Supreme Court Weekly Update 14-21 April 2019

Table of Contents

Supreme Court Weekly Update 14-21 April 2019 

1. Dr. RS Grewal Vs. Chander Parkash Soni

The Supreme Court observed that the protection offered to a statutory tenant by Rent Control Laws can only be overcome by following the procedure laid out in such laws. 
“Restrictions on recovery of possession of the premises let out to the tenants have been imposed for the benefit of the tenants as a matter of legislative policy”

The bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta

2. Bikash Ranjan Rout Vs. State
The Supreme Court has observed that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to suo moto pass an order for further investigation/reinvestigation after he discharges the accused.

The power to order further investigation which may be available to the Magistrate at the pre­cognizance stage may not be available to the Magistrate at the post-cognizance stage, more particularly, when the accused is discharged by him.

3. Ramswaroop Soni vs. State of MP

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a magistrate, upon receipt of a closure/refer report, cannot direct the police to file charge sheet.

Such a direction is wholly unsustainable, said the bench comprising of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra, in the appeal filed by accused (Ramswaroop Soni vs. State of MP). 

4. Bharath Watch Company Vs. National insurance Co. Ltd

Setting aside the judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(NCDRC), the Supreme Court has held that if the terms of exclusion of policy are not communicated to the insured, the insurer cannot rely on them to repudiate a claim.

5. Md. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar
The Supreme Court has held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C.

The division bench of the Supreme Court Comprising of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

6. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority Vs. Karamjit Singh

“An order of regularization obtained by misrepresenting facts, or by playing a fraud upon the competent authority, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”
Also Read: Supreme Court Weekly Update 14-21 April 2019

“The appointment of the Respondent on regular basis was invalid since the Respondent did not have the pre-requisite experience of 3 years’ continuous service prior to 22.01.2001. The Respondent had sought to secure regularization on the basis of interpolation in the final list of employees recommended for regularization. Such an appointment would be illegal and void ab initio, and cannot be sustained.”

7. Accused X Vs. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court has observed that there is no bar on the pre-sentencing hearing taking place on the same day after passing the judgment of conviction, if the accused and the prosecution are ready to submit their arguments.

The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Indira Banerjee

8. Manju Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan

The Supreme Court has allowed a plea to record evidence of a Nigerian doctor who conducted post mortem of the deceased via video conferencing.

The bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

Leave a Comment