Current's Email Magazine

Current's

DIGITAL MAGAZINE

SUPREME COURT AND BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Issue No: 2 of 2024

Issue Date: 13/01/2024

TABLE OF CASES

Sr. No		Date
1.	Alagammal and Ors ; Palaniammal; Mariammal; Pattayee Ammal; Karupparaj; Lakshmi; Thangam; Maruthambal vs. Ganesan and Anr ; Ganesan; Magudeeswari [SC]	10/01/2024
2.	Arti Rajesh Karangutkar vs. Anna Rocky Fernandes; State of Maharashtra [Bom.HC]	19/12/2023
3.	Bani Amrit Kaur vs. State of Haryana and Others [SC]	30/11/2023
4.	Bank of India; Authorized Officer, Bank of India vs. Maruti Civil Works [Bom.HC]	15/12/2023
5.	Bharat Electronics Limited vs. Ibex Integrated Business Express Pvt Ltd [Bom.HC]	20/12/2023
6.	Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab [SC]	04/01/2024
7.	Ekveera Jewellers Anturli, Jalgaon vs. Shaunak Deepak Kulkarni and Another; Aishwarya D/o Deepak Kulkarni and Another; Nandini W/o Deepak Kulkarni and Another; Deepak Diwakar Kulkarni and Another; Shubhendu Deepak Kulkarni and Another [Bom.HC]	21/12/2023
8.	Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [SC]	13/10/2023
9.	ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs. Maya Govind Patel; Atul Govind Patil; Chandresh Govind Patil; M/s Shree Ganesh Tours and Travels [Bom.HC]	05/12/2023
10.	Kanwar Raj Singh (D) Th Lrs vs. Gejo (D) Th Lrs & Ors [SC]	02/01/2024
11.	Ketan Champaklal Divecha vs. DGS Township Pvt Ltd & Another [Bom.HC]	02/01/2024
12.	Mathosri Manikbai Kothari College of Visual Arts vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner [SC]	12/10/2023
13.	Max Healthcare Institute Limited vs. Touch Healthcare Private Limited & Ors [Bom.HC]	19/12/2023
14.	Neeraj Sharma; Ashwani Kumar Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh [SC]	03/01/2024
15.	Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pallavi W/o Rajeshwar Sriniwar; Shantanand S/o Rajeshwar Sriniwar; Raghavi D/o Rajeshwar Srinwar; Savitrabai W/o Shankarrao Sriniwar; Mohan S/o Kistaya Demewar [Bom.HC]	09/01/2024
16.	Perumal Raja @ Perumal vs. State [SC]	03/01/2024
17.	Rajendhiran vs. Muthaiammal @ Muthayee & Ors [SC]	03/01/2024
18.	Reliance General Insurance Com Ltd vs. Baban Dattatray Nimbalkar; Dnyaneshwar Balaso Shinde; Amol Balaso Shinde [Bom.HC]	12/12/2023
19.	Shakti Yezdani & Anr vs. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar & Ors [SC]	14/12/2023
20.	Shambhubhai Kalabhai Raval vs. State of Gujarat [SC]	02/11/2023
21.	Sushma Shivkumar Daga & Anr vs. Madhurkumar Ramkrishnaji Bajaj & Ors [SC]	15/12/2023
22.	UCO Bank and Others vs. M B Motwani (Dead) Thr Lrs & Others [SC]	12/10/2023
23.	Union of India vs. Uzair Imran & Ors [SC]	11/10/2023
24.	Ved Pal & Anr vs. State of Haryana [SC]	29/11/2023
25.	Yamini Manohar vs. T K D Keerthi [SC]	13/10/2023

SUBJECT INDEX

Sr. No		Court
1.	AGREEMENT OF SALE	[SC]
12.	AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTIONS	[SC]
6.	APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION	[SC]
8.	APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION	[SC]
24.	BENEFIT OF DOUBT	[SC]
15.	COMPENSATION FOR DEATH	[Bom.HC]
21.	CONVEYANCE DEED	[SC]
2.	CONVICTION WARRANT	[Bom.HC]
11.	DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT	[Bom.HC]
22.	DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS	[SC]
5.	DUE DILIGENCE	[Bom.HC]
20.	DYING DECLARATION	[SC]
16.	EVIDENCE IN TWO CASES	[SC]
19.	EXECUTION OF WILL	[SC]
14.	INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE	[SC]
7.	JURISDICTION	[Bom.HC]
4.	JURISDICTION UNDER DRT	[Bom.HC]
18.	NEGLIGENCE	[Bom.HC]
9.	NO-FAULT' LIABILITY	[Bom.HC]
25.	PRE-LITIGATION MEDIATION	[SC]
23.	REVIEW APPLICATION	[SC]
3.	SALE DEED	[SC]
17.	SALE DEEDS	[SC]
10.	SUIT PROPERTY	[SC]
13.	TERM SHEET	[Bom.HC]

