Cyber Law

Merry Christmas...!!!!!!

This incident happened in District Court, Bhuvanapalli Telangana.

The Hon'ble Judge, Shri Abdul Haseem, got up from his seat along with the relevant file and walked down the stairs from the first floor to meet an aged woman, who was a litigant.

The Judge was told by the Court Clerk that this woman was sitting on the entry of the court yard being tired due to old age and unable to climb up the stairs to attend the case relating to her Welfare Pension.

The judge sat on the floor-step near the complainant and heard her submissions. After hearing the case he resolved the issue which was pending for the last 2 years.

I feel proud that that there are such judges in India.

Copy from Former CJI Markandey katju official page.

Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde appointed as 47th Chief Justice of India:

Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde appointed as 47th Chief Justice of India:

Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde was sworn in as the 47th Chief Justice of India (CJI) in a ceremony at Rashtrapati Bhawan in New Delhi today. Justice SA Bobde, who succeeds Justice Ranjan Gogoi, was administered oath by President Ram Nath Kovind in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah.
Chief Justice Bobde will have a tenure of around 17 months and will retire on April 23, 2021.

He has been part of several key cases, including the five-judge constitution bench that passed the historic verdict that cleared the way for the construction of a Ram Temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya.

Chief Justice Bobde was also part of a nine-judge bench headed by the then Chief Justice JS Khehar which, in a unanimously judgement in August 2017, held that the Right to Privacy was a constitutionally protected fundamental right in India.

He also chaired a three-member in-house panel which gave a clean chit to his predecessor, Chief Justice Gogoi, on a sexual harassment complaint against him by a former court staffer. The committee also included Justices Indira Banerjee and Indu Malhotra.

Chief Justice Bobde belongs to a family of lawyers from Maharashtra; he is the son of eminent senior advocate Arvind Shriniwas Bobde.

Supreme Court Monthly Highlight (October 2019):

Supreme Court Monthly Highlight (October 2019):

1. AYODHYA HEARING| 40-days hearing comes to an end; Verdict reserved:

The Court had, though, initially set October 18 as the deadline for completion of all arguments in the protracted land title dispute. If speculations are to be believed, the Ayodhya verdict will be out by mid-nov.

2. “Can’t treat all of them as a liar”: SC while partially setting aside the 2018 SC/ST Act verdict:

The 3-jduge bench of Arun Mishra, MR Shah and BR Gavai, JJ has held that some portions of the verdict in Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 243 were against the concept of protective discrimination in favour of down­trodden classes under Article 15(4) of the Constitution and also impermissible within the parameters laid down by this Court for exercise of powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India.

3. In a big blow to the Telecom Sector, SC refuses to change AGR definition:

The definition of revenue has been taken in a broad, comprehensive, and inclusive manner to pose fewer problems of interpretation, and exclusion of certain items was avoided.

4. Land Acquisition Hearing| Why Justice Arun Mishra said his recusal would be a grave blunder:

Recusal is not to be forced by any litigant to choose a Bench. It is for the Judge to decide to recuse. if he recuses, it will be a dereliction of duty, injustice to the system, and to other Judges who are or to adorn the Bench/es in the future.

5. INX MEDIA CASE|SC grants bail to P. Chidambaram:

Being the Member of Parliament and a Senior Member of the Bar has strong roots in society and his passport having been surrendered and “look out notice” issued against him, there is no likelihood of his fleeing away from the country or his abscondence from the trial.

6. SC sets aside Delhi High Court stay on proceedings against Gautam Khaitan under Black Money Act:

Setting aside the Delhi High Court order any staying any action against Gautam Khaitan in a case relating to the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, the 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, MR Shah and BR Gavai, JJ said that the interim order passed by the High Court is not sustainable in law.

7. Poll Affidavit Case: SC quashes clean chit; Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis to face trial :

A contesting candidate is mandated to furnish information concerning the cases in which a Competent Court has taken cognizance along with the cases in which charges have been framed.

8. Aarey Forest Politics| Forest Bench to hear the matter on Oct 21; status quo to be maintained:

The Special Bench was constituted to hear the plea against the cutting of trees in Mumbai’s Aarey colony for the city’s metro rail project after a group of law students wrote to Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi seeking Supreme Court’s intervention in the matter and the cutting of trees to be suspended immediately.

