#Bullet 1 - 17 to 24 December 2022

1. Justice Dipankar Datta takes oath as Supreme Court judge; the working strength of the court rises to 28

• Justice Dipankar Datta was sworn in on Monday as a judge of the Supreme Court of India. With Justice Datta's addition, the working strength of the top court rose to 28 as against its sanctioned strength of 34.
• Justice Datta was appointed as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court in April 2020.
• He practised primarily in the Supreme Court and High Courts in Constitutional and civil matters before being elevated as a permanent judge of the Calcutta High Court on June 22, 2006.

2. If you really want India to be an international arbitration hub, it has to start from you: Supreme Court to the Central government

• Case - DAMEPL v. DMRC Ltd
• The Supreme Court on Monday slammed the Central government for not paying an amount ordered to be paid by an arbitral tribunal and said that efforts to make India an international arbitration hub must be led by the government itself.?
• The Court was hearing a plea seeking enforcement of an arbitration award of ?7,200 crores in favour of Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) to be paid by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC).
• A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath referred to public speeches on making India an international arbitration hub and told Attorney General for India R Venkataramani that the award, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, has to be followed.

3. Madras High Court imposes ?50k costs on a man who filed a contempt plea against a Family Court judge for not concluding the hearing on time

• Case - GP Bhaskar v Sumathi
• ?Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan of the Madras High Court recently imposed a cost of ?50,000 on a man and to deposit the amount with the Chief Justice’s Relief Fund. who had filed a contempt of court petition against a judge of the Family Court in the city claiming that the judge had failed to wind up his divorce proceedings within the stipulated time period set by the High Court.?
• The Court said that the contempt petition filed by Bhaskar was a clear case of abuse of the process of law. It also questioned why the High Court Registry had failed to rightly assess the contempt petition and why it had mechanically numbered it.

4. Rights of secured creditors under SARFAESI, Recovery of Debts Act take precedence over statutory tax dues: Madras High Court

• Case - State Bank of India v The Tax Recovery Officer
• The Madras High Court recently held that the right of secured creditors under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act and SARFAESI Act to realise debt must be prioritised over statutory dues under the Income Tax Act in the event of a conflict of priorities.
• A bench of Justices R Mahadevan and Mohammed Shafiq said that even if recovery proceedings are quashed for any reason in a case, "the bankers/ financial institutions right to claim priority in terms of Section 31B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act and Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act would be available and the right to recover under the Income Tax Act, 1961 must yield to the provisions under the SARFAESI Act and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act."

5. Testimony of hostile witness can be considered to convict an accused if corroborated by other evidence: SC Constitutional bench

• The Supreme Court stated that as long as the testimony of a "hostile witness" is supported by other trustworthy evidence, there is no legal restriction to establishing guilt. The Constitution Bench noted that just because a witness has been labelled "hostile," this does not mean that his testimony must be disregarded.
• When answering the question of "whether in the absence of direct evidence regarding demand or giving of bribe, there can be a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on circumstantial inferences," the bench of Justices Abdul Nazeer, B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B. V. Nagarathna made this observation.

6. Common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment and during the occurrence itself: SC

• The Supreme Court observed in the case of the State of Rajasthan vs Gurbachan Singh, that 'common intention' for the purpose of Section 34 IPC can be formed at the spur of the moment and during the occurrence itself.?
• For Section 34 of the IPC to apply, there should be common intention among the co-perpetrators, which means that there should be a community of purpose and common design, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sudhanshu Dhulia said.