ACT AND SECTION INDEX

Sr. No
23.	Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Sec. 14, Sec. 19
11.	Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 11, Sec. 9, Sec. 17, Sec. 7, Sec. 2
21.	Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 16, Sec. 5, Sec. 8, Sec. 11
5.	Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 34
13.	Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 37, Sec. 28, Sec. 34, Sec. 9, Sec. 37, Sec. 17
4.	Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 37
4.	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 7R. 11, Or. 43R. 1, Or. 7R. 10
25.	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 7R. 11
17.	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sec. 100
23.	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sec. 114, Or. 47R. 1
3.	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sec. 80
6.	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 161, Sec. 313
14.	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 161, Sec. 357, Sec. 357A
8.	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 161
24.	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 164
16.	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 313
2.	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 388
7.	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 397, Sec. 14, Sec. 202
25.	Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Sec. 12A
4.	Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Sec. 13
19.	Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014 Rule 19
19.	Companies Act, 1956 Sec. 109B, Sec. 109A, Sec. 187C
19.	Companies Act, 2013 Sec. 72
12.	Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Sec. 1, Sec. 7B, Sec. 7A
6.	Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 106
2.	Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 114
14.	Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 165
16.	Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 41, Sec. 43, Sec. 40, Sec. 26, Sec. 27, Sec. 106, Sec. 42, Sec. 25
17.	Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 68
8.	Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 8, Sec. 3
3.	Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 Sec. 8
2.	Income Tax Act, 1961 Sec. 271, Sec. 271D, Sec. 269SS
9.	Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 304A, Sec. 279, Sec. 338, Sec. 427
20.	Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 306, Sec. 498A
6.	Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 34, Sec. 302
16.	Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 341, Sec. 149, Sec. 201, Sec. 148, Sec. 147, Sec. 302
24.	Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 376, Sec. 34, Sec. 342
8.	Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 376, Sec. 380, Sec. 34, Sec. 302, Sec. 511, Sec. 454
14.	Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 392, Sec. 307, Sec. 397, Sec. 364A, Sec. 364, Sec. 120B, Sec. 394
2.	Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 504
17.	Indian Succession Act, 1925 Sec. 63
19.	Indian Succession Act, 1925 Sec. 63, Sec. 211
9.	Insurance Act, 1938 Sec. 64VB
1.	Limitation Act, 1963 Art. 54
5.	Limitation Act, 1963 Sec. 14, Sec. 34, Sec. 2
5.	Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 Sec. 19
9.	Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 134, Sec. 184, Sec. 173, Sec. 177
15.	Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 173
18.	Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 2
2.	Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Sec. 118, Sec. 139, Sec. 138
7.	Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Sec. 138
4.	Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Sec. 19, Sec. 17
10.	Registration Act, 1908 Sec. 47
19.	Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 Reg 29A
4.	Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Sec. 13
1.	Specific Relief Act, 1963 Sec. 16
3.	Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 41
1.	Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 54, Sec. 55, Sec. 5
10.	Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 54
22.	United Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 Reg 20
22.	United Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 Reg 4, Reg 12, Reg 7

LATEST CHANGES IN MAHARASHTRA LOCAL ACTS AND RULES

THE MAHARASHTRA APARTMENT OWNERSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2023

MAHARASHTRA ACT No. III OF 2024.

(First published, after having received the assent of the Governor in the “Maharashtra Government Gazette”, on the 3rd January 2024).

An Act further to amend the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970.

WHEREAS both Houses of the State Legislature were not in session ;

AND WHEREAS the Governor of Maharashtra was satisfied that circumstances existed which rendered it necessary for him to take immediate action further to amend the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 (Mah. XV of 1971) for the purposes hereinafter appearing ; and, therefore, promulgated the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 (Mah. Ord. IX of 2023) on the 23rd October 2023 ;

AND WHEREAS it is expedient to replace the said Ordinance, by an Act of the State Legislature ; it is hereby enacted in the Seventy-fourth Year of the Republic of India, as follows :-

1. Short title and commencement. - (1) This Act may be called the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership (Amendment) Act, 2023.

(2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 23rd October 2023.

2. Insertion of new section 6B in Mah. XV of 1971. Mah. XV of 1971- After section 6A of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “ the principal Act ”), the following section shall be inserted, namely :-

“6B. Summary eviction of apartment owners in certain cases. - (1) Where the Association of Apartment Owners, after obtaining the consent of the majority of apartment owners, submits the proposal to the concerned Planning Authority for redevelopment of the building as per section 6A, and if the said proposal is approved by the Planning Authority, then it shall be binding on all the apartment owners to vacate the apartment :

Provided that, it shall be binding upon the concerned Association of Apartment Owners or developer responsible for the redevelopment, as the case may be, to make available to all the apartment owners of such apartment or building, alternate temporary accommodation or rent in lieu of such accommodation.

(2) If the apartment owner refuses to vacate the apartment as per provisions of sub-section (1), then the Association of Apartment Owners or developer may request in writing to the Planning Authority to evict such apartment owner.

(3) The Planning Authority may, after receipt of such a request under sub-section (2), by a written notice, order any apartment owner to vacate the apartment forthwith or within the time specified in such notice.

(4) In every such notice the Planning Authority shall clearly specify the reasons for requiring such apartment owner to vacate the apartment.

(5) The affixing of such written notice on any part of such apartment or building shall be deemed a sufficient intimation to the occupiers of such apartment or building or portion thereof.

(6) On the issue of a notice under sub-section (3), every person in occupation of the apartment thereof to which the notice relates shall vacate such apartment as directed in the notice and no person shall so long as the notice is not withdrawn, enter the apartment.

(7) The Planning Authority may direct that any person who acts in contravention of this section shall be evicted from such apartment or building by any police officer and may also use such force as is reasonably necessary to effect entry in the said apartment or building.”.