9.Women who missed 2018 Bihar Police PET due to pregnancy should be considered for appointment:

It was brought to the Court’s notice that the total number of ladies who claimed extension of PET on the basis of pregnancy or injuries is stated to be 78 in all, out of which 73 are on account of pregnancy.

10.Online RTI Portal| SC seeks Centre’s response on Pravasi Legal Cell’s plea:

The Court has asked the Centre and State Governments to file reply on a plea seeking direction to establish Right to Information(RTI) web portals in all states to enable citizens, especially those living abroad, to file RTI applications online.

11. Bhima Koregaon case| SC extends Gautam Navlakha’s interim bail:

The two-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra allowed him to approach trial court for pre-arrest bail. Navlakha has to apply for pre-arrest bail in the meantime.

12. State Legislature cannot enact a law providing a direct appeal to the Supreme Court:

State cannot enact a legislation providing an appeal directly to the Supreme Court. That would amount to entrenching upon the jurisdiction of the Union, which the State Legislature does not have.

13. Geomapping is the answer to the increasing menace of illegal construction:

Geomapping can be done by satellite, drones or vehicles. Once one has the whole city geomapped it would be easy to control illegal constructions.

14. SC quashes trial against a man in a sexual assault case of a 6-year-old:

The involvement of other persons on the statement of the child of impressionable age does not inspire confidence that the appellant is liable to be proceeded under Section 319 of the Code. In fact, it is suggestive role of the family which influences the mind of the child to indirectly implicate the appellant.

15. Mere change of address in IT return is not enough; Assessing Officer must be specifically intimated:

In absence of any specific intimation to the Assessing Officer with respect to change in address and/or change in the name of the assessee, the Assessing Officer would be justified in sending the notice at the available address mentioned in the PAN database of the assessee, more particularly when the return has been filed under E­Module scheme.

16.SC transfers Assam NRC coordinator Prateek Hajela to MP on deputation:

The Court has ordered the transfer of Assam NRC coordinator, Prateek Hajela, to Madhya Pradesh on deputation. The bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, however, did not specify the reason, behind transferring Hajela to Madhya Pradesh.

Best wishes for Happy, Prosperous, Safe and Green Dipawali

Supreme Court Monthly Highlight :

Supreme Court Monthly Highlight : (August 2019):

Burning Point: AYODHYA HEARING

a) SC slams Nirmohi Akhara for opposing Ram Lalla’s plea; Says you ‘stand’ or ‘fall’ together

b) No Muslim has entered the disputed land since 1934: Nirmohi Akhara

c) SC seeks evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara

d) Both Hindus & Muslims have always called the disputed site a ‘Janmasthana’: Ram Lalla’s counsel

e) SC rejects Sr Adv Rajeev Dhavan’s plea against 5-days a week hearing

f) Arguments advanced on whether there was an existing temple at the disputed site

g) Court shouldn’t go beyond rationality of belief of Ayodhya being Lord Ram’s birthplace: Ram Lalla’s counsel

h) Excavations show that a massive Lord Ram temple existed at the disputed site: Ram Lalla’s counsel

i) Babri Masjid was built either on the ruins of Ram Mandir or by pulling it down: Ram Lalla’s counsel

j) There was a temple in the inner courtyard of the disputed site: Nirmohi Akhara

Supreme Court Highlight -

1. Sexual Harassment allegations against CJI: Justice AK Patnaik completes inquiry into ‘larger conspiracy’ allegations

A Supreme Court-appointed one-man panel, holding inquiry into allegations of “larger conspiracy” to frame Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, has completed the inquiry and is likely to submit the report by mid-September.

2. Missing UP Law Student Case| She should be kept wherever she feels safe and comfortable: SC

When the UP law student who went missing was brought before the bench of R Banumathi and AS Bopanna, JJ after being found in Rajasthan, she told the Court that she wants to stay in Delhi and not return to her home. The Court, hence, directed that the woman was to be kept wherever she felt safe and comfortable.

