Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - Judgments [September 19-24, 2022]

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - Judgments [September 19-24, 2022]
X
By -  Aishwarya Iyer |
26 Sept 2022 10:46 AM IST
  1. [Death Penalty] A reference to a larger bench of five judges has been made by the Supreme Court for the purpose of coming up with a uniform approach on the question of granting real and meaningful opportunity, as opposed to a formal hearing, to an accused/convict, on the issue of sentence, when conviction is for a capital offence.
    Bench: CJI UU Lalit along with Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia
    Case Title: IN RE: FRAMING GUIDELINES REGARDING POTENTIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE IMPOSING DEATH SENTENCES
    Click here to read more
  2. [Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954] The Supreme Court has reiterated that any State enactment relating to Agricultural land tenures is a special law. This observation came to be made by a division bench while holding that Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 is not unconstitutional or ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 254 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
    Bench: Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath
    Case Title: HAR NARAINI DEVI & ANR vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
    Click here to read more
  3. [FR's of employees] The Supreme Court has held that the State is bound by the fundamental rights of its employees under Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India. Court further held that when financial rules framed by the government such as Pension Rules are capable of more interpretations than one, the courts should lean towards that interpretation that goes in favour of the employee.
    Bench: Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari
    Case Title: STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS vs. O.P. GUPTA
    Click here to read more
  4. [Consumer complaint] The Supreme Court has set aside the compensation awarded to a woman who had a baby after having undergone tubectomy surgery on two counts. Before the top court, reliance was placed on the judgment of
    State of Punjab Vs. Shiv Ram & Ors.,     to contend that the failed tubectomy surgery is not a case of medical negligence as the sterilized woman can become pregnant due to natural causes. Once the woman misses the menstrual cycle, it is expected of the couple to visit the doctor and seek medical advice, the court was told.
    Bench: Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia
    Case Title:
    CIVIL HOSPITAL & ORS. vs. MANJIT SINGH & ANR.
    Click here to read more
  5. [IBC] If there are two borrowers or if two corporate bodies fall within the ambit of corporate debtors, there is no reason why proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) cannot be initiated against both the Corporate Debtors, the Supreme Court has held. "Needless to mention, the same amount cannot be realised from both the Corporate Debtors. If the dues are realised in part from one Corporate Debtor, the balance may be realised from the other Corporate Debtor being the co-borrower. However, once the claim of the Financial Creditor is discharged, there can be no question of recovery of the claim twice over",
    further clarified a division bench.
    Bench: Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari
    Case Title: MAITREYA DOSHI vs. ANAND RATHI GLOBAL FINANCE LTD. AND ANR.
    Click here to read more
  6. [Environment Protection Act] The Supreme Court has reiterated that the EP Act does not prohibit ex post facto Environmental Clearance. On the fact of ex post facto EC, the Bench opined that
    "the EP Act does not prohibit ex post facto Environmental Clearance. Grant of ex post facto EC in accordance with law, in strict compliance with Rules, Regulations, Notifications and/or applicable orders, in appropriate cases, where the projects are in compliance with, or can be made to comply with environment norms, is in our view not impermissible. The Court cannot be oblivious to the economy or the need to protect the livelihood of hundreds of employees and others employed in the project and others dependent on the project, if such projects comply with environmental norms".

    Bench: Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari
    Case Title: D Swamy vs. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Others
    Click here to read more
  7. [Extension of custody] The Supreme Court has held that the failure to procure the presence of the accused either physically or virtually before the court and the failure to inform him that the application made by the public prosecutor for the extension of time of his judicial custody to complete the investigation is being considered is not a mere procedural irregularity and is gross illegality that violates the rights of the accused under Article 21.
    "..the grant of the extension of time takes away the right of the accused to get default bail which is intrinsically connected with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution. The procedure contemplated by Article 21 of the Constitution which is required to be followed before the liberty of a person is taken away has to be a fair and reasonable procedure. In fact, procedural safeguards play an important role in protecting the liberty guaranteed by Article 21",     further held the court.
    Bench: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka
    Case Title: Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya vs. State of Gujarat
    Click here to read more
Next Story

Articles

read all