3. Repeal of Mah. Ord. IX of 2023 and saving - (1) The Maharashtra Apartment Ownership (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 (Mah. Ord. IX of 2023) is hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken (including any notification or order issued) under the corresponding provisions of the principal Act, as amended by the said Ordinance, shall be deemed to have been done, taken or, as the case may be, issued under the corresponding provisions of the principal Act, as amended by this Act

-----------------------

SUPREME COURT AND BOMBAY HIGH COURT

[1] - AGREEMENT OF SALE

2024(1)CPSC20

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Madras High Court]

(Before Vikram Nath ; Ahsanuddin Amanullah)

Civil Appeal No 8185 of 2009, dated 10-01-2024

Alagammal and Ors ; Palaniammal; Mariammal; Pattayee Ammal; Karupparaj; Lakshmi; Thangam; Maruthambal vs. Ganesan and Anr ; Ganesan; Magudeeswari

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 54, Sec. 55, Sec. 5 - Limitation Act, 1963 Art. 54 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 Sec. 16 - Agreement of Sale - Pivotal issue revolves around whether agreement specifying a six-month time frame for payment was adhered to by respondents. - Noted that only Rs.7,000/- was paid within stipulated time out of total agreed amount of Rs.21,000/- - Appellant, having accepted Rs.1,000/- after executing a sale deed with another party raises questions about extension of time - no enforceable right for respondents under 1963 Act, and even if money was accepted after time limit, remedy should be seeking recovery with damages, not specific performance. - Inconsistencies in respondents' claims and absence of efforts to cancel sale deed in favor of appellant no.7 -Significance of time in contract - Appeal Allowed

[Para 24-27]

Law Point : Strict adherence to contractual timelines is crucial, and even accepting payments after stipulated period doesn't confer right to seek specific performance, emphasizing significance of time in contractual agreements.

Acts Referred:

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 54, Sec. 55, Sec. 5
Limitation Act, 1963 Art. 54
Specific Relief Act, 1963 Sec. 16

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[2] - CONVICTION WARRANT

2023(12)CPMH69

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Before Prithviraj K Chavan)

Criminal Appeal No. 764 of 2009, dated 19-12-2023

Arti Rajesh Karangutkar vs. Anna Rocky Fernandes; State of Maharashtra

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 504 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 388 - Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 114 - Income Tax Act, 1961 Sec. 271, Sec. 271D, Sec. 269SS - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Sec. 118, Sec. 139, Sec. 138 - judgment and acquittal by Metropolitan Magistrate in Mumbai overturned - Respondent accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act, is convicted and sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- - In case of default, an additional four months of imprisonment is imposed. - The appellant entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- from recovered fine - Accused absent - judgment to be certified to relevant court and magistrate is directed to proceed with conviction warrant - record and proceeding remitted to Metropolitan Magistrate. - Appeal results in conviction of accused with a substantial fine, and further legal actions prescribed in their absence. - Appeal Allowed

[Para 34]

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 504
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 388
Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 114
Income Tax Act, 1961 Sec. 271, Sec. 271D, Sec. 269SS
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Sec. 118, Sec. 139, Sec. 138

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[3] - SALE DEED

2023(11)CPSC17

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Punjab And Haryana High Court]

(Before Vikram Nath ; Rajesh Bindal)

Civil Appeal No 3322 of 2015, dated 30-11-2023

Bani Amrit Kaur vs. State of Haryana and Others

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sec. 80 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 41 - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 Sec. 8 - Sale Deed - Appellant, challenged a sale deed claiming it was executed on behalf of a minor - There was no evidence proving property was recorded - Appellant contested birth date, but a certificate from School supported claimed date- Suit might not be time-barred - It lacked evidence right to property - It could be an attempt to extract money from state. - Second sale deed indicated property might have been sold for education - Court emphasized plaintiff's heavy burden in challenging a transaction after 16 years and Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act could protect state's transaction. - State offered additional payment but appellant deemed it insufficient, appearing overly greedy to court. - Appeal Dismissed

[Para 8-14]

Law Point: Burden is significant for a plaintiff challenging a sale transaction after a substantial period, and Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act may protect the state's transaction.

Acts Referred:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sec. 80
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 41
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 Sec. 8

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[4] - JURISDICTION UNDER DRT

2023(12)CPMH49

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Before Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya ; Arif S Doctor)

Appeal From Order; Commercial Suit; Interim Application No 362 of 2021; 6 of 2019; 3092 of 2021, dated 15-12-2023

Bank of India; Authorized Officer, Bank of India vs. Maruti Civil Works

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 7R. 11, Or. 43R. 1, Or. 7R. 10 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 37 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Sec. 13 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Sec. 13 - Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Sec. 19, Sec. 17 - Plaintiff seeks Rs.100 Crores + Rs.10,10,733/- in damages - Defendants argue for suit's jurisdiction under DRT and moved to reject or return plaint. - Trial Court denied stating fraud element falls beyond DRT's scope. - Appeal's viability is questioned under amended Section 13(1A) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which allows appeals only from orders explicitly listed in Order XLIII of CPC - As rejection order is not listed, appeal is considered not maintainable - Application Dismissed.

