Judgement Updates by Legal Thirst on few Important Supreme Court Cases – Week Covered this time after Diwali Gap is from 1st of Nov to 7th of Nov, 2021.
Table of Contents
1. Goutam Roy V. State of West Bengal
[DIWALI UPDATES] Supreme Court sets aside Calcutta High Court Order of blanket ban on Firecrackers saying, “There can’t be total ban on firecrackers”.
Apex Court Special Vacation Bench consisting of Justice AM Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi; passed an order in Goutam Roy V. State of West Bengal; uplifting the blanket ban imposed by Calcutta High Court in West Bengal on use of Firecrackers during festival celebration of year end festivals including Kali Puja, Diwali, Chatt Puja in Bihar, Jagadhatri Puja, Guru Nanak’s Birthday, Christmas and New Year’s Eve.
The blanket ban by HC on firecrackers is meant by restriction on use of ‘Green Crackers’ as well, but Supreme Court keeping in view the religious sentiments and on other hand also balances the environment concerns by allowing use of green crackers.
2. Dinesh Mahajan vs Vishal mahajan | LL 2021 SC 620
Supreme Court rejected a transfer Petition of a case pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu; under section 420 & 506 IPC to the Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
The Court dismissed a Transfer Petition U/s 406 Cr.P.C. filed on the ground of Apprehension of Threat of life. The petitioner relied on the Judgement of “Puneet Dalmia vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad” 2020 12 SCC 695; where the Puneet Dalmia seeks exemption from personal appearance on the ground of apprehension.
The SC founds no ground to transfer the said case in present petition; as not supported by any Complaint made prior to the petition to counter the Apprehension.
3. Ganesan vs State | LL 2021 SC 614
The Coram of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah allowed an appeal and cleared the difference between 397 I.P.C. & 398 I.P.C.; stating that without use of deadly weapon the charge under section 397 I.P.C. is not made out.
An accused with no deadly weapon can’t be tried into 397 I.P.C.
The Supreme Court relying on its previous judgements in “Phool Kumar vs. Delhi Administration, (1975) 1 SCC 797 (para 5 & 6) and Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi, (2007) 12 SCC 641 (para 19 to 22)” remarked that the ‘robbery’ and ‘dacoity’ are sine qua non. ‘Dacoity’ is nothing but an exaggerated version of ‘robbery’ with a difference in number of accused.” Thus, the term in section 397 I.P.C., ‘uses’ a deadly weapon and section 398 I.P.C. ‘used’ a deadly weapon makes no difference.
4. Rashid Wali Beg vs. Farid Pindari, LL 2021 SC 604
The question before Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian on the Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal came in question in present case; that whether a suit for permanent injunction relating to an admitted property of property not being a disputed property is maintainable in a civil court or not?
On this the Supreme Court remarked, “it is indigestible in the teeth of Section 83(1)”. Because a civil suit is not barred under section 85 of The Wakf Act, 2013. The present suit is filed for seeking permanent injunction by tenants on their illegal eviction when occupied in wakf tribunal.
The Apex Court dealing with the present case found that High Court had made error in declaring a property as Wakf Property merely on basis of admission by parties and said “This is a question for which no answer could be found if we adopt the restrictive interpretation.” As the jurisdiction of Tribunal is not restrictive to the section 6 & 7 of the act. The court has jurisdiction to decide the Wakf Property Disputes consisting hidden issue about the property ownership as well.
5. State Of Kerala & Anr. V. M/S Popular Estates (Now Dissolved) & Anr. | Civil Appeal No. 903 Of 2011
Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and SR Bhat denied interfering with the Kerala High Court Decision.
The Court after allowing a Special Leave petition under Article 136 of Indian constitution filed on the ground that, the High Court out of two plausible views have not taken one in favour of petitioner. But the SC denied any interference from the High Court Decision as, “There is some authority for the proposition that where two plausible views on the conclusions that can be drawn from facts on the record exist, this court, in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of the High Court”.
The Court also relied on some other judgements, and said that it is not necessary for Supreme Court while allowing SLP to go in merits of case and law validity. If there is nothing illegal in High Court’s order and if has passed with proper conclusions and reasonings, then the SC is at discretion whether to interfere or not.
6. The State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Dr Saleem ur Rehman| CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1170 of 2021 || Citation: LL 2021 SC 618
Bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna recently held that prior sanction of the Magistrate under section 155 Cr.P.C. is not a mandatory requirement for investigating a non-cognizable offence when it is along with a cognizable offence in a FIR.
Apex Court while dealing with errored judgement passed by Jammu & Kashmir High Court of quashing a FIR under provisions of Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act along with criminal conspiracy under section 120B Ranbir Penal Code. The FIR was registered prior the 2019 Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, thus instead of Indian Penal Code, the Ranbir Penal Code provisions was applied on the said F.I.R. As the 120B of RPC is a non-cognizable offence; thus the J&K High Court quashed the FIR based on the non-sanction by Magistrate as per provisions.
Supreme Court relied on its previous Judgements in Pravin Chandra Mody v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1965 (1) SCR 269; found the no merits in High Court Judgement.
7. Sudhir Kumar Atrey vs Union of India & ors || LL 2021 SC 627
Supreme Court Bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay Oka ruled that in absence of any contrary rules made for seniority determination; the initial date of joining service is a valid ground for counting inter-se seniority.
The Apex Court while deciding Appeal made on the dual High Courts i.e. Delhi & Punjab and Haryana High Court Orders regarding Seniority Adjudication. In the present matter ‘Group C’ Military Personnel’s came before court to determine the correct criteria for seniority decision. The Supreme Court is of the view that “We are also of the view that in the matter of adjudging seniority of the candidates selected in one and the same selection, placement in the order of merit can be adopted as a principle for determination of seniority but where the selections are held separately by different recruiting authorities, the principle of initial date of appointment / continuous officiation may be the valid principle to be considered for adjudging inter se seniority of the officers in the absence of any rule or guidelines in determining seniority to the contrary.”
Disclaimer: The opinions and views in the articles and research papers published on this website; are personal and independent opinions of the author. The website is not responsible for them.
Legal Thirst has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, Events, and various opportunities.
You can click on this link and join:
Follow Legal Thirst on Instagram and Subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
