Read Time: 16 minutes

1. Keywords: Reserve Bank of India, SIDBI, Financial institutions, Banking Regulation Act, Statutory Body, Supervisory Body
   [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 & Hrishikesh Roy
   Case Title: Small Industries Development Bank of India Vs. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd.
   Click here to read more
    
2. Keywords: Statutory limitation period, COVID-19
   [Extension of Limitation Period] The Supreme Court has extended the limitation period in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings till February 28, 2022 in view of the outbreak of COVID-19 in an application filed in Suo Motu writ petition which the court initiated in 2020 during the early days of the pandemic. The order has been passed in furtherance of the application filed by Supreme Court Advocates On Record Association’s (SCAORA) application seeking revival of order of the Supreme Court dated March 23, 2020 extending the statutory limitation period owing to the prevailing pandemic situation.
   Bench: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice Surya Kant
   Case Title: In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation
   Click here to read more
    
3. Keywords: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, PMLA, Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 45, Anticipatory Bail
   [PMLA] The Top court has held that though Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) would not apply to offences under ordinary law once prayer for anticipatory bail is made in connection with offence under the PMLA Act, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA Act must get triggered. The court has ruled thus on a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against an order passed by the Telangana High Court whereby it granted anticipatory bail to one Dr. VC Mohan in connection with offence under the PMLA. The bench observed that the High Court considered the matter as if it was dealing with prayer for anticipatory bail in connection with ordinary offence under the Indian Penal Code.
   Bench: Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar
   Case Title: The Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate v Dr. VC Mohan
   Click here to read more
    
4. Keywords: Non-performing Asset, Loan, Maintainability, Notice under SARFAESI, Section 13(4), Section 17, remedy
   [SARFAESI Act] The Supreme Court has held that writ petitions against the notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act are not required to be entertained by the High Court. The bench said, “...in view of the statutory remedy available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the cases referred to hereinabove, the writ petitions against the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was not required to be entertained by the High Court.”
   Bench: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna.
   Case Title: Phoenix ARC Private Limited v Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir & Ors.
   Click here to read more
    
5. Keywords: Custody of a minor, custody battles, welfare of child, custody petition, habeas corpus plea
   [Custody Issue] Noting that the rights of the parents are irrelevant when a Court decides the custody issue, the Top Court has said that it is not a consideration at all for deciding the issue. The Supreme Court further said that the issue of custody of a minor, whether in a petition seeking habeas corpus or in a custody petition, has to be decided on the touchstone of the principle that the welfare of a minor is of paramount consideration.
   Bench: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka
   Case Title: Vasudha Sethi & Ors vs Kiran V Bhaskar & Anr.
   Click here to read more
    
6. Keywords: Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, Dowry Death, Cruelty, Torture, Harassment
   [Dowry Death] Remarking that it is the duty of the mother-in-law and her family to take care of her daughter-in-law, rather than harassing and/or torturing and/or meting out cruelty to her daughter-in-law regarding jewels or on other issues, the Top Court upheld the conviction of an 80-year old woman for the commission of an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The court while noting that even the husband of the victim was staying abroad and the victim was staying all alone with her in-laws, opined that it was the duty of the appellant, being the mother-in-law to take care of her daughter-in-law.
   Bench: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna
   Case Title: Meera v State By the Inspector of Police Thiruvotriyur Police Station Chennai
   Click here to read more
    
7. Keywords: Bail application, facts of a case, evidence, allegations, witness tampering, criminal antecedents, severity of crime, charges
   [Deciding Bail Pleas] The Supreme Court has clarified that a Court while deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused.
   Bench: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna
   Case Title: Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.
   Click here to read more
    
8. Keywords: Challenge to bail; Section 25A Code of Criminal Procedure; Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Director of Prosecution; Gujarat Police Act, 1951
   [Role of Director of Prosecution] Noting that it is the duty of the Director of Prosecution and the State to ensure that the guilty are booked and punished, the Supreme Court pulled up the state of Gujarat for not filing an appeal against an order granting bail to persons accused of brutally murdering a man while he was "just collecting scrap outside a factory." Emphasizing on the role of the Director of Prosecution, the Court said that even the Director of Prosecution had failed to perform his duties. It further noted that the post of Director of Prosecution is a very important post in so far as the administration of justice in criminal matters is concerned.
   Bench: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna
   Case Title: Jayaben v Tejas Kanubhai Zala & Anr.
   Click here to read more
    
9. Keywords: Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, Landlord, Tenant, Unemployed, Possession, Bonafide requirement
   [S. 21(1)(a) UP Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act] While interpreting Section 21(1)(a) of the Act of 1972, under which the application for release of the premises in possession of the tenant is filed, the Supreme Court has held that while seeking release of the premises on the ground of bona fide requirement, the landlord is not required to be “unemployed” to maintain an action. The Court further said that "..all that the provision contemplates is that the requirement so pleaded by the landlord must be bona fide."
   Bench: Justices UU Lalit and S Ravindra Bhat
   Case Title: Harish Kumar (since deceased) through Lrs. vs Pankaj Kumar Garg
   Click here to read more
    
10. Keywords: Preventive Detention, Detenu, Competent Authority, Detention Order
    [Preventive Detention] Allowing an appeal filed by S Amutha, the wife of one Kalyanaodai Senthil, aged 53 years, who had been confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore, the Top Court said that even if, it may not be a case of lethargy of the Competent Authority to consider the representation, the time period of over two months spent in doing so, could not be countenanced. The court remarked that it did not require such a long time for the authority to examine the representation concerning preventive detention of the detenu.
    Bench: Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar
    Case Title: S. Amutha v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
    Click here to read more