Ambit of 'Accidental Insurance' defined
Explaining the ambit of 'accidental insurance, the Supreme Court observed that where a disease is caused or transmitted by insect bite/virus in the natural course of events, it would not be covered by the definition of an accident.
But, in a given case or circumstance, the affliction or bodily condition may be regarded as an accident where its cause or course of transmission is unexpected and unforeseen, the bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta observed while dealing with what it called an interesting question of law.
(Case: The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co Ltd v Smt Mousumi Bhattacharjee and others, Civil Appeal 2614/19, decided on 26.03.2019)
Saravana Bhavan's founder held guilty in murder case
The Supreme Court upheld the life sentence awarded to P Rajagopal - the founder of famous South Indian restaurant chain Saravana Bhavan - and five of his aides for murder of Santhakumar in 2001.
The bench of Justices N V Ramana, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee dismissed the batch of appeals filed by accused against the 2009 judgment of Madras High Court. The crime was committed with the motive of Rajagopal to take Jeevajothi, the wife of deceased Santhakumar, as his third wife. Rajagopal had got an advise from his astrologer that his business will flourish if he married Jeevajothi. Rajagopal was given time till July to surrender to serve the sentence. Before that, the 72 year old died due to cardiac arrest on July 18.
(Case : Pattu Rajan and others v State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Appeal No.680-681 of 2009, decided on 29.03.2019)
Official Secrets Act does not bar placing of documents in Court for
The Supreme Court overruled preliminary objections raised by the Centre against the Court relying on documents from Ministry of Defence in order to decide the Rafale case. The Attorney General argued that the documents were protected under the Official Secrets Act, and were unauthorizedly published by media.
A bench of the then CJI Gogoi, Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph held that OSA will not bar the Court from receiving in evidence the documents. The criminal proceedings under the Act for unauthorized publication can be pursued independently; but that will not affect the evidentiary value of the documents, if they are otherwise relevant. Justice K M Joseph wrote a separate but concurring judgment holding that RTI Act has considerably diluted OSA.
(Case : Yashwant Sinha and othes v CBI and others, RP No.46/2019, decided on 10.04.2019)
Free speech cannot be gagged by fear of mob violence: West Bengal cinema
The Supreme Court ordered Rs 20 lakhs compensation to the makers of the Bengali film ""Bhobhishyoter Bhoot", which had suffered an 'unofficial' ban from the West Bengal government.
The police authorities had coerced the movie screens to withdraw the film citing law and order issues. The makers of the film complained that the movie was targeted for being critical against the government.
A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta held that free speech cannot be gagged by fear of mob violence. "The police are not in a free society the self-appointed guardians of public morality.
The uniformed authority of their force is subject to the rule of law. They cannot arrogate to themselves the authority to be willing allies in the suppression of dissent and obstruction of speech and expression", the Court added.
(Case : Indibility Creative Pvt Ltd and others vs Govt of West Bengal and others, WP(c) No. 306/2019, decided on 11.04.2019)
CJI Sexual harassment conspiracy : Probe ordered
In an unusual suo moto proceeding, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Arun Misra, R F Nariman and Deepak Gupta held that former SC judge Justice A K Patnaik will hold enquiry regarding alleged conspiracy by fixers and disgruntled employees against CJI Ranjan Gogoi. The allegations were raised by Advocate Utsav Bains, after an ex-SC staff alleged in media that the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi had sexually harassed her. A panel comprising three SC judges constituted by the top court to probe the sexual harassment allegations later gave a clean chit to the CJI. The complainant had stayed away from the probe citing likelihood of bias. The report of the panel was not made public.The enquiry proceedings were widely criticized by several lawyer bodies as opaque and unfair. Though there are reports that Justice (Retd.) Patnaik has submitted the enquiry report, its details are not made public.
(Case : In re matter of great public importance touching upon the independence of judiciary- mentioned by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, SMW(c) 1/2019, ordered on 25.04.2019)
Karnataka law on reservation of SC/STs in promotions upheld
The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2018.
The said enactment provided for consequential seniority to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes promoted under the reservation policy of the State of Karnataka. The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud observed that this law has cured the deficiency noted in the earlier BK Pavitra judgment in respect of the 2002 law, and it does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power by the state legislature. The Reservation Act 2018 is a valid exercise of the enabling power conferred by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution, the bench added.
(Case : B K Pavitra and others v Union of India, M.A No. 1151/2018 in C.A No. 2368/11, decided on 10.05.2019)
Maradu flats demolition order
The Supreme Court ordered the razing down of four high rise apartments in Maradu, Kochi on finding that they were built in violation of CRZ norms. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha noted that when the construction has been raised by the builders , the area was within CRZ-III as per the 1991 CRZ notification. The Court did not accept the builders' plea that the area has been subsequently notified as CRZ-II (where such constructions are arguably permissible), when the CZMP as per 2011 notification was finalized.
