Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - Judgments [May 9-14, 2022]

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - Judgments [May 9-14, 2022]
X
By -  Aishwarya Iyer |
16 May 2022 10:51 AM IST
  1. [Bail] Noting that as of April 22, 2022 a total of 350 bail applications (in criminal appeals) of convicts who have spent more than 10 years in jail were pending before the Allahabad High Court, the Top Court directed, "We would like a closure to all these matters of bail before the next date as the matters are directed to be taken up in one go." Court added that if required these matters can also be dealt with by the Vacation Benches.
    Bench: Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh
    Case Title: SULEMAN vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
    Click here to read more
  2. [RBI Act] The Supreme Court has clarified that Non- ­Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) regulated by the Reserve Bank of India, in terms of the provisions of Chapter III­B of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (RBI Act) cannot also be regulated by State enactments. After perusing the scheme of Chapter III­B of the RBI Act, the Court found that the power of intervention available for the RBI over NBFCs,
    is from the cradle to the grave    .
    Bench: Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam.
    Case Title: NEDUMPILLI FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
    Click here to read more
  3. [Fraud] The Supreme Court has held that once the entire selection process is found to be vitiated due to fraud, collusion and manipulation, an order is to be passed for a fresh selection after following the due process of selection as required. Court further clarified that a court cannot consider the case of another candidate within the same selection process.
    Bench: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna
    Case Title: Reshma Sultana vs The State of Karnataka & Ors.
    Click here to read more
  4. [Section 420] The Supreme Court has held that in order to make out a case under Section 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), there must be a dishonest inducement
    to deceive a person to deliver property to any other person. "As per Section 420 IPC, whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property o any person, can be said to have committed the offence under Section 420 of IPC...", noted a division bench.
    Bench: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna
    Case Title: Rekha Jain vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr.
    Click here to read more
  5. [Vicarious Liability] The Supreme Court has held that vicarious liability under sub-section (2) of Section 141of (Offences by companies) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be fixed on a person merely because he was a partner of the firm which had taken the loan or because he stood as a guarantor for such a loan.
    Bench: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna
    Case Title: DILIP HARIRAMANI vs. BANK OF BARODA
    Click here to read more
  6. [Maradu demolitions] The Supreme court has ordered that the flat-owners of the buildings that got demolished for violation of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) norms in Kochi's Maradu are not entitled for any interest on the amounts paid by them to the builders as the flat-owners had the benefit of staying in the flats for a period of 8-9 years on an average. Court further relied on the fact that the land in question belonged to the flat-owners as joint owners, the market value of which had increased substantially.
    Bench: Justices L Nageshwar Rao and BR Gavai
    Case Title: The Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority Member Secretary vs. Maradu Municipality& Ors.
    Click here to read more
  7. [Natural Justice] Noting that the services of a contractual employee who was entitled to get all the benefits of a regular employee could not be terminated without following the principles of natural justice, the Top Court has allowed an appeal filed by one K Ragupathi setting aside the communication of Gautam Buddha University whereby his services were discontinued.
    "...the appointments are made only after the candidates are selected by the Selection Committee. It is thus clear that though the nomenclature given to the appointment is contractual, candidates are required to undergo the entire process....",     the bench noted.
    Bench: Justices L Nageshwar Rao and BR Gavai
    Case Title: K. RAGUPATHI vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more
  8. [Insurance] When the insurance policy itself defines the acts of terrorism in the Exclusion Clause, the terms of the policy being a concluded contract will govern the right and liabilities of the parties and the parties cannot rely upon the definitions of 'terrorism' in various penal statutes since the Exclusion Clause contains an exhaustive definition of acts of terrorism, the Supreme Court has held.
    Bench: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka
    Case Title: Narsingh Ispat Ltd. vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more
Next Story

Articles

read all