Month: January 2022

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 – Sections 13(4) and 17 – Writ petitions against the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was not required to be entertained by the High Court – Filing of the writ petition by the borrowers before the High Court is nothing but an abuse of process of Court

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. VISHWA BHARATI VIDYA MANDIR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Declaration of guardian of a minor – Issue regarding custody of a minor child and the issue of the repatriation of the child to the native country has to be addressed on the sole criteria of the welfare of the minor and not on consideration of the legal rights of the parents – if interest of the minor which is the paramount consideration requires that the custody of a minor child should not be with the mother, the Court will be justified in disturbing the custody of the mother even if the age of the minor is less than five years

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VASUDHA SETHI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KIRAN V. BHASKAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…

Deficiency in service – Failure of builder to obtain the occupation certificate is a deficiency in service – Respondent-builder was responsible for transferring the title to the flats to the society along with the occupancy certificate – Failure of the respondent to obtain the occupation certificate is a deficiency in service – members of society society are well within their rights as ‘consumers’ to pray for compensation as a recompense for the consequent liability (such as payment of higher taxes and water charges by the owners) arising from the lack of an occupancy certificate.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAMRUDDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MUMBAI MAHALAXMI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S.…

(IPC) – Section 498A – Cruelty – When an offence has been committed by a woman by meting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-law, it becomes a more serious offence – If a lady, i.e., the mother-in-law herein does not protect another lady, the other lady, i.e., daughter-in-law would become vulnerable – appellant is reported to be approximately 80 years old, sentence reduced.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MEERA — Appellant Vs. STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVOTRIYUR POLICE STATION CHENNAI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…

Murder of disabled person – Cancellation of Bail – – Accused is a person exercising significant political influence and that owing to the same, the informant found it difficult to get an FIR registered against him – That the accused was arrested only following a protest outside a police station demanding his arrest – Thus, the possibility of the accused threatening or otherwise influencing the witnesses, if on bail, cannot be ruled out

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOJ KUMAR KHOKHAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal…

Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003 – Ss 12, 13 and 13(6) – N D and P S Act, 1985 – Section 21(b) – Respondent transferred to India on agreement between Government of India and Government of Mauritius on the Transfer of Prisoners – High Court reduced the sentence from 26 years to 10 years – Sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius in this case is binding on India

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHAIKH ISTIYAQ AHMED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai,…

Board Resolution be approved by General Body and the resolutions for the years 1995 ­2000 were not traced, it has been commented in the Report that the Board resolution is without authorisation – Respondent is a member of the Society and being entitled to allotment of a plot – Allotment being of the year 2000, construction has also been raised – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VELAGACHARLA JAYARAM REDDY — Appellant Vs. M. VENKATA RAMANA AND OTHERS .ETC. — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and Hima…

An award can be set aside only if the award is against the public policy of India. The award can be set aside under Sections 34/37 of the Arbitration Act, if the award is found to be contrary to, (a) fundamental policy of Indian Law; or (b) the interest of India; or (c) justice or morality; or (d) if it is patently illegal.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARYANA TOURISM LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S KANDHARI BEVERAGES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Word ‘dowry’ and takes in its ambit any kind of property or valuable security, demand for money for construction of house as falling within the definition of the word ‘dowry’ – Trial Court was correct and the husband deserved to be convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC – Appeal partly allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. JOGENDRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, JJ.…

Service Matters

Bank pension scheme – Non­availability of financial resources would not be a defence available to the Bank in taking away the vested rights accrued to the employees that too when it is for their socio­economic security – It is an assurance that in their old age, their periodical payment towards pension shall remain assured – Pension which is being paid to them is not a bounty and it is for the Bank to divert the resources from where the funds can be made available

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.