Top Stories
Vitiation of seizure order
S. 102(3) of CrPC | Whether delayed/forthwith non-reporting of seizure to the Magistrate vitiates the seizure order? SC answers
In a set of two criminal appeals against a decision of the Madras High Court, wherein the de-freezing of the accounts of the accused persons was allowed for delay on the part of the police in reporting the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate, the Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar*, JJ. while dealing with the question that whether delayed reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate vitiate the seizure order altogether, held that non-reporting of the seizure forthwith by the police officer to the jurisdictional Court would not vitiate the seizure order.
Mesne Profits on continuation of possession
Mesne Profits on continuation of possession payable only after ‘expiry of lease’ or even after ‘determination, forfeiture or termination’? SC answers
A batch of Interlocutory Applications were filed in a Special Leave Petition (Civil) against a decision of the Calcutta High Court, wherein, while answering the question that whether the West Bengal Tenancy Act, 1997 (‘Tenancy Act’) or the (‘TP Act’) was to be applied for framing of the issues in the instant landlord-tenant dispute, held that the Tenancy Act would govern the same. The petitioner-landlord, whilst the pendency of the SLP sought direction for payment of rent and other associated benefits for the property. The Division Bench of JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol*, JJ. directed the tenant to deposit Rs.5,15,05,512/- with the Registry of the Court. The Bench also held that mesne profits are payable on continuation of possession by tenant after expiry, determination, forfeiture or termination of lease.
S. 14(1) Hindu Succession Act
S. 14(1) Hindu Succession Act | Hindu female must have both possession and acquisition to establish full ownership of undivided joint family property: SC
In a civil appeal against Rajasthan High Court’s Division Bench decision whereby, the appeal against decision of the Single Judge for upholding the Civil Court’s decision as to widow wife’s right to be maintained from the suit property of the Hindu family, was dismissed, the Division Bench of BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned decisions. The Bench reiterated that for establishing full ownership on the undivided joint family estate under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act, the Hindu female must not only be possessed of the property, but she must have acquired the property.
Retrospective applicability of CrPC
Explained | Supreme Court’s verdict on retrospective applicability of CrPC in Jammu & Kashmir
In an appeal against the judgment passed by J& K and Ladakh High Court, by which the judgment rendered by the Special Judge, National Investigation Agency (NIA) has been confirmed in part, while remitting the issue pertaining to the charges framed under Sections 306 and 411 of the Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (‘RPC, 1989’) along with Section of the (‘UAPA, 1967’) for taking cognizance afresh, the division bench of M. M. Sundresh* and S. V. N. Bhatti, JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment insofar as it confirms the judgment of the Special Judge, NIA, in not taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the RPC, 1989, held that while an investigation could continue after its initiation under the CrPC, 1989, by way of the application of the CrPC, 1973, it cannot be stated that even for a case where there was a clear non-compliance of the former, it can be ignored by the application of the latter.
Divorce
SC grants divorce decree after wife resiled from settlement and disregarded terms and conditions agreed in Mediation
In a civil transfer petition by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section of the , which is pending before the Family Court, Varanasi, U.P. to the Family Court, Pune, Maharashtra, the three Judge Bench of BR Gavai, S.V.N. Bhatti and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution granted the decree of divorce and dissolved the marriage.
Bail
Can Bail be cancelled by the same Court which granted it in the first place? SC answers
In a batch of criminal appeals by the complainant against four different orders of the Allahabad High Court allowing regular bail of the present four respondents/ accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352 and 504 read with Section of , the Division Bench of Hima Kohli* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned orders. The accused persons were directed to surrender within two weeks from the date of passing of order.
Read why Supreme Court sets aside Madras HC bail order granting bail to PFI Members in UAPA case
In a criminal appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency (‘NIA’) against the Madras High Court order granting bail to members and cadres of Popular Front of India (‘PFI’), who were alleged to conspire for committing terrorist acts, raise funds for committing terrorist activities and recruit members for furthering their extremist ideology, the Division Bench of Bela M Trivedi* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. has set aside the impugned order, opining that High Court has committed gross error in not considering the evidence in its right and proper perspective and in recording a perverse finding to the effect that there was no material to suggest the commission of any offence, which falls under Section 15 of UAPA, and that the prosecution had not produced any material about the involvement of any of the accused persons in any terrorist act or as a member of a terrorist gang or organization or training terrorism.
[Manish Sisodia Bail] SC grants liberty to AAP’s Manish Sisodia to revive bail plea after final chargesheet is filed by ED/CBI by July 3
In a special leave to appeal against Delhi High Court’s decision in Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate, , whereby former Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia was denied bail in the money laundering and corruption cases related to the Delhi liquor Excise policy scam, the Vacation Division Bench of Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. considering that the charge sheet and complaint would be filed by ED/ CBI within 4 weeks, the Court granted liberty to Sisodia to revive his prayer afresh after filing of the final complaint/Charge sheet. The Court also clarified that when such afresh application will be filed, the same would be considered on its own merits.
