{"id":237810,"date":"2020-10-21T13:16:02","date_gmt":"2020-10-21T07:46:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=237810"},"modified":"2021-10-21T17:54:08","modified_gmt":"2021-10-21T12:24:08","slug":"know-thy-judge-justice-s-ravindra-bhat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/know-thy-judge-justice-s-ravindra-bhat\/","title":{"rendered":"Know Thy Judge| Justice S. Ravindra Bhat"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\u201cWe gained our freedom at a great cost. Every Indian, therefore, has to use his liberties to constantly question the actions of those in power because democracy gives no tickets to free meals. It is for us to assert and guard liberty and not be complacent about any encroachment.\u201d[1]<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

– Justice S. Ravindra Bhat<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Justice S. Ravindra Bhat was born on October 21, 1958 in Mysore, Karnataka. He completed his schooling from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Faridabad. He completed B.A.(Hons.) in English from Hindu College, University of Delhi and graduated in law from Campus Law Centre, Delhi University, in 1982.<\/p>\n

Justice Bhat enrolled as an Advocate with the Delhi Bar Council in 1982 and practised before the Supreme Court, where he was enrolled as an Advocate on Record in 1989, the Delhi High Court and various other judicial forums. He had an exposure in different branches of law like Public Law, Banking, Employment, Education, Labour and Service, Constitutional Disputes and Indirect Taxation during his legal career.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

Justice Bhat was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Delhi High Court on July 16, 2004 and as a Permanent Judge on February 20, 2006.<\/p>\n

\u2666Did You Know?<\/span> <\/strong>Justice S. Ravindra Bhat headed India\u2019s first High Court level e-court \u2013 Delhi HighCourt.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Justice Bhat was appointed as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Rajasthan on May 5, 2019 and was elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on September 23, 2019.<\/p>\n

\n

Notable Judgements at Supreme Court<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n
\n

\u2666Did You Know?<\/span> <\/strong>Justice S Ravindra Bhat has recused himself from hearing the Centre\u2019s plea seeking Rs 7,844 crore as additional fund from successor firms of US-based Union Carbide Corporation for giving compensation to the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy victims.[3]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Shaikh Ansar Ahmad Md. Husain v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 867<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n

The Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat*,<\/strong> JJ., dismisses the appeal initiated by the accused contractors in Integrated Housing and Slum Development corruption case. The Bench observed,<\/p>\n

\u201cThe constructions, according to the reports, were sub-standard \u2013 in respect of 100 such houses, so severe that the units were unusable. The main objective of providing housing to 1206 eligible and deserving families remains unfulfilled despite expenditure of substantial amounts.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Read More\u2026<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

_________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

Mohd. Rafiq v. State of M.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 731<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n

The bench of KM Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat*<\/strong>, JJ has reiterated the factors to be considered while deciding the question of whether in a given case, a homicide is murder, punishable under Section 302 IPC, or culpable homicide, of either description, punishable under Section 304 IPC.<\/p>\n

The Court explained that the use of the term \u201clikely\u201d in several places in respect of culpable homicide, highlights the element of uncertainty that the act of the accused may or may not have killed the person. Section 300 IPC which defines murder, however refrains from the use of the term likely, which reveals absence of ambiguity left on behalf of the accused. The accused is for sure that his act will definitely cause death.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cIt is often difficult to distinguish between culpable homicide and murder as both involve death. Yet, there is a subtle distinction of intention and knowledge involved in both the crimes. This difference lies in the degree of the act. There is a very wide variance of degree of intention and knowledge among both the crimes.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Read More\u2026<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

_________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

Delhi<\/strong> Airport<\/strong> Metro Express (P) Ltd. v. DMRC, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 695<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n

A Division Bench comprising of L. Nageswara Rao*<\/strong> and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. upheld the arbitral award of Rs 2782.33 crore plus interest made by the Arbitral Tribunal in favour of\u00a0 Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which had interfered with the Tribunal\u2019s award. While so deciding, the Supreme Court also observed that:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThere is a disturbing tendency of courts setting aside arbitral awards, after dissecting and reassessing factual aspects of the cases to come to a conclusion that the award needs intervention \u2026\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Following is a comprehensive report of Supreme Court\u2019s analysis of law on the subject and merits of the appeal.<\/p>\n

Read More\u2026<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

_________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

Commissioner of Police v. Raj Kumar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 637<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n

The Bench of K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat*<\/strong>, JJ. while addressing the matter, observed that,<\/p>\n

\u201cPublic service \u2013 like any other, pre-supposes that the state employer has an element of latitude or choice on who should enter its service. Norms, based on principles, govern essential aspects such as qualification, experience, age, number of attempts permitted to a candidate, etc. These, broadly constitute eligibility conditions required of each candidate or applicant aspiring to enter public service.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Appellant (Commissioner of Police, Delhi) on being aggrieved by the Delhi High Court decision by which the respondents were directed to be considered for appointed to the post of Constable of Delhi Police, filed the present appeal.<\/p>\n

Read More\u2026<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

_________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

Laureate Buildwell (P) Ltd. v. Charanjeet Singh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 479<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n

