Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

HC Can’t Modify Life Sentence To ‘Period Already Undergone’ While Upholding Conviction Of Murder [Jitendra @ Kalla V. State of Govt. of NCT Delhi] The Supreme Court observed that in a murder case, the high court as an appellate court, cannot modify the life imprisonment imposed by the trial court to period already undergone.‘Fact’ In Section 27 Of Evidence Act Not Limited To ‘Actual Physical Material Object’ And Includes ‘Mental Awareness Of The Accused As To Its Existence [Asar Mohamad and ors V. State of UP]The Supreme Court observed that the word “fact” as contemplated in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is not limited to “actual physical material object”, and it includes mental awareness or the knowledge of the accused as to its existence.Execution Petition Filed Within 12 Years Of Appellate Court Judgment Affirming Trial Court Decree Won’t Be Barred By Limitation [Shanthi V. T.D. Vishwanathan & Ors.]The Supreme Court held that an execution petition filed within 12 years of the high court judgment affirming the decree passed by the trial court would not be barred by limitation.Strict Proof Of Marriage Not Needed For ‘Maintenance’ Proceedings Under Sec. 125 CrPC [Kamala vs. MR Mohan Kumar]The Supreme Court, while setting aside a Karnataka High Court order that had dismissed a maintenance petition for want of proof of marriage, reiterated that in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such strict proof of marriage is not necessary.Conditional Gifts Are Incomplete Until Conditions Are Complied With; Such Gift Deeds Can Be Cancelled By The Donor [S. Sarojini Amma V. Velayudhan Pillai Sreekmar]The Supreme Court held that a conditional gift only becomes complete on compliance of the conditions in the deed, and the donor is within rights to cancel such a gift deed. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Indira Banerjee was considering an appeal against Kerala High Court judgment. Suit For Mere Injunction Not Maintainable When Defendant Can Successfully Raise Cloud Over Plaintiff’s Title [Jharkhand State Housing Board V. Didar Singh]The Supreme Court reiterated that a suit for bare injunction would not be maintainable when a defendant could successfully raise cloud over the title of the plaintiff.If A Religious Practice Threatens People’s Health, It Is Not Entitled To Protection Under Article 25 [Arjun Gopal & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors.]The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, ruled against imposing complete ban on firecrackers, but said that only less polluting green crackers can be sold, that too only through licensed traders. The court also banned online sale of firecrackers. In doing so, the Bench comprising Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan examined the interplay between the right to health and environmental protection under Article 21 on one hand, and the rights under Articles 25 and 19(1)(g) on the other.No Bharat Stage IV Vehicle Shall Be Sold Across The Country From April 1, 2020 [M. C. Mehta V. union of India]The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that no Bharat Stage IV vehicle shall be sold across the country with effect from April 1, 2020. The Bharat stage emission standards are standards instituted by the government to regulate the output of air pollutants from motor vehicles. A three-judge bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur made it clear that only BS VI compliant vehicle shall be sold in the country from April 1st, 2020.SC Explains When Doctrine Of Res Judicata As Between Co-Defendants Can Be Applied [Govindammal vs. Vaidiyanathan]The Supreme Court reiterated that the following four conditions are required to be satisfied while considering the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata as between co-defendants: There must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned; It must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the reliefs which the plaintiff claims; The question between the defendants must have been finally decided; and The co-defendants were necessary or proper parties in the former suit.SC Sets Aside ‘Flyover Promotion’ Granted To Officer By Violating Service Rules [Ajit KR Bhuyan & Ors V. Debajit Das & Ors]The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a ‘flyover promotion’ granted to an officer who worked with a former Chief Minister of Assam by violating service rules. The bench comprising Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan restored the judgment of a single judge of the Gauhati High Court which was earlier set aside by the division bench on the ground of delay and latches. The division bench had also accepted that 13 vacancies were not in existence and favoritism was shown to Debajit Das.Remarriage Not A Ground To Deprive A Man Custody Of His Children [Dr. Amit Kumar V. Dr. Sonila & Ors.]The Supreme Court on Friday held that merely because a man remarried and is residing with second wife’s child, he could not be deprived of the custody of his child. The bench comprising of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Sanjay...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

ashok kini

Tags