Murder
SC upholds conviction of man after 34 years, who absconded for 10 years after killing wife in 1990
In a criminal appeal against the Delhi High Court’s decision whereby the convict’s (convict-husband) appeal against the conviction and life imprisonment sentence passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section of the , was rejected, the Division Bench of BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ. considering the motive, last seen together, medical evidence establishing that the cause of death, confessional note, abscondence for nearly 10 years, dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court’s and High Court’s decisions.
Demolition of Pracheen Shiva Temple
SC upholds Delhi HC decision allowing demolition of Pracheen Shiva Temple on Yamuna floodplains by DDA
In a special leave to appeal by the Prachin Shiv Mandir Avam Akhada Samiti against the Delhi High Court’s decision for allowing the demolition of a Shiv Temple located on the Yamuna floodplains, the Vacation Bench of Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih, JJ. dismissed the SLP, upholding the High Court’s decision.
Seven sub-rights of Constitutional Right to Property
Compulsory acquisition of private property: Supreme Court outlines seven sub-rights of Constitutional Right to Property
In an appeal filed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (‘Corporation’) against the Calcutta High Court Judgment, wherein the Court held that there is no power of compulsory acquisition of immovable property under Section of the (‘the Act’), the division bench of PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar, JJ. has upheld the impugned Judgment. Further, while interpreting “authority of law” in Article of the , the Bench has held that a minimum content of a constitutional right to property comprises of seven sub-rights or procedures such as the right to notice, hearing, reasons for the decision, to acquire only for public purpose, fair compensation, efficient conduct of the procedure within timelines and finally the conclusion. These sub-rights have synchronously formed part of our laws and have attained judicial recognition. Therefore, as Section 352 does not provide for these sub-rights or procedures, it can never be a valid power of acquisition. Further, the Bench held that Section 352 is only intended to enable the Municipal Commissioner to decide whether a land is to be acquired for public purpose. The power of acquisition is in fact vested with the State under Section 537 and it will exercise it, in its own discretion, whenever the Municipal Commissioner makes an application to that effect.
Custody of minor children
Supreme Court settles child custody battle after 9 yrs; Discusses seriousness of allegations of parental alienation syndrome
In a civil appeal against the Delhi High Court’s decision partly allowing the appeal filed by the Respondent- mother against the Family Court’s decision and setting aside the underlying order, whereby the permanent custody of minor children was granted to the appellant-father and provided visitation rights to the mother, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma*, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s decision. The Court directed that the custody of the minor children be retained by the father, subject to the mother’s visitation rights as granted by the Family Court vide the underlying order.
Refund of stamp duty
Supreme Court rules on refund of stamp duty for an un-executed conveyance deed and fraudulent transaction
In a civil appeal against a decision of the Bombay High Court whereby the appellant’s demand for refund of Stamp Duty paid towards an un-executed conveyance deed was dismissed and upheld the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps’ order (respondent), the Division Bench of BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra*, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders and decision.
Arbitration
Can Arbitration proceedings be terminated on claimant’s failure to request Arbitral Tribunal to fix a date for hearing? SC answers
In a civil appeal concerning the issue about the legality and validity of the order of termination of the arbitral proceedings under Section of the (‘the Arbitration Act’) passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, the division bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. has held
Motor Accident compensation
Supreme Court ruling on right to seek enhancement of awarded but unpaid Motor Accident compensation as an indigent person
The Division Bench JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol*, JJ. answered the question that whether a person who is entitled to receive compensation by way of a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can be said to have given up its status as an ‘indigent person’, by virtue of the amount slated to be received (compensation). The Court allowed the appeal to file an appeal as an ‘indigent person’, as her indigency was not extinguished by the compensation awarded, for she did not receive the money at the time of filing the appeal.
Writ Jurisdiction of High Court
Whether Air India after its privatisation can be subjected to writ jurisdiction of High Court? Supreme Court answers
In appeals filed challenging the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court, wherein the Court dismissed four writ petitions instituted by the former employees of Air India Limited (‘AIL’) as members of its cabin crew force, the Division Bench of BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ. while upholding the impugned judgment, said that AIL, the erstwhile Government run airline having been taken over by the private company is not performing any public duty, since it has taken over the Government company for the purpose of commercial operations. Thus, no writ petition is maintainable against AIL.
Permanent status for Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corp. Employees
Read why Supreme Court upheld permanent status for Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Employees
In a set of two cross civil appeals one by the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited (‘Corporation’) and the other by the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Employees Welfare Union (‘Union’), against the judgment and order of the Madras High Court wherein the grant of permanent status to the workmen employed in the Corporation was in question, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ. held that the Corporation could not have denied the permanent status to the workmen if they have worked consecutively for more than 480 days in a period of 24 months. The Court also concluded that the was applicable to the Corporation.
Physical Efficiency Test
Supreme Court issues notice in Armed forces veteran’s plea seeking relaxation in Physical Efficiency Test for the post of Forest Guard
In a special leave petition filed against the Judgment and order passed by the Rajasthan High Court concerning the relaxation in the Physical Efficiency Test for the ex-servicemen of the Armed forces for the post of Forest Guard, the division bench of Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar, JJ. has issued notice.
