New Delhi Feb 27 PTI The Supreme Court has directed a trial court in Rajasthan to restore criminal proceedings in a cheque bounce case noting that the cheque was returned with the account frozen remarkA bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana passed the order on an appeal filed by a man against the Rajasthan High Court order which quashed the proceedings in the caseThe top court refused the submission that no case was made under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused as the bank managers have specifically deposed that no such bank account was opened and maintained in their bankIt is surprising that on the one hand the bank managers have specifically deposed that no such bank account was opened and maintained in their bank while on the other hand the cheque drawn by the respondent in favour of the appellant was returned with the remark account frozen in respect of the same cheque the bench saidThe bench also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli said the bank account has been mentioned on the cheque and the endorsement to the effect account frozen will presuppose that an account existed This is a matter which is to be taken into consideration by the trial court in detail and not merely on the evidence of bank managers The parties will have to go through a full-fledged trial In any event it was not a matter the proceedings could have been quashedWe accordingly feel it was premature to quash the complaint filed by the appellant herein by the high court The impugned order passed by the high court is accordingly set aside the bench saidIt also directed the trial court to restore and take up the matter and conclude the same in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of six monthsAdvocate Namit Saxena appearing for the accused argued that it is a mandatory requirement under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to have the cheque drawn on a bank account maintained by the accused Saxena submitted that as necessary ingredients of Section 138 are not fulfilled in absence of a bank account the accused cannot be subjected to trial PTI PKS DV DV

Chandigarh Feb 24 PTI Shiromani Akali Dal SAD leader Bikram Singh Majithia was on Thursday remanded to judicial custody after he surrendered before a court in Mohali in connection with a drugs case complying with the directions of the Supreme Court The trial court in Mohali remanded Majithia to two weeks judicial custody However the Akali leader moved a plea for regular bail which will be taken up before the court on Friday His bail application will be heard tomorrow one of Majithias counsels Arshdeep Singh Kler said The Special Investigation Team SIT probing the case questioned Majithia for nearly 90 minutes in the court complex Speaking to reporters outside before entering the court premises in the morning Majithia said As per orders of the Honble Supreme Court I have appeared before the Mohali court The apex court had recently directed the Punjab Police to not arrest the former Punjab minister till February 23 in a drugs case so he can undertake electioneering in the state A bench comprising Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli had however directed Majithia to surrender before a trial court after the Punjab assembly polls on February 20 It had also directed the trial court to hear and expeditiously decide Majithias regular bail plea after his surrender in the case The pre-arrest bail plea of Majithia who was booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances NDPS Act on December 20 last year was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on January 24 An appeal had been filed in the apex court Majithia who is the SAD MLA and brother-in-law of SAD chief Sukhbir Singh Badal and brother of former Union minister Harsimrat Kaur Badal contested the February 20 polls from the Amritsar East constituency from where Punjab Congress president Navjot Singh Sidhu is seeking re-election The results will be announced on March 10 PTI SUN VSD AQS AQS

New Delhi Feb 24 PTI The Supreme Court Thursday said Attorney General K K Venugopal has circulated a note stating that vacancies in most of the Tribunals have been filled except for the National Green Tribunal Central Administrative Tribunal and some Armed Force Tribunals AFTsA bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli said the AG has mentioned that some appointments to AFTs and CAT are pending with the selection committee headed by Justice A M KhanwilkarThe apex court made the remarks after senior advocate Arvind Datar mentioned for urgent listing of a plea pertaining to filling of vacancies in the tribunals and challenge to new Tribunal Reforms ActCJI Ramana said Last time Justice Raos bench had passed the judgement in the matter and they had not honoured the verdict and had immediately come out with a similar ActDatar submitted that after the top courts verdict in the Madras Bar Association case the minimum age bar of 50 years in the Tribunals Reforms Act had been struck downHe said several eligible advocates below the age of 50 years are not considered even after the court had said that the age bar of 50 years cannot be applied and such a distinction cannot be madeHe said the court had directed that the tenure of members should be fixed as five years and age of 67 or 70 years but the Centre is making appointments saying it will be four years and 67 or 70 years or until further orders whichever is earlierThis until further orders should be deleted from the appointment letters Once the selection committee headed by a Supreme Court judge has cleared the name the government has no say in the appointment he addedDatar said the Centre maintains that its legislation is supreme and what is shocking is that after the Supreme Court struck down various conditions of appointment in the ordinance they brought identical provisions in the ActThe bench said the matter would be listed for hearing on March 24On September 6 last year the top court had termed the provisions in new law on tribunals replica of those struck down earlierIt had told the Centre that though the government has the power to take away the basis of a judgement by making new laws they cannot be directly contradictory to its verdictsThe legislature can take away the basis of the judgement of the Supreme Court But you cannot make an Act which is directly contradictory to the judgement of the Supreme Court it had saidThe law pertains to terms and conditions of service and tenure of members of various tribunals and revives some of the provisions struck down by a bench headed by Justice Rao last year on pleas including the one filed by Madras Bar AssociationThe top court was critical of the fact that the law was cleared without any discussion in Parliament and had restored the provisions which were struck down and had said the Act is virtually a replica of the provisions which have been struck down in Madras Bar Association cases- II and IIIThe top court had then sought response from the Centre on a batch of petitions including the one filed by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh challenging the Constitutional validity of various provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 which was passed during the last Monsoon Session of Parliament and received Presidential assent on August 13 2021The Congress leader in his plea said that he has filed the petition in public interest assailing the proviso to Section 31 along with Sections 37 5 and 71 of the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 as being ultra-vires Articles 14 21 and 50 of the ConstitutionThe Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned Act abrogating the principle of judicial independence and its passage being a deliberate attempt to legislatively override the judgement of this Court in Madras Bar Association versus Union of India which set aside provisions identical to those being impugned without removing the basis of the judgement the petition said PTI MNL SA

Chandigarh Feb 24 PTI Shiromani Akali Dal SAD leader Bikram Singh Majithia on Thursday appeared before a court in Mohali in connection with a drugs case complying with the directions of the Supreme Court Speaking to reporters outside before entering the court premises Majithia said As per orders of the Honble Supreme Court I have appeared before the Mohali court The apex court had recently directed the Punjab Police to not arrest the former Punjab minister till February 23 in a drugs case so he can undertake electioneering in the state A bench comprising Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli had however directed Majithia to surrender before a trial court after the Punjab assembly polls on February 20 It had also directed the trial court to hear and expeditiously decide Majithias regular bail plea after his surrender in the case The pre-arrest bail plea of Majithia who was booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances NDPS Act on December 20 last year was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on January 24 An appeal had been filed in the apex court Majithia who is the SAD MLA and brother-in-law of SAD chief Sukhbir Singh Badal and brother of former Union minister Harsimrat Kaur Badal contested the February 20 polls from the Amritsar East constituency from where Punjab Congress president Navjot Singh Sidhu is seeking re-election PTI SUN VSD AQS AQS

