Read Time: 11 minutes

1. Keywords: Pre-emption, Right of Pre-emption, Bihar Land Acquisition Reforms Act 2019, Land Acquisition
[Right of Pre-emption] The Supreme Court has held that right of pre-emptions is feudal, archaic and outmoded. While relying on its dictum in Shyam Sunder & Ors. v. Ram Kumar & Anr, the Court added that the right of pre-emption has been said to be maligned law. The bench while interpreting the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 2019 added, "Such right of pre-emption has been taken away and all proceedings pending before any authority have been ordered to be abated including proceedings in any other Court. Any other Court is wide enough to include the Constitutional Courts i.e. the High Court and the Supreme Court."
Bench: Justices Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat
Case Title: Punyadeo Sharma & Ors. Etc. Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors. 
Click here to read more
Click here to access Judgment

2. Keywords: Service Rules, Departmental Proceedings, Principles of Natural Justice
[Right to representation in departmental proceedings] Supreme Court recently held that there is no absolute right   in favour of a delinquent officer to be represented through the agent of his choice in the departmental proceedings and the same can be restricted by the employer. The Bench further observed that irrespective of whether charges is severe and complex nature or not, the employee as a matter of right cannot pray that he may be permitted to represent through the agent of his choice.
Bench: Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna.
Case Title: The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB) & Anr. v Ramesh Chandra Meena & Anr.
Click here to read more

3. Keywords: Arbitration & Concilliation Act, 1996, Arbitration, Section 34 Arbitration & Concilliation
[Section 34 applications] Supreme Court clarified that merely because an application is filed under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by a party, it is not always obligatory on the part of the Court to remit the matter to Arbitral Tribunal. Court said that the discretionary power conferred under Section 34(4) of the Act, is to be exercised where there is inadequate reasoning or to fill up the gaps in the reasoning, in support of the findings which are already recorded in the award.
Bench: Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy
Case Title: I-Pay Clearing Services Private Limited v. ICICI Bank Limited
Click here to read more

4. Keywords: Arbitration & Concilliation Act 1996, Arbitration appeals, Arbitral Appeals, Section 34, Contracts, Indian Contract Act
[Contract Clauses & Section 34] Supreme court on Friday re-emphasized that if there are two plausible interpretations of the terms and conditions of the contract, then no fault can be found if the Arbitrator proceeds to accept one interpretation as against the other."Merely because another view could have been taken, can hardly be a ground for the learned Single Judge to have interfered with the arbitral award," the Court said.
Bench: CJI NV Ramana, Justices AS Bopanna & Hima Kohli
Case Title: UHL Power Company Ltd. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Click here to read more

5. Keywords: Administrative Courts, Territorial Jurisdiction, Industrial Tribunals
[Alpan Bandhopadhyay Case] The Supreme Court has  set aside the order of Calcutta High Court which had ruled against an order of the Principal bench Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), transferring the disciplinary proceeding pertaining to Alpan Bandopadhyay from Calcutta to Delhi. Court has gone on to expunge the "disparaging" and "scathing" remarks against the Principal bench of the Tribunal and has allowed the Centre's plea, while holding that the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the challenge against CAT's order. "Needless to say that the power of judicial review of an order transferring an Original Application pending before a Bench of the Tribunal to another Bench under Section 25 of the Act can be judicially reviewed only by a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Bench passing the same, falls," Court noted.
Bench: Justices AM Khanwilkar Vs. CT Ravikumar
Case title: Union of India Vs Alpan Bandopadhyay
Click here to read more

6. Keywords: Indian Penal Code, Common intention, Criminality, Section 34 IPC
[Section 34 IPC: Common Intention] Noting that there are cases where all acts, in general, would not come under the purview of Section 34 IPC, but only those done in furtherance of the common intention having adequate connectivity, the top court held, "When we speak of intention it has to be one of criminality with adequacy of knowledge of any existing fact necessary for the proposed offense. Such an intention is meant to assist, encourage, promote and facilitate the commission of a crime with the requisite knowledge ....".
Bench: Justices SK Kaul & MM Sundaresh
Case Title: Jasdeep Singh@Jassu Vs. State of Punjab
Click here to read more

7. Keywords: RBI, Financial institutions, Banking Regulation Act, Supervisory Powers
[RBI's powers] The Supreme Court has remarked that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has wide supervisory powers over financial institutions like SIDBI, in furtherance of which, any direction issued by the RBI, deriving power from the RBI Act or the Banking Regulation Act is statutorily binding on these financial institutions.
Bench: Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy
Case Title: SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA v M/S. SIBCO INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.
Click here to read more