8129051765189746

LEGAL HEADLINES OF THE WEEK




LEGAL HEADLINES OF THE WEEK



Anjana Gopinath

Content Writer

1. Students Cannot Be Promoted Without Exams: States SC


The Supreme Court while disposing of the petitions challenging the guidelines issued by UGC in relation to conducting the final semester exams by September 30, stated that the directions of the State Disaster Management Authority for cancelling exams in the particular State will prevail over the UGC direction. However, it was also stated by the Court that the direction of the State Disaster Management Authority to pass the students on the basis of previous performances is beyond the scope of the Disaster Management Act; and that the States or Union Territories cannot promote final year students without examination as ordered by UGC. Nevertheless, the States and UTs were given liberty to approach the UGC for the postponement of the exams, considering the ongoing pandemic.


2. Whether Sub-Classification is Permissible Within SC-ST Reservation? SC Bench Refers Matter to a Larger Bench.


A 5 Judge Bench of the Apex Court, in the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh & Ors. held that the decision laid down in the case o refused to pass a pre-broadcast injunction order to stop the telecast of Sudarhan TV’s show which was allegedly communalizing the selection of Muslims in UPSC exams. The Bench refused the same stating that it has to desist from imposing an injunction on the basis of an unverified transcript of a 49-second clip. t would not amount to tinkering with the reservation list.


3. SC Refuses to Pass Pre-Broadcast Injunction Order to Stop Sudarshan TV’s Alleged Communal Program on Muslims Clearing UPSC Exams.


The Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and KM Joseph, in the case titled as Firoz Iqbal Khan v. Union of India & Ors. refused to pass a pre-broadcast injunction order to stop the telecast of Sudarhan TV’s show which was allegedly communalizing the selection of Muslims in UPSC exams. The Bench refused the same stating that it has to desist from imposing an injunction on the basis of an unverified transcript of a 49 second clip.


4. SC Refuses Permission to Conduct Muharram Procession Amid Ongoing Pandemic.


The Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of CJI SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramaniun, in the case titled as Syed Kalbe Javed v. Union of India denied permission to hold Muharram Procession amid the pandemic, stating that granting permission for the same might lead to chaos and that the community might be targeted for spreading the Virus.


5. SC Refuses to Entertain Plea Against Madras HC’s Stay on Order Restraining Patanjali From Using ‘Coronil’ Trademark.


The Apex Court denied to entertain petition filed by Arudra Engineers challenging the order of Madras High Court which stayed the direction restraining Patanjali Ayurved from using ‘Coronil’ trademark. The Bench allowed the petitioners to withdraw the plea with the liberty to bring the case before the High Court of Madras.


6. Presumption of ‘Possession Follows Title’ Arises Only When No Definite Proof of Possession by Anyone Else: States SC


The Supreme Court in the case of Nazir Mohamed v. J Kamala noted that the presumption based on the maxim ‘possession follows title’ arises only when there is no definite proof of possession by anyone else. The Bench of the Court comprising of Justices Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee stated that a person claiming a decree of possession has to establish his entitlement and that his claim is not barred by limitation.


7. Police Officer Cannot Arrest/Register FIR/Investigate Cognizable Offences under Chapter IV of Drugs and Cosmetics Act.


A Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph, in the case titled as Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma held that Police Officers cannot register FIR, arrest, prosecute or investigate in relation to a cognizable offence under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Bench held that an arrest can be made by the Drug Inspector for the offence without any warrant.


8. Provisions Regarding Pension Must Be Given Liberal Construction as a Social Welfare Measure: observes SC


The Supreme Court, in the case of V Sukumaran v. State of Kerala stated that pension is not a bounty payable at a will, but a social welfare measure as a post-retirement entitlement to maintain the dignity of the employee. The court also stated that the provisions regarding pension must be given a liberal construction as a social welfare measure.


9. Flat Buyers Are Entitled to Just and Reasonable Compensation for Gross Delay by Builders in Handing over Possession: states SC.


In the case titled as Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd., the Apex Court observed that when there is a gross delay in handing over the possession beyond the period stipulated in the contract, the jurisdiction of the consumer forum to award just and reasonable compensation is not limited by the terms of a rate in builders’ agreement.


10. Central Government has Authority to Impose Quantitative Restriction on Import under Section 3(2) of FTDR Act: States SC.


The Supreme Court in the case titled as Union of India v. Agricas LLP, noted that the Central Government has the authority to impose quantitative restrictions u/s 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act of 1992. The said observation was made by a bench of the Court comprising of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna.

17 views
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook

©2018 by Law Colloquy with Dr. Priya Sepaha. Proudly created with Wix.com