3. Linking of social media accounts with Aadhaar: SC issues notice to social media websites on Facebook’s transfer plea

While hearing Facebook Inc’s petition asking Supreme Court to hear all cases related to demands for linking Aadhaar to social media accounts and tracing the source of WhatsApp messages, the Court said that there has to be a balance between privacy and how to govern.

4. Big relief for homebuyers as SC upholds the validity of the 2018 Amendments to IBC

The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Sanjiv Khanna and Surya Kant, JJ has held the Amendment Act to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 made pursuant to a report prepared by the Insolvency Law Committee dated 26th March, 2018 does not infringe Articles 14, 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6), or 300-A of the Constitution of India.

5. Maintain ‘Aadhaar-like’ secrecy for Assam NRC Data: SC to Centre

The Court has directed the Central Government to enact an appropriate regime for on lines similar to the security regime provided for AADHAR data. Only thereafter, the list of inclusions and exclusions shall be made available to the State Government, Central Government and Registrar General of India.

6.Unnao r**e case: All cases transferred to Delhi; Probe to be completed within maximum 14 days

The Court has asked CBI to investigate within 7 days the mysterious case of the accident in which the Unnao r**e survivor was seriously injured along with her lawyer while her two aunts were killed in Rae Bareli on Sunday. The investigation is to be conducted by Secretary General under supervision of sitting SC judge nominated by CJI, to ascertain whether there was any lapse/negligence by registry officials in delay in processing letter of Unnao r**e victim’s mother to CJI.

7. Babri Masjid demolition| Special Judge conducting trail involving LK Advani & others writes to SC seeking protection

The bench of RF Nariman and Surya Kant, JJ has asked the Uttar Pradesh government to pass orders within two weeks on extension of tenure of the special judge conducting trial in the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition case, involving BJP veterans L K Advani, M M Joshi and Uma Bharti, in Lucknow.

8.Triple Talaq| SC issues notice to Centre on plea challenging the new law

The bench of NV Ramana and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has agreed to examine the validity of a newly enacted law which makes the practice of instant divorce through triple talaq among Muslims a punishable offence entailing imprisonment of up to three years.

9. Can’t interpret “by another year” under Rule 105 of Delhi School Education Rules 1973 as “by one year at a time”: SC

The bench of Dr DY Chandrachud and Aniruddha Bose, JJ has held that the words “by another year” in Rule 105(1) of Delhi School Education Rules 1973 stipulate that the maximum period of probation permissible is two years.

10.High Court, being the disciplinary authority, has the power to suspend Judicial Officers: SC

In a case where a Judicial Officer in Delhi Higher Judicial Services, against whom disciplinary proceedings alleging sexual harassment is underway, had sought a copy of Preliminary Inquiry Report, the bench of Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ has held that no prejudice can be held to be caused to the petitioner by non-supply of the Preliminary Inquiry.

11. Merely because the period fixed for liquidation is over, the proceedings for recovery of dues do not stand closed: SC

Merely on the liquidation of Society, or the factum that the period fixed for liquidation is over, liability of the members for the loans cannot be said to have been wiped off. The disbursement of loan in an arbitrary manner and failure to recover was the very fulcrum on the basis of which winding up of the Society was ordered.

12. Plaintiff can take a plea of adverse possession under Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963: SC

The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, SA Nazeer and MR Shah, JJ has held that the Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 not only enables a person to set up a plea of adverse possession as a shield as a defendant but also allows a plaintiff to use it as a sword to protect the possession of immovable property or to recover it in case of dispossession.

13. SC does ‘temporary patchwork’ in CrPC by granting power to Magistrate order accused to give voice samples

The 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ, has held that until explicit provisions are engrafted in the Code of Criminal Procedure by Parliament, a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime.

14. Man r**es a 10-year-old & throws her & her brother alive in canal; SC awards death sentence by a 2:1 verdict

In a ghastly case involving r**e and murder of 2 children, the 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Surya Kant and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ upheld the conviction of the accused but gave 2:1 verdict on quantum of punishment.

Supreme Court Monthly Highlight (May 2019):

Supreme Court Monthly Highlight : (May 2019)-

1. Sexual Harassment allegations against CJI: SC In-House committee gives clean chit to CJI

The In-House committee, headed by Justice SA Bobde, also comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Indu Malhotra, found “no substance” in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by a former Supreme Court employee against the CJI Ranjan Gogoi.

2. Non maintenance of record is not just a clerical error; Section 23 of PCPNDT Act can’t be diluted

Dilution of the provisions of the Act or the Rules would only defeat the purpose of the Act to prevent female foeticide and relegate the right to life of the girl child under Article 21 of the Constitution, to a mere formality.

3. Panchayat Samiti members have right to vote on the ‘No Confidence Motion’

Neither Article 243C nor the Regulation made by the State Legislature or the Rules framed thereunder expressly exclude the other members of the Panchayat Samiti referred to in Section 107(3) of the Regulation from exercising their vote on a ‘Motion of No Confidence’

4. Mere search under Section 240A of Companies Act without seizure won’t suffice the purpose of investigation

Provisions of Section 240A do not merely relate to an authorisation for a search but extend to the authorisation of a seizure as well. Unless the seizure were to be authorised, a mere search by itself will not be sufficient for the purposes of investigation.

5. Trade Union is an operational creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

An “operational debt”, meaning a claim in respect of employment, could certainly be made by a person duly authorised to make such claim on behalf of a workman.

6. Commissioner under Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act is not a Court

When an appeal is provided against the order of the Commissioner under Section 69 to the Court which is defined under Section 6(7), there is no question of treating the Commissioner as a Court under the statutory scheme of Act, 1959.

7.Courts can’t do interpretive re­writing of the advertisement thereby changing the conditions of eligibility

In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.

8. Second round of litigation doesn’t lie before Foreigners Tribunal

Paragraph 8 does not envisage and provide for a second round of litigation before the same authority i.e. the Foreigners Tribunal constituted under the 1964 Order on and after preparation of the final list. Provisions of paragraph 8 of the Schedule to the 2003 Rules will apply when there has not been an earlier adjudication and decision by the Foreigners Tribunal.

9. SC to decide if Arbitration Clause in the principal contract be imported into subsequent contracts

The Court to decide Whether the Arbitration Clause in the Principal Agreement, which refers to two other Agreements i.e. Supply Agreement and Distribution Agreement will also be read into the other two Agreements vide the theory of Incorporation?

10.Karnataka Reservation Act, 2018 constitutional; Benefit of consequential seniority to be accorded retrospectively

The providing of reservations for SCs and the STs is not at odds with the principle of meritocracy. “Merit” must not be limited to narrow and inflexible criteria such as one‘s rank in a standardised exam, but rather must flow from the actions a society seeks to reward, including the promotion of equality in society and diversity in public administration.

11. SC explains law on payment of interest on ‘Differential excise duty’ under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944

It may be true that the differential duty becomes crystalised only after the escalation is finalized under the escalation clause but it is not a case where escalation is to have only prospective operation. It is to have retrospective operation admittedly.

Supreme Court Weekly Highlight (2nd April to 8th April 2019)

Supreme Court Weekly Highlight (2nd April to 8th April 2019)

1. No Prohibition In Granting Interim Mandatory Injunctions In Appropriate Cases [Hammad Ahmed V. Abdul Majeed] :

The Supreme Court observed that grant of interim mandatory injunction is not prohibited, and it can granted in 'appropriate' cases. The bench comprising Justice UdayUmesh Lalit and Justice Hemant Gupta observed that an ad interim mandatory injunction, is to be granted not at the asking but on strong circumstance so that to protect the rights and interest of the parties so as not to frustrate their rights regarding mandatory injunction.

2.Sanction Under Sec.197 CrPC Required Only If Offence Has Nexus With Duties Of Public Servant [Devendra Prasad Singh V. State of Bihar] :

In order to attract the rigor of section 197 Cr.P.C. the offence alleged against a Government Officer must have some nexus with the discharge of his official duties as Government Officer, held the Supreme Court.

3. Employees Of 'Local Bodies' Entitled To Gratuity Under Payment Of Gratuity Act [Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam, Kanpur V. Sri. MujibUllah Khan]:

The Supreme Courtheld that the employees of the local bodies like Municipalities are entitled for gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Hemant Gupta upheld Allahabad High Court judgments while upholding appeals filed by Kanpur and Gorakhpur Municipalities.

4. One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice [Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. V. Govindan Raghavan]:

The Supreme Court held that the incorporation of one-sided clauses in a builder-buyer agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2 (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The bench comprising Justice UU Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra also observed that a builder could not seek to bind a flat buyer with one-sided contractual terms.

5. SC Sets Aside Bail Granted To J&K Businessman In Terror Funding Case [National Investigation Agency V. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali] :

The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court order which granted bail to Jammu and Kashmir based influential businessman Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali in Terror funding case.Allowing the appeal filed by the National Investigating Agency, the bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi observed that the Designated NIA Court had rightly rejected the bail application after adverting to the relevant material/evidence indicative of the fact that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the respondent is prima facie true.

6. SC Strikes Down RBI Circular Asking Banks To Take Defaulting Companies To Insolvency [Dharani Sugars &Chemicals Ltd. V. Union of India] :

The Supreme Court struck down the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India on February 12, 2018 directing banks to initiate insolvency proceedings against companies having bad debts of Rs 2000 crores or above. The court also held that authorization from Central Government is necessary for RBI to direct insolvency process against stressed assets.

7.Employee Not Entitled To Full Back Wages On Acquittal, Unless His Prosecution Was Found Malicious [Raj Narain V. Union of India] :

The Supreme Court held that the employer cannot be mulcted with full back wages on the acquittal of an employee by a criminal Court, unless it is found that the prosecution is malicious.

Supreme Court Weekly Highlight: (26 March to 1st April):

Supreme Court Weekly Highlight: (26 March to 1st April):

1. Buyer Cannot Be Required To Wait Indefinitely For Possession :

A buyer cannot be required to wait indefinitely for possession, said the Supreme Court while affirming Consumer Commission order directing the developer to refund the amount to the buyer.

2. Health Of Environment Is The Key To Preserve The Right To Life Under Article 21 [Hanuman Laxman Aroskar V. Union of India]:

The Supreme Court suspended the Environmental Clearance granted for the development of Greenfield international airport at Mopa in Goa. The bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta directed Expert Appraisal Committee to revisit the recommendations made by it for the grant of clearance.

3. 'Second FIR Not Barred Merely Because Motive In Both Offences Are The Same'; SC Upholds Life Sentence Of Saravana Bhavan Founder For Murder [Pattu Rajan V. State of Tamil Nadu]:

The Supreme Court upheld the life sentence awarded to P Rajagopal - the founder of famous South Indian restaurant chain Saravana Bhavan - and five of his aides for murder of Santhakumar in 2001. The bench of Justices N V Ramana, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee dismissed the batch of appeals filed by accused against the 2009 judgment of Madras High Court.

4. Court Can Appoint Independent Arbitrator Only After Resorting To The Procedure In Arbitration Agreement [Union Of India V. Parmar Construction Company] :

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court, while dealing with an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking appointment of an 'independent Arbitrator', should first resort to the mechanism in appointment of an arbitrator as per the terms of contract as agreed by the parties. One of the issue in a batch of appeals.

5. Drunkenness While On Duty A Serious Misconduct: SC Upholds Dismissal Of A Police Constable [State of Uttarakhand v. Prem Ram] :

The Supreme Court upheld dismissal of a police constable for drunkenness and misbehavior with the public. "Having regard to the seriousness of the charge of misconduct and the fact that the respondent was a member of the police service, we find no justification for the High Court to interfere with the order of dismissal" the court held.

6. Companies Act Does Not Stipulate Any Period For Completion Of Serious Fraud Investigation [Serious Fraud Investigation Office V. Rahul Modi]:

Holding that there is no stipulation of any fixed period for completion of a Serious Fraud investigation, the Supreme Court observed that the stipulation in sub-section (3) of Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, in relation to the submission of the report, is not mandatory, but directory. The bench comprising Justice AM Sapre and Justice UU Lalit were dealing with an appeal filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office against Delhi High Court order that
termed arrests illegal because the period of investigation was 'over'.

7. State Can Include Proceeds From Inter-State Sale In Total Turnover To Classify Dealers For Sales Tax Slab [M/s Achal Industries V. State of Karnataka] :

The bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi of the Supreme Court held that state can include proceeds from inter-state sale in total turnover to classify dealers for sales tax slab.

8. Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Maintainable Against Dishonour Of Cheques Issued In Pursuance Of Agreement For Sale [Ripudaman Singh vs. Balkrishna]:

The Supreme Court observed that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable when there is dishonour of cheques issued under and in pursuance of the agreement to sell.

9. Forest Act- Magistrate Can't Invoke Jurisdiction Under S.451 CrPC To Release A Seized Vehicle, Once Authorized Officer Initiates Confiscation Proceedings [State of Madhya radish V. Uday Singh]:

Statutory interpretation must remain eternally vigilant to the daily assaults on the
environment, said the Supreme Court while it set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court order that directed the Magistrate to order interim release of a vehicle seized for being involved in the illegal excavation of sand from the Chambal River. The bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta held that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure to release a seized vehicle, once the Authorised Officer
initiated confiscation proceedings.

10. Averment Of Political Rivalry By Itself Does Not Constitute A 'Plea Of Mala Fides' [V. Krishnamurthy V. State of Tamil Nadu] :

The Supreme Courtobserved that mere averment of political rivalry by itself would not constitute a plea of malafides to interfere with an administrative decision taken by the state.The bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari observed that the State has only exercised the right of resumption of the land for a public purpose and it is entitled to do so.

11. Prosecuterix Was In The Habit Of Implicating People: SC Sets Aside Concurrent Conviction In A R**e Case [Ganga Prasad Mahto V. State of Bihar]:

The Supreme Court, acquitted a man who faced concurrent conviction in a r**e case. To acquit the accused, the bench noted that the prosecutrix was in the habit of making such complaints, and in fact similar complaints she had made against others were later found false.

12. Statutory Regulation On Private Bodies By Itself Does Not Make Them Subject To Writ Jurisdiction [Ramakrishna Mission V. KagoKunya]:

The Supreme Court made it clear that mere regulation by a statute on a private body cannot be conclusive of whether it discharges a public function, to hold it amenable to writ jurisdiction of a High court. The bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta, in a judgment delivered last month, held that Ramakrishna Mission and its Hospital at Itanagar would not constitute an authority within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution nor a 'State' under Article 12.

13. Disease Caused By Insect Bite In The Natural Course Of Events Not Covered Under 'Accident' Insurance [Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Smt. Mousumi Bhattacharjee] :

The Supreme Court observed that where a disease is caused or transmitted by insect bite/virus in the natural course of events, it would not be covered by the definition of an accident. But, in a given case or circumstance, the affliction or bodily condition may be regarded as an accident where its cause or course of transmission is unexpected and unforeseen, the bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta observed while dealing with what it called an 'interesting question of law'.

14. Hotel Which Provides Swimming Pool Owes Its Guests A Duty Of Care; SC Directs KTDC To Pay Rs.62,50,000 To Family Of The Victim [The Managing Director, KTDC Ltd. V. Deepti Singh]:

A hotel which provides a swimming pool for its guests owes a duty of care, said the Supreme Court while directing the Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. to pay Rs.62, 50,000, to the family of a man who died as he drowned in the swimming pool at Hotel Samudra at Kovalam.

15. SC Sentences Nedumpara To 3 Months Jail For Contempt; Bars From Practising In SC; Suspends Sentence On Undertaking:

The Supreme Court bench of Justices R F Nariman and Vineet Saran sentenced Advocate Mathews Nedumpara to 3 months imprisonment, which will remain suspended so long as he abides by his undertaking that he will not attempt to browbeat any judge of High Court or Supreme Court.

16. Criminal Antecedents Of Candidate Cannot Be Said To Be 'Clear' When Acquittal Is By Granting Benefit Of Doubt:

The Supreme Court observed that criminal antecedents of an employee or a candidate cannot be said to be clear when he was acquitted in a criminal case on the ground of benefit of doubt and not because the case against him was found to be false.