Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [8th February to 13th February 2021]

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Dishonour Of Cheques- Blank Cheque Would Attract Presumption U/s 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Admitted: Supreme CourtCase: M/s. Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 123 of 2021] Citation: LL 2021 SC 75Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose observed that 'reverse onus' clauses under Section 118 and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act become operative once the signature(s) of an accused on the cheque are established. The Court went ahead to observe that even a blank cheque leaf would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when signatures are admitted by the accused."Though the presumptions raised under Section 118 and Section 139 are rebuttable in nature, a probable defence needs to be raised, which must meet the standard of "preponderance of probability", and not mere possibility." The bench observed.2. Grant Of Leave For Compounding Offences At Appellate Stage Is Not Automatic On Settlement Between Accused & Victim: Supreme CourtCase: Pravat Chandra Mohanty v. State of Odisha [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2021] Citation: LL 2021 SC 80A division bench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Ajay Rastogi held that grant of leave as contemplated by Section 320(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not automatic nor it has to be mechanical on receipt of request by the accused which may be agreed by the victim.The observation came while the bench rejected a plea seeking compounding of offences of two police officers accused in a custodial violence case. Pravat Chandra Mohanty and Pratap Kumar Chaudhary were convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. It was found that both the accused 'mercilessly beaten the deceased in the premises of the Police Station. This incident occurred in the year 1985. Before the Apex Court where they challenged their conviction, the accused made a prayer to compound the offence in view of the settlement reached between them and the legal heirs of the deceased.3. More Clarity And Certainty Has To Be Brought In SEBI Mutual Fund Regulations: Supreme CourtCase: Franklin Templeton Trustee Services Private Limited v. Amruta Garg [C.A. 498-501 OF 2021]Citation: LL 2021 SC 81The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, while upholding the validity of e-voting process for winding up of six mutual fund schemes of Franklin Templeton, observed that more clarity and certainty has to be brought in the Mutual Fund Regulations."We would neither hesitate in stating the obvious, that modern regulatory enactments bear heavily on commercial matters and, therefore, must be precisely and clearly legislated as to avoid inconvenience, friction and confusion, which may, in addition, have adverse economic consequences. The legislator in the present case must, therefore, reflect and take remedial steps to bring about clarity and certainty in the Mutual Fund Regulations." The bench said in the judgment. The Court held that, for the purpose winding up Mutual fund schemes, the 'consent of the unitholders' stipulated under Regulation 18(5)(c), would mean consent by majority of the unit holders who have participated in the poll, and not consent of majority of all the unitholders of the scheme.Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of E-Voting Process For Winding Up Of Franklin Templeton's Six Mutual Fund SchemesAlso Read: Franklin Templeton Case: Supreme Court Approves Distribution Mechanism Of SBI Mutual Fund And SBI Funds Management4. Consent Of Family, Community Or Clan Not Necessary Once Two Adult Individuals Agree To Enter Into Wedlock: Supreme CourtCase: Laxmibai Chandaragi B v. State Of Karnataka [WRIT PETITION [CRIMINAL] NO.359/2020] Citation: LL 2021 SC 79The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed that consent of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock. A father of a girl lodged 'missing persons complaint' after she eloped and married a person, without informing him. Even after knowing about their whereabouts and the factum of marriage, the Investigating officer insisted that the girl should appear before the Murgod police station to record a statement so that the case can be closed. "The investigating officer must be sent for counseling as to how to manage such cases." The bench said that while criticizing the conduct of the IO in adopting these tactics. The court also said that the police authorities shall formulate guidelines and training programmes how to handle 'socially sensitive cases'.5. SC Judgment Which Excluded Persons With Over 50% Visual/Hearing Impairment From Judicial Service No Longer Binding Precedent: Supreme CourtCase: Vikash Kumar v. UPSC [Civil Appeal No. 273 of 2021]Citation: LL 2021 SC 76The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna observed that...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [8th February to 13th February 2021]

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags