Read Time: 18 minutes
Keywords: Freebies, pharmaceutical companies, Medical council of India, doctors' duty, ban on freebies, tax exemption, tax benefit on freebies [Freebies - Pharmaceutical companies] Supreme Court held that when acceptance of freebies is punishable by the Medical Council of India (the range of penalties and sanction extending to ban imposed on the medical practitioner), pharmaceutical companies cannot be granted tax benefit for providing such freebies, and thereby (actively and with full knowledge) enabling the commission of the act which attracts such opprobrium. While delving into the role of doctor's, Court said that the doctor’s prescription is considered the final word on the medication to be availed by the patient, even if the cost of such medication is unaffordable or barely within the economic reach of the patient – "such is the level of trust reposed in doctors", court said. Bench: Justices S Ravindra Bhat and UU Lalit Case Title: M/s Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit - II Click here to read more
Keywords: Prevention of corruption Act, bribe, public servant, proof of demand, Section 7 PC Act, illegal gratification, legal remuneration [Proof of Bribe Sine Qua Non for PCA] Setting aside the order of conviction against one Commercial Tax Officer, the Supreme Court held that proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). Court said that punishment for the public servants taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act, requires a demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof. Bench: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka Case Title: K. Shanthamma v. The State of Telangana Click here to read more
Keywords: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Protected witness, Testimony of witness, Section 44 UAPA, Section 173(6), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, witness identity [S. 44 UAPA] The Top Court clarified that as per Section 44 of the UAPA, the whole objective is that if from the testimony of the witness, their location and identity can be deciphered, that portion of the testimony should not be handed over. Sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the UAPA, says that if the public prosecutor in relation to a witness pleads that they should be protected, then a court on an application if satisfied that the life of such witness is in danger, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, take such measures as it deems fit for keeping the “identity and address of such witness secret.” The Supreme Court noted that the Investigating Officer sought for such redaction as it was a high profile case and would attract high public and media attention, apart from some dreaded terrorist organisation(s) being part of the conspiracy and the consequent investigation against them. Bench: Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh Case Title: WAHEED-UR-REHMAN PARRA v UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR Click here to read more
Keywords: motor accidents claims, insurance claims, insurance companies, loss of amenities and happiness, pain and suffering, compensation [Motor accident claims] The Supreme Court has held that compensation in motor accident claims under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and happiness, cannot be calculated under a straight jacket formula. Court said, “It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it varies from person to person who has suffered due to the accident. " The bench observed, "So far as awarding compensation on the head of pain, shock and suffering is concerned, multiple factors are required to be considered namely, prolonged hospitalization; the grievous injuries sustained; the operations underwent and the consequent pain, discomfort and suffering.” Bench: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna Case Title: Sri. Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.& Anr. Click here to read more
Keywords: District collector, Market value, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited [Land allotment] While staying the recovery of the amount demanded in 2017 by the Collector as the market value of the land that was allotted way back in 1999, the Top Court said, "Prima facie, we find that once the allotment was made in the year 1999, the District Collector may not be within its jurisdiction to claim market value in the year 2017." Bench: Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam Case Title: BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. Click here to read more
Keywords: bail application, remissions, model jail, Allahabad High Court, Registry, paper book, appeal, listing of appeal [Bail] In a case where a bail applicant had served more than 18 years with remission and more than 14 years actual sentence, while his second bail application was rejected by the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court sought a response from the Registrar, High Court of Allahabad to send a report forthwith informing it whether the paper book was prepared in pursuance to the direction passed by the Division Bench on January 9, 2019 and if so when and whether any steps were taken to list the appeal thereafter. It was found that the High Court had directed the office to prepare paper books within four weeks and list the appeal immediately for hearing and this was as far back on January 9, 2019. Bench: Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh Case Title: DHARMENDRA v THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Click here to read more
Keywords: Article 14, Article 16, Constitution of India, compassionate appointment, illegitimate child, decent, familial origins, legitimate descendant [Compassionate Appointment] Holding that a policy for compassionate appointment must be consistent with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16, the Top Court has held that, a policy for compassionate appointment, which has the force of law, must not discriminate on any of the grounds mentioned in Article 16(2), including that of descent. The bench further held that, "...‘descent’ must be understood to encompass the familial origins of a person. Familial origins include the validity of the marriage of the parents of a claimant of compassionate appointment and the claimant’s legitimacy as their child. The policy cannot discriminate against a person only on the ground of descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate and recognizing only the right of legitimate descendant." Bench: Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha Case Title: MUKESH KUMAR & ANR v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS Click here to read more
Keywords: NCDRC, consumer complaint, misjoinder of parties, unnecessary party, contradictory pleadings [Adjudication of complaint by NCDRC] Terming the approach of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to be erroneous, the top court opined that the commission cannot return a complaint unadjudicated. It was further observed that even if the NCDRC is of the opinion that an unnecessary party has been attached or the pleadings are contradictory, it should strike down the said party rather than returning the complaint unadjudicated. Bench: Justices Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramaniam Case Title: Bharmaputra Biochem Private Limited v. New India Assurance Company & Anr. Click here to read more
Keywords: Negotiable instruments Act, Cheque bounced, Section 138, complainant, authorized employee, representative employee, payee [Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881] Dealing with the legitimacy of a complaint filed under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Supreme Court recently held that "when the complainant/payee is a company, an authorized employee can represent the company." A three-judge bench said, “…when a company is the payee of the cheque based on which a complaint is filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the complainant necessarily should be the Company which would be represented by an employee who is authorized." Bench: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana along with Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli Case Title: M/s TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. v M/s SMS Asia Private Limited & Anr. Click here to read more
Keywords: Anticipatory bail, indefinite adjournment, rights of accused, legal right to seek bail, arrest, specific dates for hearings [Anticipatory bail hearings] The Supreme Court has remarked that not giving any specific date, particularly in a matter relating to anticipatory bail, is not a procedure that can be countenanced. A Chief Justice of India NV Ramana led bench opined that an indefinite adjournment in a matter relating to anticipatory bail, that too after admitting it, is detrimental to the valuable right of a person. The counsel for the petitioner argued before the Apex Court that if his client is arrested during the pendency of anticipatory bail application, it would become infructuous and his legal right will be defeated. He, therefore, urged the top court to ensure that the matter is heard by the High Court and the valuable right of the petitioner be protected. Bench: CJI Ramana, along with Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli Case Title: Rajesh Seth v. State of Chhattisgarh Click here to read more
Please Login or Register
