Supreme Court Weekly Updates (May 24-29, 2019)

Written by admin

Updated on:

Supreme Court Weekly Updates (May 24-29, 2019) 
1. Accused ‘X’ V. State of Maharashtra
Every Person With Mental Illness Shall Have A Right To Live With Dignity
The Supreme Court, ruled that under the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, there is a statutory right for mentally ill persons to live with dignity.
The Apex Court bench  Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Indira Banerjee observed that Section 20 (1) of the Mental Health Care Act explicitly provides that ‘every person with mental illness shall have a right to live with dignity’.

“All human beings possess the capacities inherent in their nature even though, because of infancy, disability, or senility, they may not yet, not now, or no longer have the ability to exercise them. When such disability occurs, a person may not be in a position to understand the implications of his actions and the consequence it entails. In this situation, the execution of such a person would lower the majesty of law.”


2. G. Ramesh vs. Kanike Harish Kumar Ujwal

Company Includes Partnership Firm Or Other Association Of Individuals under section 141 of NI Act. 

The bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta, perusing the complaint observed:

“It is evident from the relevant paragraphs of the complaint which have been extracted above that the complaint contains a sufficient description of (i) the nature of the partnership; (ii) the business which was being carried on; (iii) the role of each of the accused in the conduct of the business and, specifically, in relation to the transactions which took place with the complainant. At every place in the averments, the accused have been referred to in the plural sense. Besides this, the specific role of each of them in relation to the transactions arising out of the contract in question, which ultimately led to the dishonour of the cheques, has been elucidated.”

3. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalicharan & Ors.


“Even in a case of a single blow, but on the vital part of the body, the case may fall under Section 302 of the IPC.”
The bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice AS Bopanna
4. P. V. Ramana Reddy V. Union of India
GST Evaders Can Be Arrested: SC Upholds Telangana HC Judgment
The Supreme Court vacation bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Aniruddha Bose, dismissing the SLP challenging Telangana High Court judgment that held that a person can be arrested by the competent authority in cases of Goods and Service Tax (GST) evasion.



5. Bihar State Scheduled Caste Cooperative Development Ltd. V. State of Bihar
Termination Of Workmen On The Ground That Their Appointment Is Illegal Will Amount To Retrenchment

The Supreme Court has observed that Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act will be applicable even in cases of workmen terminated on the ground that their appointment was illegal.
The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice MR Shah observed that “invalid appointment” is not covered in the Exceptions under section 2 (OO) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
6. Shewantabai vs. Arun
Genuineness Of Will Can’t Be Doubted Merely Because It Was Executed In Favour Of Neighbour
Merely because the testator executed the Will in favour of the neighbour, the genuineness of the Will cannot be doubted, said the Supreme Court while rejecting the plea of the widow of the deceased testator.


Leave a Comment