The Supreme Court has held that any writ order passed without impleading an affected or necessary party is invalid in law. The Court ruled that the right to be heard cannot be sacrificed on procedural grounds and must prevail in writ proceedings.
Kerala: The Kerala High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by M/S. M.D. Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and its proprietor, M.D. Esthappan. The petitions challenged the enforcement proceedings initiated by Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has ruled that High Courts and Sessions Courts do not have the authority to order compensation while granting bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan clarified that the jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is strictly limited to deciding whether bail should be granted or refused during a trial. It does not extend to awarding compensation to an accused person.
Justice M.M. Sundresh, born on July 21, 1962, is a Supreme Court judge since August 31, 2021, with a retirement scheduled for January 5, 2025. He had a notable legal career, practicing at the High Court of Madras and serving as a Government Advocate. He efficiently disposed of over 103,000 cases during his tenure.
The Delhi High Court rejected a petition aiming to disqualify Manan Kumar Mishra, Chairman of the Bar Council of India, from the Rajya Sabha, citing lack of grounds for disqualification. The court imposed a Rs 25,000 fine on the petitioner, affirming that only eligible individuals can challenge elections as prescribed by law.
Today (16th May): The Supreme Court ruled that Air India Limited ceased to be a state entity under Article 12 of the Constitution after its disinvestment and transfer to the Tata Group. The court dismissed appeals against the Bombay High Court’s verdict, stating that post-privatization, the company no longer fell under the court’s writ jurisdiction. The appellants were directed to seek alternative avenues for remedy.