Law Point : Crucial issue is appeal's maintainability. Amended Section 13(1A) allows appeals only from orders specified in Order XLIII of the CPC.

Acts Referred:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 7R. 11, Or. 43R. 1, Or. 7R. 10
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 37
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Sec. 13
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Sec. 13
Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Sec. 19, Sec. 17

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[5] - DUE DILIGENCE

2023(12)CPMH99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Before R I Chagla)

Interim Application (L); Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No 6968 of 2023; 40522 of 2022, dated 20-12-2023

Bharat Electronics Limited vs. Ibex Integrated Business Express Pvt Ltd

Limitation Act, 1963 Sec. 14, Sec. 34, Sec. 2 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 34 - Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 Sec. 19 - Due Diligence - Dismisses Applicant's claim stating that they failed to demonstrate due diligence and good faith - Writ proceedings initiated by Applicant did not suffer from a "defect of jurisdiction" or any similar cause, and Writ Court opted not to interfere due to availability of an alternate remedy - Misjoinder of parties or causes of action under Section 14 can be considered a cause similar to a defect of jurisdiction - argument that writ petition challenging award amounted to a defect of jurisdiction rejected - Respondent's argument regarding time limitation, noting a delay of 166 days which exceeded permissible period of 120 days under Section 34 of Arbitration Act acceted - no merit in Applicant's plea for exclusion of 1854-day period - condone delay beyond statutory limit refused - Petition Dismissed

[Para 32-34]

Law Point: Writ petition challenging an arbitral award does not necessarily constitute a "defect of jurisdiction" and emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed period of limitation under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

Acts Referred:

Limitation Act, 1963 Sec. 14, Sec. 34, Sec. 2
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 34
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 Sec. 19

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[6] - APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION

2024(1)CPSC12

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Punjab And Haryana High Court]

(Before B R Gavai ; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha ; Aravind Kumar)

Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 2010, dated 04-01-2024

Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 34, Sec. 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 161, Sec. 313 - Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 106 - Appeal Against Conviction - Burden under Section 313 of CrPC is not beyond reasonable doubt - Statements under Section 313 aren't considered evidence - Focused on appellant's doubt regarding his presence during incident - reliance on appellant's statement alone is insufficient for conviction - Inconsistencies in prosecution's stance led to appellant's acquittal highlighting importance of establishing a complete chain of circumstances in circumstantial evidence - conviction overturned. - Appeal Allowed

[Para 31-37]

Law Point : Accused's burden under Section 313 CrPC is not beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution must prove charge. Relying solely on accused's statement is insufficient for conviction.

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 34, Sec. 302
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 161, Sec. 313
Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 106

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[7] - JURISDICTION

2023(12)CPMH102

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

[Aurangabad Bench]

(Before S G Chapalgaonkar)

Criminal Writ Petition No 1310 of 2022, 1311 of 2022, 1312 of 2022, 1313 of 2022, 1314 of 2022, 1315 of 2022, 1316 of 2022, 1317 of 2022, 1318 of 2022, dated 21-12-2023

Ekveera Jewellers Anturli, Jalgaon vs. Shaunak Deepak Kulkarni and Another; Aishwarya D/o Deepak Kulkarni and Another; Nandini W/o Deepak Kulkarni and Another; Deepak Diwakar Kulkarni and Another; Shubhendu Deepak Kulkarni and Another

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 397, Sec. 14, Sec. 202 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Sec. 138 - Petitioner engaged in a jewelry business, disputes jurisdiction, arguing that Magistrate failed to comply with Section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code before issuing process - Complainant's evidence affidavit and reasons for dispensing with a detailed enquiry are necessary, especially when accused resides beyond Magistrate's jurisdiction - Writ Petitions allowed Magistrate directed to conduct enquiry under Section 202 with specific instructions. - Petition Disposed.

Law Point: Examining all witnesses is not necessary, the complainant's evidence affidavit and reasons for dispensing with detailed enquiry are required under Section 202, especially when the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's jurisdiction.

Acts Referred:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 397, Sec. 14, Sec. 202
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Sec. 138

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[8] - APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION

2023(10)CPSC15

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Himachal Pradesh High Court]

(Before M M Sundresh ; J B Pardiwala)

Criminal Appeal No 266 of 2015, 267 of 2015, dated 13-10-2023

Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 376, Sec. 380, Sec. 34, Sec. 302, Sec. 511, Sec. 454 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 161 - Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 8, Sec. 3 - Appeal against conviction - The question is not as to whether there occurred a homicidal death or not but who did it - Unnatural conduct and unexplained circumstances can be a ground for disbelieving the witness - It is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact - The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established - When the trial court renders its decision by acquitting the accused, presumption of innocence gathers strength before the appellate court - Indictment and condemnation over a decision rendered, on considering all the materials placed before it, should be avoided - Failure on the part of the prosecution in not examining a witness, though material, by itself would not vitiate the trial - Mere absconding by itself cannot constitute a sole factor to convict a person - The appeals are allowed.

[Paras :- 14, 24, 25, 29, 30 and 31]

Law Point :- It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own feet. It cannot draw support from the weakness of the case of the accused, if it has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt."

