Source: https://www.vakilno1.com/legal-news/fortnightly-newsletter-august-30-2018.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:41:00+00:00

Document:
The fortnight witnessed some essential judicial advancements and developments, whereby the Supreme Court and various High Courts pronounced verdicts which aid in interpretation and better understanding of the laws pertaining to inter alia eviction of tenant in India, the just and fair compensation payable to the victim of motor vehicle accident, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code etc. The Apex Court also rendered judgments which have strengthened the authority of Karta in HUFs and also ruled that the right to retire of a doctor is not a right superior than right to life. Herein below, we present a conspectus of all those judgments which have aided in contouring the judicial precedents in India this weekend.
Case name: Ram Pratap v. Anand Kanwar & ors.
Eviction of Tenant– In this recent case the Supreme Court has held that decree for eviction can’t be passed unless provisional rent has been determined by the Court.
Case name: Anant Son of Sidheshwar Dukre v. Pratap Son of Zhamnnappa Lamzane & anr.
MV Accident Compensation– In this recent case, the Supreme Court while enhancing the compensation awarded in motor vehicle accident to the Appellant/claimant noted that the injured is not be compensated only for his physical injury but also for his non-pecuniary losses. While enhancing the compensation awarded by the High Court, the Supreme Court also noted that compensation shall be awarded considering inflationary trends and the increased cost of living.
Case name: Union Bank of India & ors. v. C.G. Ajay Babu & anr.
In this case, the Supreme Court while elucidating on the issue of forfeiture of gratuity on dismissal of service has stated that gratuity can be forfeited only if there is any loss to the Bank on account of the misconduct of the dismissed employee.
The Supreme Court’s recent verdict is a very essential order concerning the medical fraternity as the Supreme Court in view of public interest has held that voluntary retirement of Doctors employed in Government hospitals is not automatic.
The Apex Court’s verdict is a noteworthy one in the wake of numerous doctors opting for private practice rather than being employed with the Government hospital.
Case name: K. Subba Rao & Ors. v. The State of Telangana Rep. by Its Secretary, Department Of Home and Ors.
Matrimonial Disputes – In this recent case, the Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court extended a word of caution by holding that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. It was also asserted by the Court in the case that not ambiguous but only specific allegations shall prove the offence against relatives in case of matrimonial disputes.
Case name: Samir Narain Bhojwani v. M/s. Aurora Properties and Investments and Anr.
In this recent case, the Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra has held that invocation of principle of moulding of reliefs so also the exercise of power to grant mandatory order at an interlocutory stage, is manifestly wrong.
Case name: Shailesh Manubhai Parmar v. Election Commission of India through the Chief Election Commissioner & Ors.
The Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra has held that NOTA shall not be permissible for Rajya Sabha Elections and accordingly quashed the Elcetion Commission’s Circular.
Case name: K. Kishan v. M/s Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd.
The seminal issue that fell for consideration before the Apex Court was whether the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) can be invoked in respect of an operational debt where an Arbitral Award has been passed against the operational debtor, which has not yet been finally adjudicated upon?
The Supreme Court also noted that the operational creditors cannot use the Insolvency Code either prematurely or for extraneous considerations or as a substitute for debt enforcement procedures.
In this remarkable judgment, the Supreme Court has held that oral evidence as required under Section 34 for setting aside Arbitral Award is not a mandatory requirement and should not be allowed unless necessary on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case.
Case name: Kehar Singh (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. v. Nachittar Kaur & Ors.
In this case, taken up by Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, the Court has ruled that Karta of the Family can sell share in ancestral property on account of legal necessity even without obtaining due consent of other coparceners. However, the evidence of legal necessity shall be appropriately showcased in such cases.
Job Insecurity of Teachers– In this recent case, the Supreme Court Bench elucidated on the job insecurity encountered by teachers and lecturers on account of artificial breaks due to change in education pattern.
In this recent case, the Supreme Court has categorically stated that the High Court cannot interfere in the administrative decision taken by the Indian Oil Corporation.
In this recent case, the Supreme Court Bench has held that for establishing offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 , mere oral evidence to establish seizure of contraband substances from the accused is not sufficient evidence.
The Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, in view of suggestion of amicus curiae has directed that colour stickers should be placed on the windshield of the vehicles to give an indication of the nature of fuel being used.
In this case taken up by the Supreme Court, the Court while referring to conflicting judgments has now categorically held that that a fair investigation, which is but the very foundation of fair trial, necessarily postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person.
Eviction of Tenant will now not be easy. In a recent case, the Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has succinctly stated that unless and until ground seeking eviction in terms of the concerned contract is not made out, no eviction of a tenant can be ordered, even if the parties had entered into a compromise.
Case name: PR. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – In this recent case, the Supreme Court has categorically held that the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) will override any enactment which is inconsistent with the provisions of the Code.
Case name: Ravi Rai v. Medical Council of India & Ors.
Medical Negligence– The Delhi High Court in the case while noticing the sheer negligence by Doctors in treating the petitioner, has directed the Medical Council of India (MCI) to formulate Policy with regard to punishments to be accorded to delinquent doctors for infractions committed by them.
In the case, the High Court of Delhi has reiterated that the doctrine of irretrievable break-down of marriage is not available even to the High Courts which do not have powers similar to those exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. Neither the civil courts nor even the High Courts can, therefore, pass orders before the periods prescribed under the relevant provisions of the Act or on grounds not provided for in Section 13 and Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
In this recent case, the High Court of Bombay elaborately discussed the law pertaining to substituted service of summons. While elucidating the Law the Court noted that while allowing substituted service, the Court should be satisfied that either the defendant is deliberately avoiding the service, or that for any other reason, the summons cannot be served in ordinary way.
In this case, the Magistrate had recalled his own order and the Petitioner contended that by recalling his own order, the Magistrate had committed gross illegality. Bombay High Court dismissed the Petition and ruled that it was a case of bare and simple fraud practiced upon Court and it is trite that fraud vitiates everything.
Case name: Ram Pyare Mishra v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
The High Court in the case has opined that no recovery can be done from the retiral benefits viz. pension, gratuity, etc. without following the principles of natural justice and without adhering to the settled principles of law.
In this recent case, the High Court of Kerala while recognizing the right of the accused, released the accused on Bail on the ground that charge sheet was not filed in the case within the prescribed period.
In the case, the High Court of Bombay has held that not all live-in-relationships are covered under the definition of “relationship” under Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act. The Court has opined that only those Relationships that Qualify in the Nature of Marriage are Covered u/DV Act.
Cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act – In this recent case, the High Court of Kerala further expanded the scope of cruelty as a ground for Divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act by holding that ridiculing the husband among his close friends, relatives and also before the officials wherein he was working and challenging his dignity amounts to cruelty in all means.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.