at loggerheads and want to part their ways as parthian shot they may level extreme allegations against each other so as to depict the other unworthy to have the custody of the child.
    Bench: Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar
    Click here to read more

  2. [Bail to MLA Prashant Kumar Jagdev ] While granting conditional bail to Member of Legislative Assembly from Chilika Constituency, Prashant Kumar Jagdev, Supreme Court ordered Jagdev not to address any public rally or political congregation of not more than five persons for one year. Jagdev allegedly drove his white-colored Discovery Car, bearing Registration No. OD-02AY-5775 on a crowd, which led to injuries to many persons.
    Bench: Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath.
    Click here to read more

  3. [Surname of a Child] The mother, who is the only natural/legal guardian of the child after the death of the biological father, can decide the surname of the child and can give him the surname of her second husband whom she remarries after the death of her first husband, the Supreme Court has held. Court has further held that the mother can also give the child for adoption to her second husband.
    Bench: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Krishna Murari
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more

  4. [SARFAESI Act] The Supreme Court has held that the powers exercisable by the District Magistrate (“DM”) and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (“CMM”) under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) are a ministerial act. Court has further observed that while disposing of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, no element of quasi-­judicial function or application of mind would require. 
    Bench: Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna 
    Case Title:  M/s R.D. Jain and Co. vs. Capital First Ltd. & Ors.
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more

  5. [Job Advertisement] The Top Court has held that when the advertisement published for a job post contemplates the manner of filling up the application form and also the attempting of the answer sheets in the written examination, it has to be done in the manner so prescribed. While stressing upon the use of same language throughout the recruitment process, Court said, "The language chosen is relevant to ensure that the candidate who has filled up the application form alone appears in the written examination to maintain probity. The answer sheets have to be in the language chosen by the candidate in the application form."
    Bench: Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more

  6. [Removal of GST and Service Taxes on the Hajj services"In a given case, different classes of service providers may be rendering the same service to the same class of service recipients. That, per se, does not amount to discrimination", the Supreme Court held while dismissing a plea seeking removal of GST and Service Taxes on the Hajj services provided to Hajis of India in Saudi Arabia. Distinguishing between the Haj Committees and the HGO's Court said that when the Haj Committee facilitates the Haj pilgrims by making arrangements for their visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for undertaking the Haj pilgrimage, there is a complete absence of profit motive.
    Bench: Justices Khanwilkar, Oka and Ravikumar.
    Case Title: All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai vs. Union of India & Ors.
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more

  7. [Religious ceremony] The Supreme Court while dismissing a plea seeking GST and Service Tax exemption on the Hajj pilgrimage, held that no religious ceremony is performed or conducted by the Haj Group Organizers (HGOs) and the religious ceremony is conducted by Haj pilgrims or by someone else in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.  Noting that Mega Exemption Notification made a clear distinction between ‘religious ceremony’ and ‘religious pilgrimage’, Court said, As Haj Committees render services only in respect of Haj pilgrimage, the religious pilgrimage referred to in Clause 5A as regards the Haj Committee, is Haj pilgrimage. Thus, the Mega Exemption Notification exempts the two specified organisations that render services in respect of a religious pilgrimage. This exemption under Clause 5A is not applicable to HGOs as the HGOs are not the specified organizations...".
    Bench: Justices Khanwilkar, Oka and Ravikumar.​​​​​​
    Case Title: All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai vs. Union of India & Ors.
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more

  8. [Legal Representative] The Supreme Court last week held that an application seeking substitution as legal representative of a deceased cannot be dismissed only because the applicant was not the only legal heir of the deceased; and that the deceased had another son and daughter, without impleading whom, the applicant was not entitled to proceed further.
    Bench: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose
    Case Title: R. KRSNA MURTII vs. R. R. JAGADESAN
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more