{"id":132401,"date":"2017-06-01T10:19:14","date_gmt":"2017-06-01T04:49:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=132401"},"modified":"2017-06-01T10:19:14","modified_gmt":"2017-06-01T04:49:14","slug":"2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/","title":{"rendered":"2017 SCC Vol. 4 May 21, 2017 Part 4"},"content":{"rendered":"

Advocates \u2014 Disciplinary proceedings \u2014 Enquiry procedure \u2014 Principles of natural justice \u2014 Violation of:<\/strong> It was alleged that appellant advocates (brothers of respondent complainant) failed to maintain proper rental account of respondent and recording of finding of guilt on basis of evidence and affidavit filed by respondent complainant during enquiry without giving opportunity to appellants to cross-examine respondent and his witnesses, and relying on documents produced by him which were in vernacular language without providing translated copy thereof to appellants, Supreme Court held that since allegations made against appellants were serious and finding of guilt recorded against them inevitably had civil consequences, it is cardinal that they should have been allowed to cross-examine witnesses concerned. Not granting such opportunity, entails infraction of principles of natural justice, thus, vitiating enquiry procedure. However, instead of relegating parties to BCI for conducting fresh enquiry, considering that complaint was made in 1997 and that too by brother of appellants because of some family disputes and further that appellants had suffered ignominy due to pendency of enquiry against them including finding of guilt recorded by BCI, it is found prudent to give quietus to matter. [Palanisamy v. K. Dhanpalan, (2017) 4 SCC 713<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 Ss. 12(5) & 11(8) r\/w Sch. 7 \u2014 \u201cNeutrality of arbitrators\u201d i.e. impartiality and independence of the arbitrators \u2014 Necessity of:<\/strong> S. 12 has been amended with the objective to induce neutrality of arbitrators and the amended provision enacted to identify the \u201ccircumstances\u201d which give rise to \u201cjustifiable doubts\u201d about the independence or impartiality of the arbitrator. An arbitrator has adjudicatory role to perform and, therefore, must be independent of parties as well as impartial. [Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh v. Delhi Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2017) 4 SCC 665<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Armed Forces \u2014 Disability Pension \u2014 Entitlement to \u2014 Absence of disabilities or disease noted or recorded at time of entry into service of armed forces:<\/strong> Rejection of appellant\u2019s claim for disability pension, who at time of entry into armed forces service was found fit, on basis of opinion of Medical Board, who though diagnosing appellant with acute schizophrenia like psychotic order and assessing his disability at 60% for life but opining that said disability was neither attributable nor aggravated by military service, not proper. Since it is undisputed that appellant was not suffering from any disease\/disability at time of entering into military service, Medical Board should have called for his service record at time of joining military service before determining that disability was not attributable to military service. In absence of any evidence to show appellant was suffering from any such disease at time of entering military service, presumed that appellant was in sound mental condition at that time and deterioration of health had taken place due to military service. Hence, wife of appellant and other legal heirs entitled to disability pension. [Laxmanram Poonia v. Union of India,\u00a0 (2017) 4 SCC 697<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 S. 114 & Or. 47 R. 1 \u2014 Review jurisdiction \u2014 Duty of courts, registries of courts, litigants and lawyers:<\/strong> Having regard to limited scope, review petition has to be expeditiously disposed of. Any time-frame cannot be fixed. It is duty of registry of High Courts to place review petition before Judge\/Bench concerned so that such petition can be dealt with in quite promptitude. If notice required to be issued to opposite party, then specific date can be given so that on that day petition can be disposed of in accordance with law. Litigant cannot keep review petition defective as if a defective petition can be allowed to remain on life support, as per desire of litigant. If review petition is defective then it is duty of counsel for petitioner to remove such defects at the earliest. Defective matters can be placed before Judge\/Bench concerned so that preemptory orders can be passed for removal of defects. Tactics of waiting for rejection of review petition and then challenge such orders in SLP after delay contending that petitioner was pursuing review before court cannot be adopted. Court registry required to be vigilant. [Sasi v. Aravindakshan Nair, (2017) 4 SCC 692<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Ss. 92 and 115 \u2014 Object of S. 92 CPC \u2014 Leave of court to institute suit alleging breach of trust:<\/strong> \u201cTrust\u201d must have lawful purpose for which it is established. Trust can be created by virtue of a conditional gift. If leave granted by trial court by forming prima facie opinion about creation of trust, having regard to charitable purpose for which property is gifted and recitals in deed regarding administration of property, High Court in exercise of revisional power under S. 115 CPC is not justified in setting aside trial court\u2019s order. [Swami Shivshankargiri Chella Swami v. Satya Gyan Niketan, (2017) 4 SCC 771<\/a>]<\/p>\n

J&K Contempt of Courts Act, 1997 (25 of 1997) \u2014 Ss. 10 and 15 \u2014 Reference to High Court \u2014 Locus standi \u2014 General contemptuous action:<\/strong> Report of Petitioner 2 published by Petitioner 1 levelling allegations of corruption against lower judiciary in State of J&K and contention was raised that only that particular court of which contempt was allegedly committed could make reference and not just any court, Supreme Court held that the same does not merit acceptance since S. 15(2) contemplates a situation where alleged contemptuous action is aimed at more than one court and in that eventuality any one of such courts can make reference to High Court. Where contemptuous action is of general nature, and not aimed at any specific Judges or courts, any of such Judges or court can make reference to High Court. [Transparency International India v. State of J&K, (2017) 4 SCC 748<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 \u2014 Ss. 23 and 28 \u2014 Valuation of land \u2014 Factors \u2014 Lands identical and similar \u2014 Acquisition in adjacent villages:<\/strong> When inter se distance between two villages is not much, however, centre to centre distance between the two villages is less than half a kilometer. There was no reason for Reference Court to differentiate land of appellant landowners of acquired land, awarding lesser compensation. [Ali Mohammad Beigh v. State of J&K, (2017) 4 SCC 717<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 \u2014 Ss. 3(b), 23 and 50 \u2014 Compensation \u2014 Determination of \u2014 Necessary and proper parties \u2014 Who are:<\/strong> Postacquisition allottee of land, neither necessary nor proper party, nor has any locus to be heard in matter of determination of compensation. [Satish Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana, (2017) 4 SCC 760<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 \u2014 S. 166(3) [before and after its deletion] \u2014 Limitation period for filing claims provided for under S. 166(3) of 1988 Act and 110-A(3) of 1939 Act, finally done away with vide deletion of S. 166(3) of 1988 Act w.e.f. 14-11-1994 \u2014 Effect of:<\/strong> Deletion of S. 166(3) does not revive stale or dead claims. A claim raised before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal can be considered to be genuine, so long as it is a live and surviving claim. Individual concerned must approach the Tribunal within a reasonable time. Further, reasonability would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. [Purohit & Co. v. Khatoonbee, (2017) 4 SCC 783<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 \u2014 Ss. 149 and 147 \u2014 Award passed against insured (owner) only:<\/strong> When death in the motor accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of a private vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo and victims were travelling as \u201cgratuitous passengers\u201d in that vehicle, on these facts, exonerating the insurer of the offending vehicle, award passed by courts below only against the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. the person insured, in such a case, appellant claimants were entitled for an order against the insurer to pay the awarded sum to claimants and then to recover the said amount from the insured in the same proceedings as per the law laid down in para 26 of the judgment made in Saju P. Paul, (2013) 2 SCC 41. Since High Court erred in not passing such an order, its impugned order modified accordingly. Merely because compensation had not yet been paid to claimants though the case was quite old (i.e. 16 yrs old), was not a ground to deny said relief to claimants. Even the argument to deny that relief to claimants due to pendency of a reference in such matter before a larger Bench, was not sustainable in view of the fact that said matter had already been disposed of by keeping that issue undecided. [Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, (2017) 4 SCC 796<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 \u2014 Rr. 8(6) and 9(1) \u2014 Notice to borrower regarding creditor\u2019s intention to sell the asset and \u201cpublic notice for sale\u201d:<\/strong> It is permissible to simultaneously issue notice to the borrower about the intention to sell the secured assets and also to issue a public notice for sale of such secured asset by inviting tenders from the public or by holding public auction, the only restriction being to give thirty days\u2019 time gap between such notice and the date of sale of the immovable secured asset. [Canara Bank v. M. Amarender Reddy, (2017) 4 SCC 735<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 \u2014 S. 53-A \u2014 Protection available under S. 53-A to transferee \u2014 Availability of, even if suit for specific performance of agreement in favour of such transferee stands time-barred:<\/strong> Though mere expiry of the period of limitation for a suit for specific performance is not a bar for a person in possession of immovable property in part-performance of a contract for transfer thereof for consideration, to assert the shield of Section 53-A TPA, it is nevertheless imperative that to avail the benefit of such protection, all the essential prerequisites therefor have been complied with. [Vasanthi v. Venugopal, (2017) 4 SCC 723<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Advocates \u2014 Disciplinary proceedings \u2014 Enquiry procedure \u2014 Principles of natural justice \u2014 Violation of: It was alleged that appellant advocates (brothers <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":108801,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,16],"tags":[13041,11411],"class_list":["post-132401","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-supremecourtcases","tag-cases-reported-in-scc","tag-supreme-court-cases"],"yoast_head":"\n2017 SCC Vol. 4 May 21, 2017 Part 4 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2017 SCC Vol. 4 May 21, 2017 Part 4\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Advocates \u2014 Disciplinary proceedings \u2014 Enquiry procedure \u2014 Principles of natural justice \u2014 Violation of: It was alleged that appellant advocates (brothers\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-06-01T04:49:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/scc-weekly-14-02-17.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/\",\"name\":\"2017 SCC Vol. 4 May 21, 2017 Part 4 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/scc-weekly-14-02-17.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-06-01T04:49:14+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/scc-weekly-14-02-17.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/scc-weekly-14-02-17.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2017 SCC Vol. 4 May 21, 2017 Part 4\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\",\"name\":\"Saba\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Saba\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2017 SCC Vol. 4 May 21, 2017 Part 4 | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2017 SCC Vol. 4 May 21, 2017 Part 4","og_description":"Advocates \u2014 Disciplinary proceedings \u2014 Enquiry procedure \u2014 Principles of natural justice \u2014 Violation of: It was alleged that appellant advocates (brothers","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2017-06-01T04:49:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/scc-weekly-14-02-17.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/","name":"2017 SCC Vol. 4 May 21, 2017 Part 4 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/scc-weekly-14-02-17.jpg","datePublished":"2017-06-01T04:49:14+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/scc-weekly-14-02-17.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/scc-weekly-14-02-17.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2017 SCC Vol. 4 May 21, 2017 Part 4"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785","name":"Saba","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Saba"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/scc-weekly-14-02-17.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":87891,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/11\/25\/supreme-court-confirms-injunction-against-lexisnexis-in-the-ebc-copyright-infringement-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":132401,"position":0},"title":"Supreme Court confirms injunction against LexisNexis in the EBC copyright infringement case","author":"SM","date":"November 25, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In an appeal filed by LexisNexis against the\u00a0injunction granted by the Allahabad High Court on 1.4.2014 in favour of Eastern Book Company, a Bench of Ranjan Gogoi and R.V. Ramana, JJ disposed of the appeal by\u00a0a short order in the following manner: \u201cThe appellants will be at liberty\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":265411,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/14\/forum-shopping-civil-complaint-criminal-case-section-482-supreme-court-legal-research-updates-news-high-courts\/","url_meta":{"origin":132401,"position":1},"title":"Forum Shopping and Power of High Court u\/s 482 CrPC; Supreme Court tells when to convert a civil complaint into criminal case","author":"Editor","date":"April 14, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cForum shopping has been termed as disreputable practice by the courts and has no sanction and paramountcy in law.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/Forum-Shopping-and-Power-of-High-Court-us-482-CrPC-Supreme-Court-tells-when-to-convert-a-civil-complaint-into-criminal-case.