CONTEMPT OF COURT: Advocate Abusing Judge
The dangerous trend of making false allegations against judicial officers and humiliating them requires to be curbed with heavy hands, otherwise the judicial system itself would collapse. Liberty of free expression is not to be confounded or confused with license to make unfounded allegations against any institution, much less the judiciary.
The courts certainly cannot be intimated to seek the favourable orders. No litigant, far less an advocate, has any right to take the law in his own hands. In the instant case, the contemnor, an advocate practising for last 30 years, abused the judge in most filthy words unworthy of mouthing by an ordinary person, intimidated the presiding officer of the court hurling filthiest abuses and lowered the authority of the court. The charge which stood proved against the contemnor could not be taken lightly and in such a fact-situation the apology tendered by him, being not bona fide, was held not acceptable.
Vishram Singh Raghuvanshi v. State of UP, Crl. A. No. 697 of 2006; Decided on 15-6-2011 (SC) [Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.]
CORRUPTION CASES: Sanction for Prosecution
For the prosecution of a public servant holding a different capacity than the one which he is alleged to have abused, there is no requirement of obtaining sanction to prosecute him when he has ceased to hold that office by the time court was called upon to take cognizance. If the person concerned at the time when he is to be tried is not a public servant, then there will be no necessity of a sanction at all.
Abhay Singh Chautala v. CBI, Crl. A. No. 1257 of 2011; Decided on 4-7-2011 (SC) [V.S. Sirpurkar and T.S. Thakur, JJ.]
MEDICAL COURSE OF FOREIGN UNIVERSITY: Recognition in India
For examining the validity of the medical qualification granted by a medical institution in any country outside India, the norms and tests of the country where the medical institution is situated, will have to be fulfilled for recognition of the degree in that country and the norms that are prescribed by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 in regard to Indian Medical Institutions will have no relevance. So long as the medical institution in a country outside India has granted a medical qualification and that medical qualification is recognized for enrolment as medical practitioner in that country, all that is required for the purpose of enrolment in the medical register in India is qualifying in the screening test in India.
Medical Council of India v. J. Saai Prasanna, SLP Nos. 23641-23653 of 2008; Decided on 9-5-2011 (SC) [R.V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik, JJ.]
CONTRACTS RELATING TO IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES: Time Essence of Contract
Normally in regard to contracts relating to sale of immovable properties, time is not considered to be the essence of the contract, unless such an intention can be gathered either from the express terms of the contract or impliedly from the intention of the parties as expressed by the terms of the contract.
The principle that time is not of the essence of contracts relating to immovable properties took shape in an era when market value of immovable properties were stable and did not undergo any marked change even over a few years (followed mechanically, even when value ceased to be stable). As held, there is now an urgent need to revisit the principle that time is not of the essence in contracts relating to immovable properties, in view of the changed circumstances arising from inflation and steep increase in prices. The steep increase in prices is a circumstance which makes it inequitable to grant the relief of specific performance where the purchaser does not take steps to complete the sale within the agreed period, and the vendor has not been responsible for any delay or non-performance.
Mrs. Saradamani Kandappan v. Mrs. S. Rajalakshmi, C.A. Nos. 7254-7256 of 2002; Decided on
4-7-2011 (SC) [R.V. Raveendran and K.S. Radhakrishnan, JJ.]
HIGH COURT JUDGE: Investigation into Misbehaviour or Incapacity of Judge by Committee
Fifty members of the Rajya Sabha submitted a notice of motion for presenting an address to the President of India for removal of Justice P.D. Dinakaran, who was then posted as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. The notice enumerated the acts of misbehaviour allegedly committed by Justice Dinakaran and was accompanied by an explanatory note and documents in support of the allegations. After the motion was admitted, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha constituted a Committee comprising Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, Judge Supreme Court of India, Mr. Justice A.R. Dave, the then Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court and Shri P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India.
Justice Dinakaran filed writ petition for quashing order passed by the Committee, petitioner also aggrieved by the inclusion of Shri P.P. Rao in the Committee alleging bias against him. The Supreme Court while dismissing the writ petition held that belated raising of objection against inclusion of Shri P.P. Rao in the Committee appeared to be a calculated move on the petitioner’s part to delay the submission of report. However, the Apex Court requested the Chairman to nominate another distinguished jurist in place of Shri P.P. Rao.
Justice P. D. Dinakaran v. Hon’ble Judges Inquiry Committee, W.P. (C) No. 217 of 2011; Decided on 5-7-2011 (SC) [G.S. Singhvi and Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, JJ.]
STATE INACTION: Unaccounted Money In Foreign Banks
The fact that there is some information and knowledge that there are large sums of unaccounted monies allegedly held by certain named individuals, and loose associations of them which may have been stashed away in foreign banks, implies that the State has the primordial responsibility, under the Constitution, to make every effort to trace the sources of such monies, punish the guilty where such monies have been generated and/or taken abroad through unlawful activities, and bring back the monies owed to the country.
From the Status Reports submitted to the Supreme Court, it appears that the Enforcement Directorate has moved in some small measure. Considering that the investigation should now be conducted with the degree of seriousness that is warranted, the Supreme Court has directed the Union of India to constitute a high level committee to be headed by and including the former eminent Judges of the Supreme Court: (a) Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy as Chairman; and (b) Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah as Vice-Chairman.
Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 176 of 2009; Decided on 4-7-2011 (SC) [B. Sudershan Reddy and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ.]
EVICTION ORDER: Eviction by Police Force
When the Supreme Court allows the petition/appeal of the landlord or dismisses the petition/appeal of the tenant and grants some time to vacate the premises in question and if the tenant does not vacate within the time granted, the tenant shall be evicted by police force. The court held ‘this is a general direction we are passing because we are coming across several cases where the tenants are not vacating the premises in question despite granting time by this court or despite furnishing an undertaking to this court with a result that the landlord has to initiate contempt, proceedings or any other proceedings’. It is clarified that if any extension of time to vacate is desired, that application should be filed well in advance.
Ram Prakash Sharma v. Babulal Irla (D) by LRs, I.A. No. 3 of 2011 in C.A. No. 5310 of 2010; Decided on 12-5-2011 (SC) [Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.]