New Delhi2 minutes ago
- Copy link
The Supreme Court on Monday said that some High Court judges are not able to complete their work properly. The performance of such judges should be evaluated. Some judges have a habit of repeatedly postponing the case, which may be harmful to their image.
A bench of Justice Suryakant and Justice N. Kotishwar Singh said- We do not want to treat the High Court judges like a school principal, but it is necessary that every judge has a management system of its own, so that the files do not pile up on their desk.
The bench said that some judges work hard day and night and are settling the cases well, but there are some judges who are not able to work due to some reason. The reasons are good or bad, we do not know, but this situation is worrisome.
The bench said that an old decision of the Supreme Court states that if a court only narrates the operative part of the verdict, then he will also have to give the reason for it within 5 days. The High Court will have to follow it until the Supreme Court changes the deadline.
August 22: SC’s comment was also discussed in these 2 cases
- The Supreme Court said-Mission should be excluded from the category of crime The Supreme Court said that the time has come to exclude defamation from the category of crime. The bench of Justice MM Sundaresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a defamation case filed against a media institute in 2016 by former JNU Professor Amita Singh. The report of the media institute claimed that Professor Amita Singh had prepared a doseer (document), in which JNU was described as the hub of pornographic activities and terrorism. Amita Singh alleges that the reporter and the editor published this news without checking the truth, which damaged her reputation. During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal agreed with the court on the orders of Justice Sundaresh and said that Rahul Gandhi’s case is also under consideration. After this, the Supreme Court sent a notice to Professor Amita Singh. Read full news …
- Could not get rid of mortgaged property after auction notice The Supreme Court has said that if the notice of auction of a property has been printed, the borrower cannot withdraw that property. The court said that after the issuance of auction certificate by the bank or financial institution, the rights of the buyer are firm. This decision has been given under Section 13 (8) of the Surfaces Act. Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan’s bench said that the amendment in this section in 2016 would also apply to cases where the loan was earlier taken, but the payment was defaulted after 1 September 2016. This means that if the borrower did not pay on time and the auction notice is published, he would lose his authority over the property.
