Shri M.L.Patil (Dead) Through LRs v. State of Goa And Anr.| Civil Appeal No. 4100 of 2022
- Case Name: Citation: 2022(SC) 537
- Coram: Hon’ble Justices M.R. Shah and V. Nagarathna
- The Supreme Court, recently, held that arrears of pension cannot be denied on the ground of delay in approaching the Court as pension is a continuous cause of action.
- A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shahand V. Nagarathna set aside the order of the High Court to the extent it denied arrears of pension.
- It held that the appellant are entitled to pension at the revised rates from the day they turn 60. Furthermore, arrears of pension were directed to be paid to the appellant within a period of four weeks.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v Dilip Bhosale| SLP
- Citation: 2022 (SC) 545
- Coram: Hon’ble Justices Ajay Rastogi & Vikram Nath
- The Supreme Court recently reiterated that when a remedy under the statute is available, filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to be discouraged by the High Court.
- The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi & Vikram Nath rendered this observation while considering SLP preferred by secured creditor assailing Telangana HC’s orders passed in a SARFAESI matter.
Jagmohan Singh V. Vimlesh Kumar & Ors.
- Citation: 2022 (SC) 546
- Coram: Hon’ble Justices Indira Banerjee and S. Bopanna
- Reiterating that “the Court interferes in criminal proceedings under Cr. P. C. Section 482, in rare and exceptional cases, to give effect to the provisions of the Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice“.
- the Supreme Court has stressed that criminal proceedings can be said to be in abuse of the process of court “when the allegations in the FIR do not at all disclose any offense or there are materials on record from which the Court can reasonably arrive at a finding that the proceedings are in abuse of the process of the Court”
- The Court has added, “While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court should not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry into whether there is reliable evidence or not. The jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only when such exercise is justified by the specific provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. itself.”
Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya vs State of Gujarat
- Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 547
- Coram: Hon’ble Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose
- The Supreme Court observed that income, age , bigger family cannot be the sole criteria to tilt balance in child- custody cases. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose observed thus while it granted custody of a five year boy who lost his parents due to covid to his paternal grandfather.
- While agreeing with the submissions made by the appellant-grand father, the court observed:
- “There cannot be any presumption that the maternal aunt being unmarried having an independent income; younger than the paternal grandparents and having a bigger family would take better care than the paternal grandparents.
- In our society still the paternal grandparents would always take better care of their grandson. One should not doubt the capacity and/or ability of the paternal grandparents to take care of their grandson. It is said that the grandparents love the interest rather than the principle. Emotionally also the grandparents will always take better care of their grandson. Grandparents are more emotionally attached with grandchildren.”