Supreme Court Weekly Round Up September 13 To September 19, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Unilateral Cancellation Of Registered Sale Deed Can't Be An Anticipatory Bail Condition: Supreme CourtCase: Syed Afsar Pasha Quadri v The State of TelanganaCitation : LL 2021 SC 474The Supreme Court has observed that a registered sale deed cannot be cancelled unilaterally by one party to the said document in purported compliance of the direction given by the High Court, since that adversely affects the rights of the purchasers who are not a party before the High Court.The bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli in the present matter was hearing a special leave petition filed assailing the order dated June 8, 2021 by the High Court of Telangana wherein the High Court while granting anticipatory bail had directed the accused to cancel the registered sale deed executed by him and return the money received from the complainant.2. Conversion To Christianity: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Man Accused Under MP Freedom Of Religion ActCase: George Mangalapilly vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Citation: LL 2021 SC 473The Supreme Court quashed criminal case against a man accused of forcibly converting a person to Christianity.According to the prosecution, the George Mangalapilly had converted one Dharmendar Dohar to Christianity. He was charged for offences punishable under Sections 153(B)(1) and 295-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the M.P. Freedom of Religion Act, 1968.In the trial that followed, Dharmendar Dohar in his examination-in chief denied that he was converted by the accused. He stated that his signatures were obtained on a piece of paper by certain persons, on the basis of which the prosecution was launched against the accused. The witness was declared hostile and was extensively cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor.The Apex Court bench of Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and CT Ravikumar, in appeal filed by the accused, held that the testimony of the witness is significant in this case. 3. Summoning And Detaining A Person Without There Being Any Crime Registered Against Him Illegal: Supreme CourtCase name: M.A Khaliq vs. Ashok KumarCitation : LL 2021 SC 472The Supreme Court observed that summoning and detaining a person without there being any crime registered against him would be violative of basic principles.The directions issued in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, would be applicable even if no crime was registered, the bench of Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi observed."The mere fact that no crime was registered, could not be a defence, nor would it be an escape from the rigour of the decisions rendered by this Court. As a matter of fact, summoning the person without there being any crime registered against him and detaining him would itself be violative of basic principles", the court observed.4. Imposition Of Costs Not A Reflection On Counsel; Costs Must Follow Cause In Commercial Matters Including Writ Petitions : Supreme CourtCase name: UFLEX Ltd. Vs. Govt. Of Tamil NaduCitation: LL 2021 SC 465The Supreme Court observed that costs must follow the cause in commercial matters including writ petitions.The court added that it is not a correct approach to presume that imposition of costs is a reflection on the counsel.The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed that tender jurisdiction was created for scrutiny of commercial matters and, thus, where continuously parties seek to challenge award of tenders, we are of the view that the succeeding party must get costs and the party which loses must pay costs.5. Section 319 CrPC: Summoning Power Should Be Exercised Only When Strong And Cogent Evidence Occurs Against A Person: Supreme CourtCase: Ramesh Chandra Srivastava vs. State of UPCitation : LL 2021 SC 468The Supreme Court observed that the power under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence.The bench of Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha reiterated that the power under Section 319 CrPC cannot be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner. The test to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case which is applied at the time of framing of charge, the bench added.6. Employee Who Made False Declaration/ Suppressed Involvement In Criminal Case Not Entitled To Appointment/Continue In Service As A Matter Of Right: Supreme CourtCase name: Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited vs. Anil KanwariyaCitation: LL 2021 SC 466The Supreme Court observed that an employee who made a false declaration and/or suppressed the material fact of his involvement in a criminal case shall not be entitled to an appointment or to continue in service as a matter of right."Where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up September 13 To September 19, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags