Read Time: 16 minutes

1. [Reasoned Order] While setting aside an order of the Rajasthan High Court granting bail to a habitual offender accused of committing the grievous offence of rape against his young niece of nineteen years, the Top Court has said, "Reasoning is the life blood of the judicial system. That every order must be reason is one of the fundamental tenets of our system. An unreasoned order suffers the vice of arbitrariness." Supreme Court was further of the opinion that order passed by the High Court was cryptic, and suggested no application of mind.  "There is a recent trend of passing such orders granting or refusing to grant bail, where the Courts make a general observation that "the facts and circumstances have been considered. No specific reasons are indicated which precipitated the passing of the order by the Court", the Court remarked.
   Bench: CJI NV Ramana and Justice Krishna Murari
   Case title: Ms. Y vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.
   Click here to read more
2. [Restorative Justice] While commuting the punishment awarded to a person accused of raping and killing a four year old girl, from death sentence to life imprisonment, Justice Bela M Trivedi remarked that, "One of the basic principles of restorative justice as developed by this Court over the years, also is to give an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail. The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender."
   Bench: Justice Bela M Trivedi
   Case Title: MOHD. FIROZ vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH.
   Click here to read more
    
3. [NSEL Scam] The Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the Bombay High Court, by which certain notifications attaching the property of 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (MPID Act) had been quashed. 63 Moons holds 99.99% of the shareholding of NSEL which operated as an exchange for spot trading in commodities.
   Bench: Justices Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Bela M Trivedi
   Case title: The State of Maharashtra vs 63 Moons Technologies Ltd.
   Click here to read more
    
4. [Unnao Custodial Death Case] Last week, the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of investigation into the murder of one Mohd. Faizal, in police custody in May last year at Police Station Bangermau, District Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, to a senior Police Officer, Shri Bhagwan Swarup, Inspector General of Police, Intelligence, HQ, Lucknow. While ordering so, a division bench observed that fair investigation is the backbone of criminal justice system and the object of the investigation is to search for the truth so that it would help in meeting the ends of justice by way of fair trial in Court.
   Bench: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi
   Case Title: NASIMA vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
   Click here to read more
    
5. [Insider Trading] The Supreme Court has recently set aside the order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal upholding order of the Whole Time Member of Securities and Exchange Board of India imposing a penalty of Rs 20 lakhs and restraining the PC Jewellers Managing Director Balram Garg from accessing the securities market over the allegations of Insider Trading. The bench relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju where it is held that “a reasonable expectation to be in the know of things can only be based on reasonable inference drawn from foundational facts”.
   Bench: Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Aniruddha Bose
   Case Title: Balram Garg Vs. Security Exchange Board of India 
   Click here to read more
    
6. [Telecasting evidence on TV] Noting that a DVD recorded by the Investigating Agency in a case was played and published in a program named “Sutta Mutta” by Udaya TV, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said that all matters relating to the crime and whether a particular thing happens to be a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of Law and not through a TV channel.  The Court further noted, "Allowing said DVD to go into the hands of a private TV channel so that it could be played and published in a program is nothing but dereliction of duty and direct interference in the administration of Justice."
   Bench: Justices UU Lalit and PS Narasimha
   Case Title: VENKATESH @ CHANDRA & ANR. ETC. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
   Click here to read more
    
7. [Recruitment of teachers] While holding that obtaining a degree in one of the branches of History cannot be said to be obtaining a degree in the subject of History as a whole, the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court whereby it had confirmed the order of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission canceling the candidature of Postgraduate and Graduate Trained Teacher. "As a History teacher, he/she has to teach in all the subjects of History, namely, Ancient History, Indian Ancient History and Culture, Medieval / Modern History, Indian Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology etc. Therefore, having studied and obtaining the degree in only one branch of History cannot be said to be having a degree in History subject as a whole, which was the requirement.", held a division bench.
   Bench: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna.
   Case Title: Indresh Kumar Mishra and Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
   Click here to read more
    
8. [Income Tax Act] Loan taken by an assessee, which was necessary for carrying on its business of financing and not for creation of asset can be claimed to be a general deduction in terms of Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, held the Top Court.  As the loan was obtained in foreign currency, while repaying the it, due to the difference of rate of foreign exchange, Wipro had to pay higher amount, resulting in loss. “….the transaction of loan between the appellant and Commonwealth Development Corporation, the same was in the nature of   borrowing   money   by   the   appellant,   which   was   necessary   for carrying on its business of financing.  It was certainly not for creation of asset of the appellant as such or acquisition of asset from a country outside India for the purpose of its business.  In such a scenario, the appellant would be justified in availing deduction of entire expenditure or loss suffered by it in connection with such a transaction in terms of Section 37 of the Act”, held the Court.
   Bench: Justices AM Khanwilkar, Abhay S Oka and CT Ravikumar
   Case Title: WIPRO FINANCE LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
   Click here to read more
    
9. [Acceptance of sale] The Supreme Court held that Karnataka High Court was not justified in directing to issue letter of allotment in lieu of a site which was allotted way back in 2003 and when the writ petitioner had not offered his acceptance or deposited the sital value of the allotted price in terms of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984.
   Bench: Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam
   Case Title: THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. GUNDAPPA R.
   Click here to read more
    
10. [Reappointment]  Holding that the Orissa Administrative Tribunal erred in condoning the delay of nearly 14 years in preferring the Original Application by one Buda Batri, the Supreme Court held that, "Reappointment after nearly 14 years would create chaos and would not be in the interest of administration." The top court further noted that the fact is that Batri had accepted the letter of termination, showed that the grievance raised is an afterthought and an attempt to raise a stale claim after he had already come to terms with the termination.
    Bench: Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M Trivedi.
    Case Title: THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. vs. BUDA BATRI
    Click here to read more