Read Time: 01 hours
[Tamil Nadu CM Edappadi Palanisamy] Supreme Court adjourned the hearing in a plea filed against a Madras High Court order refusing to initiate a fresh probe against former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and leader of AIADMK, Edapaddi Palanisamy in the Highway Tender scam. The bench said that it would hear the matter on a non-miscellaneous day. Court also refused to issue notice on the plea filed by Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), after Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the Tamil Nadu DVAC requested the bench to do so. Furthermore, Senior Advocate C Aryama Sundaram, appearing for Palanisamy, objected to issuance of notice, saying he wished to file additional submissions.Bench: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi Case Title: The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption vs. Edappadi Palaniswamy and Anr. Click here to read more
[Monthly allowance to PWD] The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition seeking an increase in the monthly allowance of Persons with Disabilities (PWD) by the states by 25% higher than similar schemes that are applicable. The bench has issued notice to the Union of India, making it returnable in 4 weeks. "Presently, instead of issuing notice to all states, we will issue notice only to the Union of India and we will then see what they have to say," the bench added. Top Court has further requested Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to assist the court in this matter.Bench: CJI Chandrachud, Justice Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra Case Title: Bhumika Trust vs. Union of India and Ors. Click here to read more
[LIFE Mission Housing Scam] The Supreme Court extended the medical bail granted to former Principal Secretary to Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, M. Sivasankar by two months. The bench has extended the bail after taking into account the further treatment Sivasankar has to go through. Court was told that Sivasankar is in rehabilitation and would be undergoing a spinal surgery in October. On August 2nd, Supreme Court had initially granted bail to Sivasankar observing that the accused officer should not visit any place except the hospital and his residence during the bail, which includes the time period for the surgery and for post-operative care.Bench: Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh Case Title: M Sivasankar vs. Union of India Click here to read more
[Chandrababu Naidu] The Supreme Court refused to hear Former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Chandrababu Naidu's plea seeking quashing of FIR registered against him in the skill development scam case. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra mentioned Naidu's plea out of turn. CJI Chandrachud after asking about the date since which Naidu was in custody, told the senior counsel to "come tomorrow". "Come tomorrow. We will see..", said the bench. Naidu has filed the instant SLP challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order, whereby his plea on the same relief was dismissed two days back, on September 22, 2023.Bench: CJI Chandrachud, Justice Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra Case Title: Nara Chandrababu Naidu vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Click here to read more
[PMLA Judgment] Supreme Court has constituted a three-judge special bench to hear the review petition challenging the court's judgment defining contours of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and also upholding the Act. Justice SK Kaul, who is part of the bench revealed in court that the bench also consisting of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M Trivedi shall commence hearing the matter from on October 18, 2023. In August 2022, the Supreme Court had issued notice in the review petition filed by Karti Chidambaram against the PMLA judgment on limited purview.Bench: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar Case Title: Karti P Chidambaram vs. The ED Click here to read more
[Delay in appointment of judges] The Supreme Court has against expressed its concerns over delay on part of the Centre in dealing with collegium recommendations sent to it. Seventy recommendations made by us since November 11, 2022 are pending with the Union Government, Justice SK Kaul told Attorney General for India R Venkataramani. "Out of these, 7 are reiterations, one is the recommendation for appointment of Chief Justice of a High Court", added the bench also comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia. Expressing its willingness to monitor the situation closely, the bench further indicated that it would take up the issue every 10 days now. These observations were made after the AG sought an adjournment for a week to consult with the government. Earlier this year, Justice Kaul had told the AG who had submitted that new appointments of judges would be notified soon that, "Sometimes you take days, sometimes you do it overnight. Where is the uniformity? We will give you ten days".Bench: Justices SK Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhalia Case Title: The Association of Advocates Bengaluru vs. Shri Barun Mitra, Secretary (Justice) & Anr. Click here to read more
[Lakhimpur Kheri Violence] Supreme Court allowed Ashish Mishra, son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra Teni, to visit NCT of Delhi for medical treatment of his mother. Mishra is an accused in the case registered over the Lakhimpur Kheri violence of October 3, 2021 in which a vehicle rammed into a farmers’ protest against the three farm laws passed by the Union Government, killing two BJP workers, a driver and a journalist. The bench has asked Mishra not to enter the state of Uttar Pradesh. Moreover, Mishra has been directed to not make any public appearances or address the media on the present case. In January this year, the Supreme Court had granted bail to Mishra while ordering him to not stay in UP or the NCT of Delhi.Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta Case Title: Ashish Mishra @ Monu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Click here to read more