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 376, Sec. 380, Sec. 34, Sec. 302, Sec. 511, Sec. 454
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 161
Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 8, Sec. 3

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[9] - NO-FAULT' LIABILITY

2023(12)CPMH17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Before Abhay Ahuja)

First Appeal No. 399 of 2023, dated 05-12-2023

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs. Maya Govind Patel; Atul Govind Patil; Chandresh Govind Patil; M/s Shree Ganesh Tours and Travels

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 304A, Sec. 279, Sec. 338, Sec. 427 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 134, Sec. 184, Sec. 173, Sec. 177 - Insurance Act, 1938 Sec. 64VB - No-fault' Liability - Appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim of non-involvement of luxury bus in accident - Despite not examining bus driver appellant merely asserted non-involvement without substantial proof - Appellant couldn't establish that accident resulted from rash and negligent driving of Scooty - Need to ensure innocent victims aren't prejudiced - Granted total compensation with joint liability subject to a 7% interest rate. - Appeal Dismissed

[Para 28-30]

Law Point: Unsubstantiated claim of non-involvement and failure to prove liability exonerates respondent leading to dismissal of appeal.

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 304A, Sec. 279, Sec. 338, Sec. 427
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 134, Sec. 184, Sec. 173, Sec. 177
Insurance Act, 1938 Sec. 64VB

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[10] - SUIT PROPERTY

2024(1)CPSC4

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Punjab And Haryana High Court]

(Before Abhay S Oka ; Pankaj Mithal)

Civil Appeal No. 9098 of 2013, dated 02-01-2024

Kanwar Raj Singh (D) Th Lrs vs. Gejo (D) Th Lrs & Ors

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 54 - Registration Act, 1908 Sec. 47 - Suit Property - Every sale deed for property exceeding Rs. 100/- must be compulsorily registered under Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act - Constitution Bench decision addresses completion of sale, while Section 47 of Registration Act specifies time from which a registered document operates - Consideration involves a registered sale deed with an interpolation made post-execution but pre-registration regarding property description - As per Section 47 a registered sale deed with full payment operates from its execution date - Corrections made unilaterally by defendant without purchaser's consent are disregarded - Sale deed should operate as originally executed - Appeal Dismissed

[Para 10-13]

Law Point: Unilateral corrections to a sale deed without purchaser's consent, made after execution but before registration, are invalid.

Acts Referred:

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 54
Registration Act, 1908 Sec. 47

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[11] - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

2024(1)CPMH4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Before Manish Pitale)

Arbitration Petition (L); Arbitration Application (L) No. 20483 of 2023; 21860 of 2023, dated 02-01-2024

Ketan Champaklal Divecha vs. DGS Township Pvt Ltd & Another

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 11, Sec. 9, Sec. 17, Sec. 7, Sec. 2 - Development Agreement - Member of a cooperative housing society seeks resolution of disputes under arbitration clause of a development agreement -Petitioner as a lone member cannot invoke arbitration. - Development agreement and a subsequent supplemental agreement are central to dispute - Arbitration clause as per clause 35 requires joint initiation by society and members making individual invocation defective - Collective will of cooperative society citing legal precedents - concludes that individual members cannot independently invoke arbitration - Arbitration agreement does not permit individual members to raise disputes independently. - Application Dismissed.

Law Point: Development agreement's arbitration clause necessitates joint initiation by cooperative society and its members precluding individual members from independently invoking arbitration.

Acts Referred:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 11, Sec. 9, Sec. 17, Sec. 7, Sec. 2

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[12] - AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTIONS

2023(10)CPSC35

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Karnataka High Court]

(Before Hima Kohli ; Rajesh Bindal)

Civil Appeal No. 4188 of 2013, dated 12-10-2023

Mathosri Manikbai Kothari College of Visual Arts vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 1 (3)(b), 7-B and 7-A - Amount of contributions - Assessed by Commissioner - Order challenged by appellant before Tribunal - Dismissed - Petition before High Court - Dismissed by single Judge - Writ appeal - Order of single Judge was upheld by Division Bench of High Court - Hence this appeal - Mere fact that two Institutes, managed and controlled by same management, offer different courses or were established at different times is not relevant for their clubbing under EPF Act - Fact that one of institutes receives 100% grant-in-aid from Government while the other is receiving to extent of 70%, is also not relevant - After coverage of establishments, benefits, as determined for purpose of assessing dues under EPF Act, have already been assessed by Commissioner - It can be safely opined that there is financial integrity between society of appellant as well as Ideal Institute as substantial funds have been advanced to Institutes by Society - Both Institutes are functioning from same premises - Appeal dismissed.

[Paras 22, 23 and 24]

Law Point - No straight jacket formula or test can be laid down for purpose of clubbing of two establishments and coverage under EPF Act.

Acts Referred:

Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Sec. 1, Sec. 7B, Sec. 7A

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[13] - TERM SHEET

2023(12)CPMH84

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Before Manish Pitale)

Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 20533 of 2023, dated 19-12-2023

Max Healthcare Institute Limited vs. Touch Healthcare Private Limited & Ors

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 37, Sec. 28, Sec. 34, Sec. 9, Sec. 37, Sec. 17 - Term Sheet - Tasked with addressing two primary issues. Firstly, it evaluates scope of its jurisdiction under Section 37(2)(b) of Arbitration Act, questioning whether petitioner has presented sufficient grounds to interfere with arbitrator's order - Secondly, it delves into interpretation of Term Sheet between parties focusing on whether time period specified in clause 16 of Term Sheet could be considered extended - Interference under Section 37(2)(b) should be sparing, requiring a strong case showing arbitrator's decision as implausible - Particularly scrutinizes petitioner's contention regarding nature of Term Sheet - Arbitrator's view that it was an agreement to enter into an agreement supported - No grounds for interference - Petition Dismissed.

