Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [July 3- July 9 2022]

Supreme Court Judgements1. Declaration Of Law By Court Will Have Retrospective Effect If Not Otherwise Stated Specifically: Supreme Court Case Name: Manoj Parihar vs State of Jammu And Kashmir Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 560 The Supreme Court reiterated that the declaration of law made by the court will have retrospective effect, if not otherwise stated to be so specifically. The bench comprising Justices Surya Kant observed thus while it upheld the order of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court that inter-se seniority for Munsiffs appointed by way of direct recruitment on the recommendation of the State Public Service Commission is to be determined on the basis of their inter-se merit at the time of selection and not roster points.2. Mere Acceptance Of Rent By Landlord After The Expiry Of Lease Would Not Amount To Waiver Of Termination Of Lease: Supreme Court Case Title: K.M. Manjunath Vs Erappa. G (D) |SLP(C) 10700 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 561 The Supreme Court bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia has reiterated that mere acceptance of the rent by the landlord after the expiry of the period of lease would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease.3. Cancellation Of Bail Cannot Be Limited To The Occurrence Of Supervening Circumstances: Supreme Court Case Title: Deepak Yadav vs State of UP |CrA 861 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 562 Cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment delivered on 20 May 2022. The bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed thus while it allowed appeal against a judgment of Allahabad High Court which granted bail to a murder accused.4. Trial/Appellate Court Has Full Discretion To Order Sentences To Run Concurrently: Supreme Court Case Name: Malkeet Singh Gill vs State of Chhattisgarh | CrA 915 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 563 The Supreme Court observed that Trial court and Appellate Court has full discretion to order sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently. In this case, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the charges under Sections 409, 420, 409 read with Section 120B and 420 read with Section 1 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 04 years, 07 years, 01 year and 02 years respectively along with fine and also directed to serve the sentences one after the other. The Appellate Court upheld the judgment. The High Court while allowing the Revision in part directed that sentences so awarded shall run concurrently. While considering the appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two Courts after detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record.5. Substantive Right Accrued To A Litigant Should Not Be Defeated Citing Procedural Defects Capable Of Being Cured: Supreme Court Case Title: Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Vinita Mehta | CA 4639 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 564 The Supreme Court observed that substantive right accrued to the litigant should not be defeated citing a procedural defect capable of being cured. "It is a trite law that the procedural defect may fall within the purview of irregularity and capable of being cured, but it should not be allowed to defeat the substantive right accrued to the litigant without affording reasonable opportunity", the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed.6. Purchaser Of Suit Property Cannot File Application Under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC Objecting Execution Of Decree By Decree Holder: Supreme Court Case Title: Shriram Housing Finance and Investment India Ltd vs Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 565 The Supreme Court observed that purchaser of the suit property from the decree holder is not entitled to file an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 objecting execution of the decree by the decree holder.7. Plea Of Territorial Jurisdiction Or Lack Thereof Cannot Be Entertained In A Transfer Petition U/Sec 25 CPC: Supreme Court Case Name: Neilan International Co. Ltd. vs Powerica Limited Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 566 The Supreme Court observed that its jurisdiction under Section 25 of CPC cannot be extended to determine the question of territorial jurisdiction of the proceedings. The plea of jurisdiction or the lack of it can be prompted before the Court in which the proceedings are pending, Justice JK Maheshwari observed.8. Order XII Rule 6 CPC - Power To Pass Judgment On Admissions Discretionary Cannot Be Claimed As A Matter Of Right: Supreme Court Case Title: Karan Kapoor vs Madhuri Kumar Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 567 ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [July 3- July 9 2022]

Shruti Kakkar

Tags