[Mahesh Raut] The Supreme Court issued notice on National Investigation Agency's plea challenging bail granted to Mahesh Raut, an accused in the Bhima Koregaon Elgar Parishad Violence case. Before the bench, the NIA insisted that incriminating letters were there which showed Raut's links with proscribed Maoist outfits. Court went to defer hearing till next week while saying that it would have to hear ASG SV Raju out. The bench has also extended the stay granted on bail by the Bombay High Court till October 5, 2023. A division bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Sharmila Deshmukh of the Bombay High Court on September 21, 2023 had granted bail to Raut. "Prima facie Section 13 and 38 of the UAPA are applicable and section 16, 17, and 18 are not made out. Bail conditions are the same as Anand Temtumbe" the bench had said.Bench: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi Case Title: NIA vs. Mahesh Sitaram Raut Click here to read more
[Chandrababu Naidu] Supreme Court refused to restrain the trial judge from hearing the plea seeing extension of police custody of Former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Chandrababu Naidu. CJI Chandrachud led bench has ordered that it will take up the matter now on October 3rd. Notably, the bench also comprising Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra refused to accept the submission made by Sr Adv Siddharth Luthra seeking interim relief for Naidu. Earlier Supreme Court had refused to hearNaidu's plea seeking quashing of FIR registered against him in the skill development scam case. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra mentioned Naidu's plea out of turn. CJI Chandrachud after asking about the date since which Naidu was in custody, told the senior counsel to "come tomorrow".Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala & Manoj Misra Case Title: N Chandrababu Naidu vs. State of AP & Anr. Click here to read more
[Sanatan Dharma Remarks] The Supreme Court refused to issue notice in a plea filed by Advocate Vineet Jindal, seeking registration of an FIR against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin's son Udhayanidhi and former Union Minister A Raja for their "derogatory remarks" and call for "eradication of Sanatan Dharma". When the matter was taken up, the counsel for State of Tamil Nadu referred to the plea as “publicity litigation”. The bench was further told that such petitions were being filed across the country at various High Courts and it was difficult for the state to respond to them all. Jindal's counsel submitted that a call for genocide was made, and the issue was serious. "We will not issue notice in the petition but similar case has been filed so we will tag it..", Justice Trivedi went on to observe.Bench: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi Case Title: Vineet Jindal vs. Union of India | Shaheen Abdulla Vs. Union of India Click here to read more
[Challenge to GNCTD Amendment Act 2023] The Delhi Government requested a CJI DY Chandrachud led bench for early listing of its petition challenging the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act, 2023, which has been referred to a Constitution Bench. Senior Advocate AM Singhvi mentioned the same before court saying, "There is an urgency, the civil servants are not complying with the orders". "This case should have priority, I am mentioning so that it gets listed by November end or December..", Singhvi added. The bench also comprising Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra responded saying that two 7-judge benches were soon coming up, and there were other constitution benches too. "We will see..Complete all common compilations and file everything, so that matter is ripe for hearing..", the CJI then said.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala & Manoj Misra Case Title: GNCTD vs. UoI Click here to read more
[Divorce] The Supreme Court has recently brought closure to a sparring couple who filed a total of 21 cases against each other in a matrimonial dispute, by convincing the husband to accept a decree of divorce and pay a permanent alimony to the wife and child, while granting him a visitation right. "Though mediation has not been successful, we impressed upon parties and the counsels of a desirability of bringing the usual bouquet of cases in matrimonial disputes to an end. In fact, this is an aggravative case where possibly between the parties, there are 21 cases filed by one side or the other!," court said.Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia Case Title: GAURAV GARG vs. SHWETA AGARWAL & ORS.ETC Click here to read more
[Judicial Services] The Supreme Court has recently rejected an application by the Haryana government to allow the state Public Service Commission to conduct the recruitment to the judicial service by modifying the previous order which entrusted the task to a committee comprising three judges of the high court, and others including, Advocate General and Chairperson of Haryana Public Service Commission.Bench: Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra Case Title: Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr vs. U P Public Service Commission & Ors Click here to read more
[Will] The Supreme Court has said that a Will is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy, but the test of satisfaction of the prudent mind has to be applied. "A Will is required to fulfill all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act. The court has to consider two aspects: firstly, that the Will is executed by the testator, and secondly, that it was the last Will executed by him," Court has said.Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol Case Title: MEENA PRADHAN & ORS. vs. KAMLA PRADHAN & ANR. Click here to read more