New Delhi Feb 23 PTI The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked Amazon and Future group to request the NCLAT to decide the plea challenging the revocation of sanction to the US e-commerce major for its deal with Future groups firm by the Competition Commission of India The suggestion was made by a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana while adjourning to March 9 the hearing on Amazons appeal against the January 5 order of the Delhi High Court staying the ongoing arbitration proceedings before an arbitral tribunal over Future Retails Rs 24500-crore merger deal with Reliance Retail The bench also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli deferred the hearing after brief arguments on being told that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal NCLAT is hearing another appeal of Amazon related to the merger deal The present SLP special leave petition is in one way connected to the outcome of the order challenged before the NCLAT We direct parties to request the NCLAT to decide the case List on March 9 it ordered At the outset senior lawyer Gopal Subramanium appearing for Amazon assailed the high courts stay on the arbitral proceedings saying that it has been passed in an appeal of FRL which was a non-maintainable He said the Future group had moved the high court seeking a direction to the SIAC that their plea to terminate the proceedings must be heard before adjudicating the matter on merits Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi representing Future group firm FCPL said that the agreement which gave rise to the arbitration agreement became unenforceable due to the findings of the CCI which revoked the Amazons deal on investing in FCPL Future Coupons Private Ltd If the agreement goes then the arbitration based on that agreement also goes Rohatgi said adding that a plea was filed with the CCI after the Future group became aware of the real intention of Amazon to get control of Big Bazar of FRL The top court took note of the submissions and asked the counsel for both sides to urge the NCLAT to decide the Amazon plea and in the meantime it will keep the petition pending here On February 9 the apex court had issued notices to Future group firms on Amazons plea against the January 5 order of the Delhi High Court staying the ongoing arbitration proceedings before the arbitral tribunal over Future Retails merger deal with Reliance Retail It had sought responses from the Future group firms FCPL and Future Retail Ltd FRL and had said that it will hear the matter on February 23 without any adjournment The Delhi High Court on January 5 had stayed the Amazon-Future arbitration which is going on before a three-member arbitral tribunal over the latters merger deal with Reliance Amazon and the Future Group have been locked in a legal tussle after the US e-commerce giant dragged the latter to arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre SIAC in October 2020 The fresh plea on which the apex court issued notice has been filed by the US firm assailing the January 5 order of a division bench of the Delhi High Court staying the Amazon-Future arbitration The division bench of the high court had also stayed a single judges January 4 order dismissing the Future Groups two pleas seeking a direction to the arbitration tribunal to decide on its application for terminating the arbitration proceedings before moving further The high court had said that there was a prima facie case in favour of FRL and FCPL and if a stay is not granted it will cause an irreparable loss to them Amazon argued that FRL violated their contract by entering into a deal for the sale of its assets to billionaire Mukesh Ambanis Reliance Retail on a slump sale basis for Rs 24500 crore In December last year the Competition Commission of India suspended its over-two-year-old approval for Amazons deal to acquire a 49-per cent stake in FCPL and FRL promoter and also slapped a penalty of Rs 202 crore on the e-commerce major Amazon has been objecting to the sell-off plans accusing Future Group of breaching its 2019 investment pact Future Coupons was founded in 2008 and is engaged in the business of marketing and distribution of gift cards loyalty cards and other reward programmes to corporate customers PTI SJK SA

New Delhi Feb 23 PTI The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked Amazon and Future group to request the NCLAT to decide a plea challenging the revocation of sanction to the US e-commerce major for its deal with Future groups firm by the Competition Commission of India The suggestion was mooted by a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana while adjourning to March 9 the hearing on Amazons appeal against the January 5 order of the Delhi High Court staying the ongoing arbitration proceedings before an arbitral tribunal over Future Retails Rs 24500-crore merger deal with Reliance Retail The bench also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli deferred the hearing after brief arguments on being told that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal NCLAT is hearing another appeal of Amazon related to the merger deal The present SLP special leave petition is in one way connected to the outcome of the order challenged before the NCLAT We direct parties to request the NCLAT to decide the case List on March 9 it ordered On February 9 the apex court had issued notices to Future group firms on Amazons plea against the January 5 order of the Delhi High Court staying the ongoing arbitration proceedings before an arbitral tribunal over Future Retails merger deal with Reliance Retail It had sought responses from the Future group firms Future Coupons Private Ltd FCPL and Future Retail Ltd FRL and had said that it will hear the matter on February 23 without any adjournment The Delhi High Court on January 5 had stayed the Amazon-Future arbitration which is going on before a three-member arbitral tribunal over the latters merger deal with Reliance Amazon and the Future Group have been locked in a legal tussle after the US e-commerce giant dragged the latter to arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre in October 2020 The fresh plea on which the apex court issued notice has been filed by the US firm assailing the January 5 order of a division bench of the Delhi High Court staying the Amazon-Future arbitration The division bench of the high court had also stayed a single judges January 4 order dismissing the Future Groups two pleas seeking a direction to the arbitration tribunal to decide on its application for terminating the arbitration proceedings before moving further The high court had said that there was a prima facie case in favour of FRL and FCPL and if a stay is not granted it will cause an irreparable loss to them Amazon argued that FRL violated their contract by entering into a deal for the sale of its assets to billionaire Mukesh Ambanis Reliance Retail on a slump sale basis for Rs 24500 crore In December last year the Competition Commission of India suspended its over-two-year-old approval for Amazons deal to acquire a 49-per cent stake in FCPL and FRL promoter and also slapped a penalty of Rs 202 crore on the e-commerce major Amazon has been objecting to the sell-off plans accusing Future Group of breaching its 2019 investment pact Future Coupons was founded in 2008 and is engaged in the business of marketing and distribution of gift cards loyalty cards and other reward programmes to corporate customers PTI SJK SA