Law Point: Jurisdiction under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act should be cautious in interfering with the arbitrator's decision, demanding a strong case to show decision as implausible.

Acts Referred:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 37, Sec. 28, Sec. 34, Sec. 9, Sec. 37, Sec. 17

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[14] - INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

2024(1)CPSC6

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Chhattisgarh High Court]

(Before Sudhanshu Dhulia ; Satish Chandra Sharma)

Criminal Appeal No 1420 of 2019, 36 of 2024, dated 03-01-2024

Neeraj Sharma; Ashwani Kumar Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 392, Sec. 307, Sec. 397, Sec. 364A, Sec. 364, Sec. 120B, Sec. 394 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 161, Sec. 357, Sec. 357A - Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 165 - Insufficient Evidence - Both Trial Court and High Court erred in categorizing case under Section 364A of IPC due to insufficient evidence - Appeals partially allowed setting aside findings of conviction under Section 364A but upholding conviction under Section 364 IPC for abduction with intent to murder - Accused sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each - Court affirms convictions under other sections and retains a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each, directing its recovery and remittance to victim - Crime victim should not be treated merely as a prosecution witness, invoking Section 357(1) of CrPC - Applicability of Section 357A for compensating victims from state funds - Victim is awarded Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. - Release conditions for one appellant - cancellation of bail for other are specified, with a directive to surrender.

[Para 18-20]

Law Point : Victim should not be treated solely as a prosecution witness, asserting the importance of compensating victims under Section 357(1) and 357A of the CrPC, ensuring justice beyond the confines of criminal convictions.

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 392, Sec. 307, Sec. 397, Sec. 364A, Sec. 364, Sec. 120B, Sec. 394
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 161, Sec. 357, Sec. 357A
Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 165

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[15] - COMPENSATION FOR DEATH

2024(1)CPMH16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

[Aurangabad Bench]

(Before R M Joshi)

First Appeal No 4258 of 2017, dated 09-01-2024

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pallavi W/o Rajeshwar Sriniwar; Shantanand S/o Rajeshwar Sriniwar; Raghavi D/o Rajeshwar Srinwar; Savitrabai W/o Shankarrao Sriniwar; Mohan S/o Kistaya Demewar

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 173 - Compensation for Death - Claimants, who are wife, son, daughter, and mother of deceased, sought compensation for his death in a motor vehicular accident - Argued that accident occurred due to negligence of driver. - Owner and insurer challenged claim, denying negligence and questioning claimants' income and compensation amount. - Tribunal found in favor of claimants, determining negligence, entitlement to compensation, and need for enhancement. - Appeal - Contesting evidence and computation. - Affirmed negligence, upheld death claim, and addressed compensation computation. - Modified multiplier from 15 to 14, allowing a 25% increase for future prospects, resulting in a final compensation of Rs. 31,28,575.

Law Point : Summary nature of proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the preponderance of probabilities standard and validity of unchallenged evidence, compensation enhancement without a separate appeal.

Acts Referred:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 173

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[16] - EVIDENCE IN TWO CASES

2024(1)CPSC7

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Madras High Court]

(Before Sanjiv Khanna ; S V N Bhatti)

Criminal Appeal No 863 of 2024, dated 03-01-2024

Perumal Raja @ Perumal vs. State

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 341, Sec. 149, Sec. 201, Sec. 148, Sec. 147, Sec. 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 313 - Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 41, Sec. 43, Sec. 40, Sec. 26, Sec. 27, Sec. 106, Sec. 42, Sec. 25 -Evidence in two Cases - Appellant argued that acquittal in a prior murder case should impact present case - contention rejected stating that evidence in two cases was unrelated with separate occurrences and dates - Accused in both cases - acquittal in one case didn't affect other - Judgment of acquittal deemed irrelevant to present case - Acquittal of co-accused was based on lack of evidence against them, and Section 27 of Evidence Act did not apply to them - conviction upheld - Appeal Dismissed

[Para 42-43]

Law Point: Acquittal in a separate case even if involving the same accused, may not impact the present case if the evidence and circumstances are distinct.

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 341, Sec. 149, Sec. 201, Sec. 148, Sec. 147, Sec. 302
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 313
Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 41, Sec. 43, Sec. 40, Sec. 26, Sec. 27, Sec. 106, Sec. 42, Sec. 25

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[17] - SALE DEEDS

2024(1)CPSC9

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Madras High Court]

(Before Vikram Nath ; Rajesh Bindal)

Civil Appeal No 37 of 2024, dated 03-01-2024

Rajendhiran vs. Muthaiammal @ Muthayee & Ors

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sec. 100 - Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 68 - Indian Succession Act, 1925 Sec. 63 - Sale Deeds - Two sale deeds related to different properties not survey number in question. - Absence of evidence for a partition concerning survey number is highlighted and property was never recorded in plaintiffs' names - Will forming basis of claim was not proven according to law - Examined sale deeds, finding them insufficient to establish an oral partition - Despite plaintiffs' claim, records showed survey number jointly allotted without partition. - Appeal Allowed

[Para 12-14]

Law Point: High Court's judgment was set aside due to its failure to conform to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being perceived as perverse and disregarding material evidence.

