Supreme Court Monthly Roundup – September 2019


TOP STORIES


AYODHYA HEARING

SC issues notice to 2 for threatening senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan

Won’t hear the matter for even a single extra day after October 18: SC to all counsels

SC asks parties to come up with tentative timeline for conclusion of arguments

We don’t want any mediation: Ram Lalla Virajman’s counsel

ARTICLE 370

SC seeks report from J&K HC CJ on claims about people being unable to approach HC

SC asks Central govt to restore normalcy in Jammu & Kashmir

5-judge bench to hear the plea challenging J&K Reorganisation Bill

SC seeks Centre’s response on restoration of internet & landline services in all J&K Medical establishments

INX MEDIA CASE

No anticipatory bail to Chidambaram in ED probe

“In a case of money-laundering where it involves many stages of “placement”, “layering i.e. funds moved to other institutions to conceal origin” and “interrogation i.e. funds used to acquire various assets”, it requires systematic and analysed investigation which would be of great advantage.”


MORE STORIES


Centre to apprise SC on timeline for making & notifying guidelines to curb social media misuse

Some messages can incite violence. There may be messages which are against the sovereignty and integrity of the country. Social media has today become the source of large amount of pornography. Paedophiles use social media in a big way. Drugs, weapons and other contrabands can be sold through the use of platforms run by the intermediaries. It is imperative that there is a properly framed regime to find out the persons/institutions/bodies who are the originators of such content/messages. It may be necessary to get such information from the intermediaries.

Section 102 CrPC doesn’t empower police to attach, seize and seal an immovable property

“In case and if we allow the police officer to ‘seize’ immovable property on a mere ‘suspicion of the commission of any offence’, it would mean and imply giving a drastic and extreme power to dispossess etc. to the police officer on a mere conjecture and surmise, that is, on suspicion, which has hitherto not been exercised.”

CJM competent to deal with the application moved by the secured creditor under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act

The provisions of the Section 14 of the 2002 Act are in no way inconsistent with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, it must then follow that the provisions of the 2002 Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of the Code.

Portuguese Civil Code applicable to succession of all the properties whether within Goa or outside Goa

“Once we have come to the conclusion that the Civil Code is an Indian law and the domiciles of Goa, for all intent and purposes, are Indian citizens, would it be prudent to hold that the Civil Code, in matters of succession, would apply only in respect to properties situated within the territories of Goa?  We do not think so.”

NGOs substantially financed by Government fall within the ambit of ‘public authority’ under RTI Act

“If NGOs or other bodies get substantial finance from the Government, we find no reason why any citizen cannot ask for information to find out whether his/her money which has been given to an NGO or any other body is being used for the requisite purpose or not.”

Court not bound to grant the relief of specific performance merely because the plaintiff is legally right

A party cannot claim that though he may not perform his part of the contract he is entitled to specific performance of the same.

Words “of the fact that he has attained majority” of Section 32-F of Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 struck down

“instead of striking down such classification as a whole, what can be done is to strike down the words “..of the fact that he has attained majority..”, as a result of which, what is added by the 1969 Amendment to Section 32-F(1)(a) now ceases to be discriminatory, as it is applicable to tenants of all three categories of landlords.”

State can’t be estopped from withdrawing the exemption from payment of Excise Duty if such withdrawal is in larger public interest

By invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Union of India cannot be estopped from withdrawing the exemption from payment of Excise Duty in respect of certain products, which exemption is granted by an earlier notification; when the  Union of India finds that such a withdrawal is necessary in the public interest.


IN OTHER NEWS


With the appointment of 4 new judges, Supreme Court gets 34 judges

No hesitation in disclosing the reason for the transfer of judges for cogent reason: SC

 

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.