Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

A Five judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Hon’ble Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, will hear the following cases on 15th October at 10:30 am.

Indore Development Authority v Manohar Lal

A division bench of the court referred the matter to the 5 judge bench on being posed with the issue whether the term ‘paid’ under Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is equal to deposit of the consideration or whether the offer to compensate, once refused, is considered waived. The Court had held that the claimants cannot take undue advantage of their wilful waiver. Court had asked for suggestions of the lawyers for framing of questions, to be heard on the next date.

The State of Haryana v Maharana Pratap Charitable Trust

The Court is again posed with the question whether, under the 2013 Act, government’s offer of compensation for acquisition of land, if refused by the claimant, can be argued as non-payment and dispossession contested?

Another issue is the calculation of five years for land acquisition from the date of notification – whether the period of court-imposed stay is to be excluded in the computation. Court quoted several legal maxims while holding, that the stay on the order of dispossession of properties also stayed the timer on the five year rule – law will excuse a person who could not perform his duty for no fault of his and without any remedy existing.

Rajendra Diwan v Pradeep Kumar Ranibala

The appeal challenges the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. Court raised a doubt as to the legislative competence in passing such a statute. Thus, a larger bench was referred. It was observed, that while Entry 77 of List 1 expressly recognizes the authority of the Parliament to deal with the constitution and organization of this Court, the Entries 65 and 46 of Lists 2 and 3 recognize the legislative competence of the State Legislatures to deal with the jurisdiction of all Courts except Supreme Court.

Sushila Aggarwal v State(Delhi)

A three-judge bench referred the following questions for consideration by a larger bench:

(1) Whether the protection granted to a person under Section 438 CrPC should be limited to a fixed period so as to enable the person to surrender before the Trial Court and seek regular bail.

(2) Whether the life of an anticipatory bail should end at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court.

Mukesh Singh v State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi)

Petitioner seeks acquittal on ground that investigation in the complaint was done by the complainant police officer himself, which vitiates the entire trial. The counsel at an earlier date, has relied  on Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab, where investigation by informant resulted in Court acquitting the accused. In Bhagwan Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan the Court held that if the complainant himself was the Investigating Officer the case of prosecution would not be free from doubt.

However in Inspector of Police vs. V Jayapaul, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court had observed, “the police officer received certain discreet information, which, according to his assessment, warranted a probe and therefore made up his mind to investigate. The formality of preparing the FIR in which he records the factum of having received the information about the suspected commission of the offence and then taking up the investigation after registering the crime, does not, by any semblance of reasoning, vitiate the investigation on the ground of bias or the like factor. If the reason which weighed with the High Court could be a ground to quash the prosecution, the powers of investigation conferred on the police officers would be unduly hampered for no good reason.”

A larger bench was thus referred, while prima facie noting that the Court was not inclined to declare the investigation or the trial vitiated. The three-judge bench hence constituted, referred the matter on the same grounds to a five-judge bench.

–India Legal Bureau

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.