The bench later ordered the Government to pay an interim compensation of Rs 25 lakhs to the flat owners, and constituted a committee headed by former Kerala HC judge Justice K Balakrishnan Nair to ascertain the liability of builders.
(Case : Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority vs State of Kerala and others , Civil Appeal No. 4784-4785/2019, decided on 08.05.2019)
Liability for consuming liquor in a private vehicle
The Supreme Court has held that a private vehicle is not exempted from the definition of 'public place' under the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act 2016. This means that consumption of liquor within a private vehicle in a public place will be an offence under the prohibition laws in Bihar. "as per Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 even a person consumes liquor outside the State of Bihar and enter into the territory of Bihar and is found drunk or in a state of drunkenness, he can be charged with offences under Section 37(b)", the Court said.
(Case : Satvinder Singh @ Satvinder Singh Saluja and others v State of Bihar, Crl Appeal No. 951/2019, decided on 01.07.2019)
Sec 148 NI Act has retrospective effect
The Supreme Court has held that Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as amended, shall be applicable in respect of the appeals against the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, even in a case where the criminal complaints for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were filed prior to 2018 amendment Act i.e., prior to 01.09.2018.
(Case : Surinder Singh Desawal v Virender Gandhi, Crl Appeal 917-944/2019, decided on 29.05.2019)
Section 143A NI Act has no retrospective effect
Settling a confusion in prosecution of cheque bounce cases, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act on payment of interim compensation to the complainant during the pendency of the case has no retrospective application.
This means that Section 143A will apply to only those complaints filed after the 2018 amendment to the NI Act which inserted the provision.
(Case : G J Raja v Tej Raj Surana, decided on 30.07.2019)
Restoration of convictions in Haren Pandya murder case
A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran restored the convictions in murder case of former Gujarat Home Minister Haren Pandya.
The Gujarat High Court had acquitted all the 12 convicts after observing that CBI had "botched up" the investigation. The bench also dismissed with costs of Rs 50,000 a PIL filed by NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation' (CPIL) which has sought court-monitored fresh investigation into the killing.
(Case : CBI vs Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayyum, Crl Appeals No, 140-151/2012, decided on 05.07.2019)
Karnataka Assembly case : Round 1
In the first round of Karnataka assembly imborglio, the Supreme Court passed an interim order holding that the fifteen rebel MLAs cannot be compelled to attend assembly proceedings, and that they were at liberty to skip attending house.
The bench of CJI Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose also refused to fix a time frame for the Speaker to decide on the resignations submitted by the MLAs. The MLAs had approached the Court contending that the Speaker had not acted on their resignations. Speaker maintained that their resignations were a method to circumvent the consequences of their defection. The SC bench comprising the then CJI Googi, Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose held that the interim order was passed to maintain 'constitutional balance'. Critical comment on the order .
(Case : Pratap Gouda Patil and others v State of Karnataka and others, WP(c) 872/2019, decided on 17.07.2019)
Cancellation of Amrapali's RERA Registration
In a major relief to thousands of homebuyers, the Supreme Court cancelled the registration of Amrapali group under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016, and directed the National Building Construction Corporation take over its pending construction projects in Greater Noida and Noida.
The bench of Justices Arun Mishra and U U Lalit found that Amrapali group had siphoned off homebuyers money with the connivance of Greater Noida and Noida authorities.
The Court has directed the Enforcement Directorate to initiate action under Prevention of Money Laundering Act and Foreign Exchange Management Act against Amrapali directors and authorities, and update the Court with progress of probe with periodic reports.
(Case : Bikram Chatterji and others v Union of India and others, WP(c) No.940/17, decided on 23.07.2019)
Magistrate has power to direct accused to give voice samples
The Supreme Court held that a judicial magistrate can direct an accused to provide his voice samples for investigation even without his consent.
A three-judges bench led by the CJI thus settled the confusion which arose out of the split verdict in the 2012 verdict by a two judges bench in Ritesh Sinha v State of UP. The CJI-led bench said that in the absence of specific powers in the Code of Criminal Procedure, inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution should be invoked to confer such power on the Magistrate. A critical comment on this judgment may be read here.
(Case :Ritesh Sinha v State of UP, Crl Appeal No. 2003/2012, decided on 02.08.2019)
Person can maintain suit to claim title by adverse possession
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court held that any person who has perfected title by way of adverse possession, can file a suit for restoration of possession in case of dispossession. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice MR Shah observed that plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff.
0 Comments