The Bench of Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat*<\/strong>, JJ., while giving major relief to homebuyers, held that rights of purchasers are the same as that of original allottees.<\/p>\n

Appellant (builder) was aggrieved by the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).<\/p>\n

Respondent (Purchaser) sought a direction against the builder, for a refund of the consideration amount of Rs 1,93,70, 883 received by the latter as consideration for the sale of a flat along with interest from the date different instalments were paid as well as compensation and costs.<\/p>\n

Read More\u2026<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

_________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 341<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n

The 3-judge bench of the former CJI SA Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhatt, JJ had issued detailed directions to all Courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings after the troubles of the decree holder in not being able to enjoy the fruits of litigation on account of inordinate delay caused during the process of execution of decree were brought to the Court\u2019s notice.<\/p>\n

Read More\u2026<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

_________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister,\u00a02021 SCC OnLine SC 362<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n

The 5-judge bench of\u00a0Ashok Bhushan*,\u00a0<\/strong>S.A. Nazeer,\u00a0L. Nageswara Rao**, Hemant Gupta** and S. Ravindra Bhat**<\/strong>, JJ quashed the much in debate Maratha Reservation and has held that the Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in the public services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018\u00a0as amended in 2019 granting 12% and 13% reservation for Maratha community in addition to 50% social reservation is not covered by exceptional circumstances as contemplated by Constitution Bench in\u00a0Indra Sawhney<\/strong><\/a>\u2019s case.<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a>\u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n

_________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS,\u00a02021 SCC OnLine SC 329<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n

After noticing common deficiencies which occur in the course of criminal trials and certain practices adopted by trial courts in criminal proceedings as well as in the disposal of criminal cases and causes, the 3-judge bench of SA Bobde, CJ and L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhatt, JJ has directed all High Courts to take expeditious steps to incorporate the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021 as part of the rules governing criminal trials, and ensure that the existing rules, notifications, orders and practice directions are suitably modified, and promulgated (wherever necessary through the Official Gazette) within 6 months.<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a>\u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n

_________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

In Re: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT 1881,\u00a02021 SCC OnLine SC 325<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n

Noticing that the summary trials of complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are being routinely converted to summons trials in a \u201cmechanical manner\u201d, the Constitution bench of SA Bobde, CJ and L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ has directed the High Courts to issue practice directions to the Magistrates for recording cogent and sufficient reasons while doing so.<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a>\u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n

_________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

IN RE: DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 339<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n

A day before Justice Bobde\u2019s retirement, the 3-judge bench of SA Bobde, CJ and L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ has taken suo motu cognisance of the \u201cgrim\u201d situation of the country hit by the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic and has asked the Central Government to report on,<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The existence or otherwise and requirement of setting up of a coordinating body that would consider allocation of COVID resources in a consultative manner (with the involvement of concerned States and Union 3 Territories).<\/li>\n
  2. Considering declaration of essential medicines and medical equipment including the Drugs, oxygen and vaccination as essential commodities in relation to COVID.<\/li>\n
  3. In respect of coordination of logistical support for inter-State and Intra-State transportation and distribution of the above resources.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Read More\u2026<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

    Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 258<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n

    The division bench of L. Nageswara Rao<\/strong>* and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ has quashed the criminal case registered against Shillong Times Editor Patricia Mukhim under Sections 153 A, 500 and 505 (1) (c) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.<\/p>\n

    \n

    \u201cFree speech of the citizens of this country cannot be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases, unless such speech has the tendency to affect public order.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    Read More\u2026<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

    Sushila Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi,<\/strong>\u00a0 (2020) 5 SCC 1<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

    A 5-judge bench comprising of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah*,<\/strong> and S. Ravindra Bhat*<\/strong>*, JJ., unanimously ruled that the protection granted to a person under Section 438 Cr.PC should not invariably be limited to a fixed period; it should inure in favour of the accused without any restriction on time.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Read More\u2026<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

    Indore<\/strong> Development Authority v. Manohar Lal Sharma, (2020) 8 SCC 129<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n

    The 5-judge bench of Arun Mishra*<\/strong>, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah, and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ., unanimously held that the land owners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013<\/em><\/p>\n

    Last year,\u00a0Justice Arun Mishra, heading the Bench, had refused to recuse himself from hearing the case<\/a>\u00a0and had said,<\/p>\n

    \n

    \u201cI would be committing a grave blunder by recusal in the circumstances, on the grounds prayed for, and posterity will not forgive me down the line for setting a bad precedent. It is only for the interest of the judiciary (which is supreme) and the system (which is\u00a0nulli secundus<\/em>) that has compelled me not to recuse.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    Justice Mishra\u2019s recusal was sought on the ground that he was heading a Bench meant to re-examine a judgment that he had himself given in 2018 in\u00a0Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, (2018) 3 SCC 412.\u00a0<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

    Read More\u2026<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

    New India Assurance v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n

    A 5-judge bench consisting of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran*<\/strong>, MR Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ., held that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<\/p>\n

    The bench was answering the reference relating to the grant of time for filing response to a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 wherein the answers to the following questions were sought:<\/p>\n