Upholding the Karnataka High Court order, the Supreme Court held that the Karnataka High Court has not committed any error in permitting the respondents to file affidavits/additional evidence in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. However, permitted the appellant to cross-examine and/or produce contrary evidence.
by Siddharth R. Gupta† and Sangam Ghorpade††
The Supreme Court had reservation to express its opinion on the merits of the case which would otherwise affect the proceedings pending before NCLAT and stated that the findings of the CCI at the interlocutory stage was neither without jurisdiction nor suffered from any error which would necessitate interference in the appeal.
Supreme Court grants interim bail to Ashish Mishra, son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra in an unfortunate and grave incident at Lakhimpur Kheri which led to the loss of eight lives, consisting of four protesting farmers, one journalist and three others
5-Judge Constitution Bench of SC was hearing application to modify guidelines prescribed in 2018 Euthanasia Judgment and viewed that the guidelines need modifications. Thus, simplified the process for passive euthanasia. A detailed order with specific directions is awaited.
The Supreme Court held that the J&K High Court transgressed its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by directing the cinema hall owners not to prohibit movie goers from carrying eatables and beverages from outside within the precincts of a cinema hall and by directing the State to enforce this direction to the cinema hall owners.
Observing that performance of functions identical to those performed by medical practitioners by persons who do not possess the qualifications prescribed under the Central Act, could have dangerous consequences, the Supreme Court held that Rural Health Practitioners enlisted under the Assam Act, are underqualified to perform functions similar to those performed by medical practitioners registered in accordance with the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
“We are shocked and amazed at the manner in which the State of Rajasthan has permitted its heritage to be destroyed and continues to permit it to be destroyed while claiming its rights under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956!” exclaimed the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court stated that the Allahabad High Court erred in granting bail to the respondent, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, the relationship between the parties and the prima facie evidence on record with reference to common intention as well as antecedents of the respondent.
Supreme Court has ordered that the Rajasthan High Court's impugned order being interlocutory in nature, shall not be treated as precedent for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner in other cases, and the question of law was kept open to be decided in an appropriate case.
by K. Vaitheeswaran*
The Supreme Court observed that the defendants, being in possession, would be entitled to protect and save their possession, unless the person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in the form of ownership or entitlement to possession.
The Supreme Court has directed ONGC and State to either comply with the Gujarat High Court's order directing the permanent acquisition of land by ONGC on or before 26.04.2023 or face necessary consequences.
The prayer seeking free public access to chargesheets and final reports was made relying on ruling in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC 473, wherein the Supreme Court had directed copies of FIRs to be published within 24 hours of their registration on the police websites or on the websites of the State Governments.
The Supreme Court observed that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited and that the Madras High Court ‘could not have interfered with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court.
Supreme Court said that prior approval of the Director of Education is mandatory as per Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989, on termination after the disciplinary proceedings.
Supreme Court noted that the ‘interest' only follows the ‘principal', therefore, the ‘principal' being the payable tax, resulted into no liability to pay the tax along with return. Consequently, held that there is no liability to pay interest if there was no liability to pay the tax.
The Supreme Court's observation came after the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) had referred to Wikipedia for coming to the conclusion in a case under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
On the final day of the hearing, Solicitor General, sought reference of Constitution Bench's 2018 judgment which interpreted Article 239 AA of the Constitution and asserted the supremacy of the elected government by stating that Lieutenant Governor was bound by ‘aid and advice' of Council of Ministers.
The Supreme Court noticed that in the case at hand, without giving any reasonable time to the investigating agency to investigate the allegations in the FIR, the Madras High Court has, in haste, quashed the criminal proceedings.