2. Timeline for Pronouncement of Judgement Prescribed in Order XX of CPC Does not Apply to High Courts, States Apex Court
The Supreme Court in the case titled SJVNL v. M/s CCC HIM JV (Civil Appeal No. 494 of 2021) noted that the timeline for pronouncement of judgement prescribed in Order XX of the Civil Procedure Code does not apply to the High Courts. In the present case, the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court had set aside a judgement on the ground of delay of judgement, relying upon Order 20 Rule 1 of CPC.
3. Madras HC Denies Bail to CS Karnan; Rejects Defence of Severe Mental Depression in Abusive Videos Case
A Single Bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice V Bharathidasan refused to grant bail to former High Court judge CS Karnan in a case relating to uploading of abusive online videos.
4. Pre-deposit for Filing Appeals Before DRAT is a Mandatory Requirement, States SC
A Supreme Court bench comprising of CJI SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian noted that the entire waiver of pre-deposit for filing an appeal before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, is impermissible. This observation was made in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Ltd. v. Ambuj A Kasliwal (Civil Appeal no. 538 of 2021).
5. Prior Knowledge of Senior Secondary Level Biology or Biological Science Essential for MBBS Admission: SC
The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat noted in the case Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences v. Srikeerti Reddi Pingle (Civil Appeal No. 390 of 2021) that equivalence in qualification is not just at the level of 10+2 requirement. However, MCI regulation requires equivalence in standard and scope in an examination where the candidate is tested in Physics, Chemistry and Biology, including practical testing in these subjects.
6. SC Dismisses Challenge to Demolition of Old Delhi’s Hanuman Temple with Liberty to Apply for Alternative Site
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah dismissed a plea against the demolition of a decades-old Hanuman Temple in Chandni Chowk in Delhi, which had created an uproar in the national capital, with the liberty to make a representation for grant of an alternative site.
7. SC Explains the Scope of Mandate Regarding Seeking Probate or Letters of Administration for Establishing a Right as Executor or Legatee under a Will
The Apex Court, in the case of Ravindra Nath Agrawal v. Yogender Nath Agarwal (Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 970 of 2016), observed that the mandatory requirement to seek probate or letters of administration for establishing a right as executor or legatee under a will, is applicable only to wills made by a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of certain High Courts and to wills made outside those territories, to the extent they over immovable property situate within those territories.
8. SC Rejects Plea Against ED Case; states “One Time Settlement with Banks no Ground to Quash Loan Fraud Case”
The Supreme Court bench headed by CJI SA Bobde refused a plea to quash a case registered by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act over the loan fraud allegations in Telangana. The Bench noted that the banks have agreed for one-time settlement could not be ground for quashing, and thus refused to entertain the plea for quashing of ED’s case.
9. Presence of Arbitration Clause in Contract between State Instrumentality and Private Party does not Oust Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226, states SC
The Supreme Court in the case titled UNITECH Ltd. v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2021) observed that the presence of an arbitration clause is not an absolute bar to availing remedies under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
10. Parties Who Privately Agree to Settle Disputes Without Court Intervention u/s 89 CPC Also Entitled to Refund of Court Fee: SC
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran held that participants in private settlements will be entitled to the same benefits as those who have been referred to explore alternate dispute settlement methods under Section 89 of CPC. This was observed in the case titled High Court of Judicature at Madras v. MC Subramaniam (SLP (Civil) No. 3063 & 3064 of 2021).