Anjana GopinathContent Writer1. No Petition Can Be Transferred on Sole Ground of Delay in Disposal: states SC.
Justice V. Ramasubramanian of the Supreme Court, while dismissing a transfer petition, stated that “no petition can be transferred from one court to another on the sole ground of delay in disposal”. The judge also noted the prayer to be very strange.
2. Delhi Riots Case: Court Remands Umar Khalid to 10 Days Police Custody.
The Karkardooma Sessions Court remanded JNU Student Umar Khalid to ten days of Delhi Police Custody for the alleged conspiracy behind the Delhi riots. The Court has also ordered the DCP to make proper arrangements for his safety and security in the light of the nature of the case and safety of the life of Khalid.
3. SC Restrains Sudarshan TV From Telecasting Episodes of Show on Muslims Clearing UPSC Exams.
A Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and KM Joseph restrained the Sudarshan TV News from telecasting upcoming episodes of the show “Bindas Bol” on Muslims clearing the UPSC exams, observing that the object of the show was to vilify Muslims. The argument as to it was a freedom of speech issue was declined by the Court.
4. Major Unmarried Daughter Not Suffering from Any Physical or Mental Abnormality Not Entitled to Claim Maintenance from Father u/s 125 Of CrPC: States SC.
A bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah also held that unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married, relying on Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, provided she proves that she is unable to maintain herself. The said judgement was made in the case titled as Abhilasha v. Prakash.
5. SC Reiterates that Section 50 of NDPS Act is Applicable Only in Case of Personal Search.
A Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah reiterated that section 50 of the NDPS Act is applicable only in the case of personal search. The Court relied upon the judgement of the High Court in State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar for the same. The statement was made in the case of Jeet Ram v. Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh.
6. Considerations Regarding Delay and Limitations Ought Not to Negate the Rights of Appeal Inhering in an Accused: states SC.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Indu Malhotra stated that “In a criminal matter, where the life and liberty of a person is in question, one right of appeal has always been accepted and appropriate steps must be taken to effectuate that right. The considerations on delay and limitation ought not to negate the right of appeal inhering in an accused.” The said observation was made in the Review Petition (Crl.) D. No. 4235 of 2020, State of Odisha v. Surendra Munda.
7. Limitation Period for Filing Petition for Enforcement of Foreign Award Would be Governed by Article 137, Limitation Act: states SC
A Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, Indu Malhotra and Aniruddha Bose held that the period of limitation for filing a petition for enforcement of a foreign award under Sections 47 and 49 of the Arbitration Act, would be governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act which sets the period of three years from when the right to apply accrues.
8. SC Observes that Arbitration- Enforcement Court May Refuse Enforcement of Foreign Award, But Cannot Set Aside or Correct It.
The Supreme Court, in the case titled as Government of India v. Vedanta Limited observed that enforcement courts may refuse to enforce a foreign award under Section 48, however, it cannot set aside or correct a foreign award, even if the conditions under the said section are made out. The observation was made by Justices S Abdul Nazeer, Indu Malhotra and Aniruddha Bose.
9. Relief of Specific Performance of Contract No Longer Discretionary after Amendment: States SC
Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Indira Banerjee of the Supreme Court has held in the case of B. Santoshamma v. D Sarala that relief of specific performance of a contract is no longer discretionary after the 2018 amendment.
10. Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Action Against Actress Kangana Ranaut for Her Tweet.
A Single Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of Justice Manoj Bajaj dismissed a petition seeking action against Kangana Ranaut on tweeting allegedly to promote the consumption of beef. The plea was dismissed on the ground that the post does not prima facie suggest that it amounts to an offence punishable under Section 295-A of IPC.
