Supreme Court Imposes 1L Cost On Police Constable Accused Of Killing Wife For Dragging Trial Over 14 Years

Supreme Court Imposes 1L Cost On Police Constable Accused Of Killing Wife For Dragging Trial Over 14 Years

The Supreme Court has imposed a fine of One Lakh rupees on a police constable who was accused of murdering his wife and for misuse of the judicial system by extending and elongating the trial by 14 years. The case was heard by the Bench of Chief Justice of India N V Ramana and Justice Surya Kant. The present petitioner has been accused of offences under Sections 302, 304 B, 201, 234 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

What do you think about this case?

Pendency A Direct Result Of Centre's Recalcitrant Attitude In Appointing HC Judges For Years After Clearing Collegium

The Supreme Court has urged the Centre to follow the timeline laid down by it for judicial appointments. This was with regards to the filling up the mounting vacancies of judges in High Courts across the country. The observations were made by the Division Bench composed of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul. The Top Court observed that the "recalcitrant attitude" of the Government in not appointing High Court judges even years after the Supreme Court collegium has cleared the recommendations is causing delay in adjudication of cases. The case was of M/s Indian Solar Manufacturers Association V. Solar Power Developers Association.

What do you think about this case?

MP HC: Automatic Confirmation Cannot Be Claimed As A Matter Of Right After Expiration Of Probation Period

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that automatic confirmation cannot be claimed as a matter of right after the probation period has expired unless there is a vacancy for the job position. The decision was given by Justice G S Ahluwalia. The case was of Sinnam Singh V. State of MP and Ors. Advocate Prashant Sharma appeared as counsel for the petitioner and Government Advocate Varun Kaushik as the counsel for the respondents/ State.

What do you think about this case?

Delhi HC Women Lawyers Forum Condemns Inflammatory Slogans Raised In Jantar Mantar Rally

The Delhi High Court Women Lawyers Forum has condemned the allegedly inflammatory slogans raised by Supreme Court Lawyer Ashwini Updhayaya during a rally at the Jantar Mantar on 8th August 2021. A formal letter to the Registrar of the Supreme Court has been sent. According to reports, several slogans that amounted to hate speech against the Muslim community were raised during the said rally. The Forum called the incident shocking and violative of the principles enshrined in the Constitution.

What do you think about this case?

SC: Res Judicata Not A Ground To Reject A Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC

The Supreme Court has observed that Res Judicata cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decision was given by Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice M R Shah. The case was of Srihari Hanumandas Totala V. Hemant Vithal Kamat. While affirming the Trial Court order, the Bench clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on whether the subsequent suit is barred by res judicata.

What do you think about this case?

SC: Wilful Breach Of Undertaking Given To Court Is Contempt

The Supreme Court has stated that under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, wilful breach of the undertaking given to the Court amounts to the act of contempt. The decision was given by Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V Ramasubramanian. The case was of Suman Chadha V. Central Bank of India. The Bench further observed that an undertaking given by a party should be seen in the context in which it was made.

What do you think about this case?

Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Can Be Registered Through Video Conferencing

The case was of State of Haryana V. Ami Ranjan & Ors. The decision was given by Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V Ramasubramanian. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had ordered that a marriage certificate under the Special Marriage Act can be granted via video conferencing as the bride couldn’t travel from USA to India on account of travel restrictions. This order was challenged by the State of Haryana. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

What do you think about this case?