Acts Referred:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sec. 100
Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 68
Indian Succession Act, 1925 Sec. 63

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[18] - NEGLIGENCE

2023(12)CPMH142

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Before Shivkumar Dige)

First Appeal No 600 of 2021, dated 12-12-2023

Reliance General Insurance Com Ltd vs. Baban Dattatray Nimbalkar; Dnyaneshwar Balaso Shinde; Amol Balaso Shinde

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 2 - Negligence - Claimant who was a laborer on a tractor trolley cannot be considered a third party as accident occurred while he was attempting to remove a socket pin between two trolleys without informing driver. - Accident happened in a private field and not a public place. - Tribunal did not consider claimant's negligence and deemed field a public place due to contract between tractor driver and field owner. - appeal dismissed stating that without evidence of claimant's negligence and with permission to enter field it cannot be considered a private place. - Claimant allowed to withdraw deposited amount with accrued interest. - Appeal Dismissed

Law Point : Claimant despite being a laborer on the tractor qualifies as a third party and the accident location a private field is not deemed a private place under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Acts Referred:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 2

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[19] - EXECUTION OF WILL

2023(12)CPSC32

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Before Hrishikesh Roy ; Pankaj Mithal)

Civil Appeal No 7107 of 2017, dated 14-12-2023

Shakti Yezdani & Anr vs. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar & Ors

Companies Act, 1956 Sec. 109B, Sec. 109A, Sec. 187C - Indian Succession Act, 1925 Sec. 63, Sec. 211 - Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 Reg 29A - Companies Act, 2013 Sec. 72 - Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014 Rule 19 - Execution of Will - In context of nomination, courts consistently interpret that upon holder's death, nominee does not acquire absolute title to subject matter - Importance of doctrine of stare decisis, urging to maintain consistency in legal decisions - Vesting of securities in nominee as outlined in relevant acts serves a limited purpose - Ensuring clarity in legal procedures post holder's death - Nomination doesn't override succession laws - It merely streamlines process avoiding complications - Commercial considerations are involved, and nomination process doesn't confer ownership but safeguards against prolonged litigation until legal heirs establish their succession rights - In essence there is no third mode of succession intended by legislative framework - Appeal Dismissed

[Para 43-46]

Law Point: Nomination facilitates post-death legal procedures without altering ownership or succession laws.

Acts Referred:

Companies Act, 1956 Sec. 109B, Sec. 109A, Sec. 187C
Indian Succession Act, 1925 Sec. 63, Sec. 211
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 Reg 29A
Companies Act, 2013 Sec. 72
Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014 Rule 19

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[20] - DYING DECLARATION

2023(11)CPSC41

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Gujarat High Court]

(Before Abhay S Oka ; Pankaj Mithal)

Criminal Appeal No 6 of 2011, dated 02-11-2023

Shambhubhai Kalabhai Raval vs. State of Gujarat

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 306, Sec. 498A - Dying Declaration - Husband of deceased was convicted under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC. -Prosecution relied on dying declaration of deceased, recorded by an Executive Magistrate.- Doubts were raised about correctness of dying declaration - crucial witness withheld by prosecution. - Father and brother of deceased did not support prosecution. - Court highlighted several factors creating serious doubts about dying declaration's reliability, including absence of a doctor's endorsement - contradictions in statements - appellant Acquitted stating that prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. - Necessity of a reliable dying declaration for conviction, and doubts can undermine its credibility. - Appeal Allowed

Law Point: Conviction based on a dying declaration, must be of unimpeachable quality. Doubts, lack of corroboration, and crucial witness withholding can render a dying declaration unreliable in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 306, Sec. 498A

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[21] - CONVEYANCE DEED

2023(12)CPSC28

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Before Aniruddha Bose ; Sudhanshu Dhulia)

Civil Appeal No. 1854 of 2023, dated 15-12-2023

Sushma Shivkumar Daga & Anr vs. Madhurkumar Ramkrishnaji Bajaj & Ors

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 16, Sec. 5, Sec. 8, Sec. 11 - Conveyance Deed - Appellants raised three objections to Section 8 application moved by respondents. - First, they argued absence of an arbitration clause in Conveyance Deed and development agreements - Second, they contended that their suit for cancellation of a document related to immovable property is an action in rem, not suitable for arbitration. - Such suits are actions in personam - Third appellants raised a fraud objection but court found it unsubstantiated emphasizing that a serious nature of fraud is required to oust jurisdiction of an arbitrator. - Affirmed that Tripartite Agreements contained an arbitration clause and both lower courts correctly ruled on facts and law - Appeal Dismissed

[Para 18-21]

Law Point: A suit for cancellation of a document related to immovable property is an action in personam, not in rem.