Insurance claim
SC sets aside NCDRC order directing United India Insurance Co. to pay insurance claim for bridge collapsed in 2009, resulting in death of 48 workmen
In an appeal filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (‘Insurance Company’) challenging the decision by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’), which by its impugned order directed Insurance Company to release and pay an insurance claim of Rs. 39,09,92,828/-, the Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Aravind Kumar,JJ. while setting aside the impugned order, opined that the NCDRC fell into a clear error of law and fact in allowing the consumer complaint for multiple reasons.
Consumer Protection Act
Explained | ‘Onus to prove that service was obtained for commercial purpose under Consumer Protection Act lies on service provider and not consumer’: SC
In a batch of civil appeals against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (NCDRC) wherein the view taken by the State Forum and the District Forum, that there was ‘deficiency in service’ and ordered for refund of the claimed amount with interest of 18% p.a. was upheld, the Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar*, JJ. dismissed the appeal and held that deficiency of service was proved.
Land Acquisition
Inside Supreme Court’s verdict on land acquisitions by Delhi State entities from 1957- 2006 under 1894 Act for public projects
In a batch of appeals filed by Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’), Government of National Capital of Delhi (‘GNCTD’), Land Acquisition Collector (‘LAC’), Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (‘DSIIDC’), East Delhi Municipal Corporation, and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (‘DMRC’) (collectively, the ‘appellants’), against various identical orders of the Delhi High Court, whereby acquisition proceedings had been declared to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ( ‘2013 Act’ ), the three-judge bench of Surya Kant*, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. while setting aside the impugned orders, upheld the acquisition of the respondents’ lands under 1894 Act, clarifying that this will not preclude the respondents from recovery of the compensation amount, if not already paid or to the extent it is not paid, along with interest and other statutory benefits under 1894 Act. The Court further directed the Government of NCT of Delhi and its authorities to take physical possession of the lands, if not already taken, and continue uninterruptedly to complete the public infrastructure projects.
Never Reported Judgments
Never Reported Judgment | Mere deposit of monthly rent by mortgagee not sufficient to establish landlord-tenant relationship between tenant’s mortgagee and landlord of leased property
In the appeal filed on behalf of appellant, Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd. in an action in ejectment commenced by respondents for recovery of possession of two premises, in Calcutta, the 3-Judges Bench of M.C. Mahajan*, Vivian Bose, and B. Jagannadhadas, JJ., held that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between appellant, the mortgagee of tenant and landlord qua the leased property and mere deposit of monthly rent by appellant was not sufficient to establish such relationship. Thus, appellant not being a tenant, was not entitled to protection afforded to tenants under the Calcutta House Rent Control Order, 1943 (‘1943 Order’).
Never Reported Judgment | Mere mentioning of quota holder’s wrong name in a form’s delivery column does not lead to inference of bad faith
In an appeal filed against the judgment dated 29-05-1950, passed by the Bombay High Court (‘the High Court’), the three-judges bench of M.C. Mahajan, Vivian Bose* and B. Jagannadhadas, JJ., stated that apparent that the clerks in charge were careless, for the delivery order of 12-04-1947, as Bholabhai Jagjiwandas was showed as the Commission Agent while the signature at the bottom showed that Shantilal and Company actually accepted and received the goods, whereas other delivery orders of the same consignment correctly entered the name of Shantilal and Company. The Supreme Court opined that quite clearly, this was innocent carelessness, because if there had been any dishonesty involved either Shantilal or Bholabhai would have been entered in all the orders and if the name of Bholabhai was entered, care would have been taken to forge a signature on behalf of Bholabhai.
Never Reported Judgment | Admitted/proven partial partition leads to presumption of division of all properties, movable and immovable, belonging to joint family
The present appeal was directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Patna High Court (‘the High Court’) reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Second Subordinate Judge at Arrah (‘the Trial Court’), whereby respondents’ suit was dismissed. The Division Bench of M.C. Mahajan and N.H. Bhagwati*, JJ., held that once there was severance of joint status, properties could continue to be joint between erstwhile members of joint family only by virtue of agreement arrived at between parties to hold such properties as joint tenants and once partial partition was admitted or proved, presumption would arise that all properties, movable and immovable, belonging to joint family were divided.
Never Reported Judgment| Cause of action for suit filed by reversioner for possession of immovable property arises on the death of a Hindu widow
An appeal was filed from the decree of the Allahabad High Court (‘the High Court’) dated 21-01-1947, whereby the appellants’ suit for possession of four villages situated in Buland Shahr and Aligarh districts was dismissed. The Division Bench of M.C. Mahajan* and N.H. Bhagwati, JJ., opined that the Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh (‘Trial Court’) and the High Court had erred in holding that the terminus a quo for limitation was the date on which the tripartite family arrangement was arrived at and not the date of the death of Rani Kushal Kaur (‘the widow’). The Supreme Court opined that the Trial Court and the High Court had decided the case not on the real nature of the document, but on its mere form.
Know Thy Judge
SCC Weekly
The post appeared first on .