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/Forum-Shopping-and-Power-of-High-Court-us-482-CrPC-Supreme-Court-tells-when-to-convert-a-civil-complaint-into-criminal-case.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/Forum-Shopping-and-Power-of-High-Court-us-482-CrPC-Supreme-Court-tells-when-to-convert-a-civil-complaint-into-criminal-case.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/Forum-Shopping-and-Power-of-High-Court-us-482-CrPC-Supreme-Court-tells-when-to-convert-a-civil-complaint-into-criminal-case.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/Forum-Shopping-and-Power-of-High-Court-us-482-CrPC-Supreme-Court-tells-when-to-convert-a-civil-complaint-into-criminal-case.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":266617,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/09\/2022-scc-vol-3-part-4-supreme-court-cases\/","url_meta":{"origin":132401,"position":2},"title":"2022 SCC Vol. 3 Part 4","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 9, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"In Part 4 of 2022 SCC Volume 3, read some very pertinent Supreme Court decisions, involving aspects regarding reservation, accountability of social media platforms, service law and more. Constitution of India \u2014 Arts. 14, 15, 16 and 226 \u2014 Writ of mandamus in matters of reservation \u2014 Scope and limit:\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":292912,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/supreme-court-imposes-rs-1-lakh-cost-on-iskcon-officials-for-filing-frivolous-litigation\/","url_meta":{"origin":132401,"position":3},"title":"\u201cCourts can\u2019t be used to settle personal scores\u201d; SC imposes Rs 1 Lakh cost on ISKCON Kolkata officials for filing frivolous litigation against Bangalore counterparts","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"May 24, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court observed that just as bad coins drive out good coins from circulation, bad cases drive out good cases from being heard on time.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"frivolous litigation","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/frivolous-litigation-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/frivolous-litigation-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/frivolous-litigation-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/frivolous-litigation-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":207198,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/25\/interim-measure-suspending-alleged-from-practicing-as-attorney-passed-pending-disciplinary-enquiry\/","url_meta":{"origin":132401,"position":4},"title":"Interim measure suspending alleged person from practicing as attorney passed pending disciplinary enquiry","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 25, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa: This appeal was filed before a 5-Judge Bench comprising of Zondi, JA.; Navsa ADP., Mbha, Molemela and Makgoka, JJA., against the order of High Court where appellants application for removal of respondent\u2019s name from the roll of advocates was rejected. Respondent was alleged\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/1200px-High_Court_Bloemfontein_South_Africa.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/1200px-High_Court_Bloemfontein_South_Africa.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/1200px-High_Court_Bloemfontein_South_Africa.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/1200px-High_Court_Bloemfontein_South_Africa.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/1200px-High_Court_Bloemfontein_South_Africa.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":200502,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/22\/relatives-of-husband-acquitted-of-charge-under-section-498-a-ipc-on-finding-allegations-to-be-omnibus-and-unspecific-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":132401,"position":5},"title":"Relatives of husband acquitted of charge under Section 498-A IPC on finding allegations to be omnibus and unspecific: SC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 22, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ. allowed a criminal petition filed against the judgment of Hyderabad High Court whereby appellants\u2019 petition under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed. Respondent 2-wife filed a complaint alleging harassment by her husband and his relatives including the appellants\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132401","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/91"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132401"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132401\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/108801"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132401"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132401"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132401"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}