[Dying Declaration] The Supreme Court has held that a conviction can solely be based upon a dying declaration but it must be trustworthy, reliable and one which inspires confidence. Court has accordingly acquitted Phulel Singh, held guilty of dowry death and sentenced to seven years jail term under Section 304-B of the IPC. In the instant case, after going through the evidence, the bench said there was a "grave doubt" as to whether the dying declaration recorded by Sadhu Singh, Executive Magistrate was a voluntary one or tutored at the instance of brother of the deceased. Bench: Justices B R Gavai, P S Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra Case Title: PHULEL SINGH vs. STATE OF HARAYANA Click here to read more
[IBC] The Supreme Court has clarified its 2019 judgement which upheld a view that in exceptional circumstances, if the 'Corporate Debtor' is MSME (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises), it is not necessary for the promoters to compete with other ‘Resolution Applicants’ to regain the control of the 'Corporate Debtor'. Referring to the 2019 judgement, the bench said it began with the fundamental principle that the court envisages maximization of value of assets of the corporate debtor. Thereafter, it proceeded to discuss the scenario of a corporate debtor, which is an MSME, qua the ineligibility in terms of the inapplicability of Section 29A (c) & (h) of the Code to a promoter. Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia Case Title: R. RAGHAVENDRAN vs. C. RAJA JOHN & ORS. Click here to read more
[Maintenance] The Supreme Court has expressed its shock over the Jharkhand High Court's order reducing monthly maintenance amount from Rs 5000 to 1000 for a wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. "It is shocking that the maintenance amount has been so drastically reduced to a petty amount of Rs 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand) per month for a lady to maintain herself. We find no justification for reduction of the said amount to such extreme lower limit," a division bench has said.Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah Case Title: Richa Devi vs. Gautam Kr. Pandey Click here to read more
[Grounds for bail] The Supreme Court has remarked that bail to a convict cannot be granted merely on the ground that hearing of appeal would take time. While emphasizing this stance, top court has also stressed on the need for High Court to show reflection of mind in such cases. Court has accordingly set aside an Allahabad High Court order, granting bail to a murder convict only upon the ground that it would take time to decide upon the appeal in the case.Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia Case Title: KUSHAL PAL SINGH vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Click here to read more
[Appellate Court] The Supreme Court has said the appellate court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. "Only by recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless the appellate court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion," a division bench has said.Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol Case Title: H. D. SUNDARA & ORS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA Click here to read more
[Chain of Circumstances] The Supreme Court has said that a presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked against the accused when the prosecution fails to establish the chain of circumstances in a case based on circumstantial evidence. "The prosecution can invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act when it succeeds in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused," the judgment says.Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal Case Title: SHEIKH WAHID SHEIKH HAMID vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Click here to read more
[DSP Murder Case] The Supreme Court has directed Central Bureau of Investigation to resume "further investigation" into the role of Uttar Pradesh's former Minister and sitting MLA Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiya into the 2013 sensational killing of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Zia-Ul-Haq in Pratapgarh district. Court has set aside the Allahabad High Court's order of November 25, 2022, which had quashed the special magistrate's direction for further probe by the CBI into the matter. Acting upon a special leave petition filed by Parveen Azad, widow of the deceased, the bench said, "In our view, the High Court took a hyper technical approach in the matter, making superfine distinction between re-investigation and further investigation. There does not appear to be any error on the part of Special Magistrate in directing further investigation."Bench: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi Case Title: PARVEEN AZAD vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR Click here to read more
[Rape, murder accused-Lawyer granted bail] Supreme Court has granted bail to a 75-year-old lawyer held guilty in April this year in a 40-year-old case relating to the committing offences of rape and murder of a young girl. Court has asked the Calcutta High Court to put stringent conditions upon the accused-appellant and fix a time schedule to decide his appeal. "The occurrence is of the year 1983 which is forty years old now. There are reasons and reasons why the trial was delayed. The trial came to an end with the order of conviction of the appellant on 21st April, 2023. The appellant was throughout on bail. The present age of the appellant is about 75 years," the bench noted.Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal Click here to read more
Please Login or Register