Acts Referred:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 16, Sec. 5, Sec. 8, Sec. 11

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[22] - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

2023(10)CPSC40

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Bombay High Court]

(Before Hima Kohli ; Rajesh Bindal)

Civil Appeal No. 8516 of 2011, dated 12-10-2023

UCO Bank and Others vs. M B Motwani (Dead) Thr Lrs & Others

United Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 Reg 20-United Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 Reg 4, Reg 12, Reg 7-respondent no.1 was employee of appellant bank-he has attained age of superannuation on 2/7/1991 and due to retire on 31/7/1991-respondent no. 1was served a memo requiring him to explain irregularities and lapses related to certain accounts-on 15/7/1991 General Manager suspended him and ordered that he shall not be retired from service despite attaining the age of superannuation-chargesheet was served upon respondent no. 1 on 7/12/91- on 3/3/93 Disciplinary Committee dismissed him from service-respondent no.1 challenged dismissal before appellate authority-appellate authority confirmed dismissal but HC set aside dismissal order-bank challenged impugned order before SC-After perusal of all records and previous judgments SC held that dismissed is illegal and respondent no.1 is entitled to all retirement benefits with 7% interest-appeal dismissed with cost of 25K.

[Para 17-23]

Law Point - Mere issuance of Memo is not initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings. Charge sheet and memo are two different things.

Acts Referred:

United Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 Reg 20
United Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 Reg 4, Reg 12, Reg 7

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[23] - REVIEW APPLICATION

2023(10)CPSC32

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Allahabad High Court]

(Before Bela M Trivedi ; Dipankar Datta)

Civil Appeal No. 6668 of 2023, 6669 of 2023, dated 11-10-2023

Union of India vs. Uzair Imran & Ors

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sec. 114, Or. 47R. 1- Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Sec. 14, Sec. 19- Civil Appeal for dismissing a Review Application- Review Application urged framework of Order XLVII of the CPC but High Court failed to consider- appreciation of the educational qualification was questioned - excluded candidates of vocational streams for the post of Postal Assistants- appellant failed to secure justice and equality of opportunity- appeal stands disposed.

[Para 4,16,17,20]

Law Point- Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provides for the power of the court to review its own judgment or order for the purpose of correcting any errors or mistakes that may have crept in, or to rectify any new and important matter or evidence which was not within the knowledge of the party seeking the review at the time of the original hearing.

Acts Referred:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sec. 114, Or. 47R. 1
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Sec. 14, Sec. 19

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[24] - BENEFIT OF DOUBT

2023(11)CPSC72

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Punjab And Haryana High Court]

(Before B R Gavai ; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha)

Criminal Appeal No. 1205 of 2021, dated 29-11-2023

Ved Pal & Anr vs. State of Haryana

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 376, Sec. 34, Sec. 342 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 164 - Benefit of Doubt - Considering entire evidence, found that prosecution failed to prove case against appellants beyond a reasonable doubt - Prosecutrix's testimony and that of another witness indicated a significant distance between her house and accused's house - Challenging credibility of alleged incident - No cries or hues were reported during alleged dragging raising doubts about prosecution's narrative - Medical evidence revealed no injuries on prosecutrix, and forensic reports found no semen on her clothes, casting further doubt on sexual assault claim - Accused asserted a civil dispute between their grandfathers, challenging prosecutrix's credibility. - Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt granting accused benefit of doubt - Impugned judgments quashed, and appellants directed to be set at liberty unless detained in another case. - Appeal Allowed

[Para 9-14]

Law Point : In cases where prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and significant doubts arise regarding credibility of evidence accused are entitled to benefit of doubt leading to acquittal.

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 376, Sec. 34, Sec. 342
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 164

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[25] - PRE-LITIGATION MEDIATION

2023(10)CPSC101

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Delhi High Court]

(Before Sanjiv Khanna ; S V N Bhatti)

Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No 32275 of 2023, dated 13-10-2023

Yamini Manohar vs. T K D Keerthi

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 7R. 11 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Sec. 12A - Section 12A of the CC Act is mandatory - Pre-litigation mediation is necessary, unless the suit contemplates urgent interim relief - When a plaint is filed under the CC Act, with a prayer for an urgent interim relief, the commercial court should examine the nature and the subject matter of the suit, the cause of action, and the prayer for interim relief - The prayer for urgent interim relief should not be a disguise or mask to wriggle out of and get over Section 12A of the CC Act - The facts and circumstances of the case have to be considered holistically from the standpoint of the plaintiff - Non-grant of interim relief at the ad-interim stage, when the plaint is taken up for registration/admission and examination, will not justify dismissal of the commercial suit under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code; at times, interim relief is granted after issuance of notice.

[Paras : 3, 7 and 8]

Law Point :- Camouflage and guise to bypass the statutory mandate of pre-litigation mediation should be checked when deception and falsity is apparent or established - Special leave petition is dismissed.

Acts Referred:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 7R. 11
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Sec. 12A

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

IMPORTANT

Although every care has been taken to avoid errors or omissions, this publication is being sold on the condition and understanding that information given in this Magazine is merely for reference and must not be taken as having authority of or binding in any way on the Authors, Editors, Publishers and sellers who do not owe any responsibility for any damage or loss to any person, a purchaser of this publication or nor, for the result of any action taken on the basis of this work. The publishers shall be highly obliged if mistakes are brought to their notice for carrying out corrections.

Published by:

Amit Nanda

for Current Law Solutions

Gr. Floor, Karanjia Building, 651 JSS Road, Marine Lines (E), Mumbai 400 002

Tel:- 09869443478

E-Mail: jainabook@gmail.com. Website: www.currentpublications.com

------------------