New Delhi Feb 22 PTI The Supreme Court agreed to hear on Friday instead of Wednesday a batch of pleas alleging use of Israeli spyware for surveillance of certain people in India after taking note of the submissions of the Solicitor General that he would be busy arguing a money laundering case in another court As per the cause list uploaded on the website of the apex court a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana was scheduled to hear on Wednesday the pleas on the Pegasus issue for the first time after October 27 last year when it had ordered setting up of a three-member panel of cyber experts to probe the spying allegations The technical probe panel has submitted an interim report in the case The bench also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli was urged by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Centre that the proposed hearing of the pleas on Wednesday be deferred to Friday February 25 as he would be arguing before another bench The Pegasus matters are coming up before your Lordships I am in part heard matter before court three in the PMLA Prevention of Money Laundering Act vires matters I will be on my legs tomorrow from 1030 If it Pegasus cases can be kept on Friday instead of Wednesday said the law officer All right you please inform the other side said the CJI Mehta said he would inform the counsel for the other side who had filed the PILs A special bench as per the website had listed as many as 12 PILs including the ones filed by the Editors Guild of India and veteran journalists N Ram and Sashi Kumar for hearing on Wednesday and was likely to peruse and analyse the report which was to be filed by the apex court-appointed panel The panel which included three experts on cyber security digital forensics networks and hardware was asked to inquire investigate and determine whether Pegasus spyware was used for snooping on citizens and their probe would be monitored by former apex court judge R V Raveendran The panel members were Naveen Kumar Chaudhary Prabaharan P and Ashwin Anil Gumaste Justice Raveendran who is heading the monitoring panel has been assisted by former IPS officer Alok Joshi and Sundeep Oberoi Chairman of Sub Committee in International Organisation of Standardisation International Electro-Technical CommissionJoint Technical Committee in monitoring the inquiry of the technical panel The committee is requested to prepare the report after a thorough inquiry and place it expeditiously before the court the bench had said Reports emerged recently that the probe panel has been facing difficulties as very few people were coming forward to depose before it or submit their devices for technical scrutiny In one of the significant verdicts in recent times over the issue of citizens right to privacy a bench headed by the CJI had on October 27 last year ordered setting up of the panel saying mere invocation of national security by the state cannot render the judiciary a mute spectator and had asserted that indiscriminate spying on individuals in a democratic country cannot be allowed An international media consortium had reported that over 300 verified Indian mobile phone numbers were on the list of potential targets for surveillance using Pegasus spyware The apex court in its order had said that the probe panel would be empowered to enquire and investigate what stepsactions have been taken by the Centre after reports were published in 2019 about hacking of WhatsApp accounts of Indian citizens using the Pegasus suite of spyware whether any Pegasus suite was acquired by the Union of India or any state government or any central or state agency for use against the citizens of India If any governmental agency has used the Pegasus suite of spyware on the citizens of this country under what law rule guideline protocol or lawful procedure was such deployment made If any domestic entity person has used the spyware on the citizens of this country then is such a use authorised Any other matter or aspect which may be connected ancillary or incidental to the above terms of reference which the Committee may deem fit and proper to investigate the bench had said while deciding the terms of reference of the panel The top court had also directed the expert panel to make recommendations regarding enactment or amendment to existing law and procedures surrounding surveillance and for securing improved right to privacy enhancing and improving the cyber security of the nation and its assets The other recommendations which the expert panel has been asked to submit are to ensure prevention of invasion of citizens right to privacy other than in accordance with law by State andor non-State entities through such spyware regarding the establishment of a mechanism for citizens to raise grievances on suspicion of illegal surveillance of their devices PTI SJK SA

New Delhi Feb 21 PTI This PIL business is stealing attention from other important matters the Supreme Court observed on Monday when a matter related to the expansion of Karwar port in Karnataka was mentioned for urgent listing A bench comprising Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli was urged that an appeal challenging the expansion of the port was numbered in November last year but has not been listed for hearing This is the fresh SLP challenging the expansion of Karbar port According to us no environmental clearance EC has been taken The SLP special leave petition was numbered in November senior advocate Devadatt Kamat said The bench assured that it would look into the submission for listing the plea The senior lawyer sought early listing of the plea saying if the construction starts then nothing will remain in the petition This PIL business is stealing attention from the other important matters the CJI said while moving on to other cases Karwar located in Uttar Kannada district of Karnataka is the only all weather natural port of the state whose expansion plan has been conceived under the Sagarmala project PTI SJK SA

New Delhi Feb 21 PTI The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to list for hearing a plea seeking cancellation of offline physical board examinations for classes 10 and 12 to be held by CBSE and other several boards this year A bench comprising Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli took note of the submissions of a lawyer seeking early listing of the plea saying that the physical examination should not be conducted due to the COVID-19 pandemic situation This is regarding class 10 and 12 Board examinations Physical examination should not be held due to the pandemic lawyer Prashant Padmanabhan said Let the matter go before a bench of Justice A M Khanwilkar the bench said The lawyer mentioned the plea filed by one Anubha Shrivastava Sahai an activist seeking directions to CBSE and other education boards which have proposed to hold board examinations offline for classes 10 and 12 The plea has also sought a direction to education boards for devising alternate modes of assessment CBSE has decided to conduct term two board exams for class 10 and class 12 from April 26 PTI SJK SA

New Delhi Feb 18 PTI The Supreme Court Friday decided to hear on March 9 two PILs which alleged duty evasion on export of iron ore in pellet form by some firms to countries like China A bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana before adjourning the case faced a peculiar situation when lawyer M L Sharma who has filed the PIL in his personal capacity prior to filing of the second PIL by NGO Common Cause objected to advancing of submissions by advocate Prashant Bhushan on behalf of the NGO ahead of him This is my matter He Bhushan on behalf of the NGO filed after me to destroy my case Sharma told the bench which also comprised Justices A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli Why you file a caveat in the PIL filed by Prashant Bhushan There must be some limit for such imagination Dont accuse Mr Prashant Bhushan of those things Why should he spoil your case tell me the CJI asked Sharma said he put efforts for years in trying to get crucial documents before the filing and asked as to why the NGO filed the case after he did so Why have you not filed this for the last ten years if that is the case Why do you want to blame him Bhushan Mr Bhushan the problem is he filed first we will have to hear him the bench said before adjourning the case to March 9 as Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Centre was in some kind of difficulty The top court on January 15 2021 had issued notice to the Centre and others on Sharmas plea seeking a direction to the CBI to register an FIR and probe the alleged duty evasion by some firms in exporting iron ore in pellet form to China since 2015 Later on September 24 last year it sought responses from the Centre and others while issuing notice on a similar PIL filed by the NGO Common Cause The NGO also sought a direction to either ban the export or levy a 30 per cent duty on exports of iron ore in all forms including pellets The Centre in its response affidavit sought dismissal of the PILs contending that imposing or removing the export duty on any class of commodities is a policy decision of the government Iron ore pellets have been subject to export duty from time to time Imposing export duty or removing it on any class of commodities is a policy decision The periods in which export duty was applicable to the export of iron ore pellets bearing The imposition of export duty on any commodity or class of commodities is a public decision and such decisions have been taken by the government of India from time to time the Centre said The Commerce ministry said the decision to exempt a particular type of iron pellet is product specific and not company specific as projected in the petition The present petition is a case of gross abuse of process of law and the petitioner has been known in the past to have filed similar kinds of petitions which are publicity driven and completely motivated in nature the answering respondent Centre beseeches this court to handle these kinds of publicity savvy petitions with an iron hand The allegations of evasion of monumental magnitude are completely unfounded in the present petition the affidavit said PTI SJK SA