Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index- [August 14 – 20, 2023]

Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 639 To 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 679SUBJECT WISE INDEXAllotment of PlotsAllotment of Plots - E-auction - When the HSIIDC as the authority deciding to allot industrial plots had laid down a particular procedure which will ensure fairness and transparency amongst the participants, they cannot depart from the notified process particularly when there was no technical report available with the authority to confirm technical fault in the e-auction process. When such a departure from the laid down norm is made, it has to be declared to be arbitrary and unfair. Since the decision is not founded on any acceptable reasoning, it would suffer from the vice of irrationality and unreasonableness. (Para 24) Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. Ashish Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 654ArbitrationArbitration award cannot be set aside on mere possibility of an alternative view of facts of interpretation of contract. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 668 : 2023 INSC 742BailBail condition of NDPS accused relaxed - The liberty of an accused who is facing prolonged trial deserves attention of the Court - Prolonged incarceration of undertrial prisoners violates the constitutional principles of dignity and liberty. (Para 8 - 10) Ejike Jonas Orji v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 670BootleggerSamples which were drawn and collected from the liquor seized from the possession of the appellant detenu were sent to the forensic science laboratory for the purpose of chemical analysis and in all cases, the analysis report states that the samples were found to be unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. (Para 52) Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678Caste CertificateNo protection should be given to persons who secure public employment through false caste certificates. It is immaterial whether the caste certificate was submitted fraudulently or due to a genuine mistaken belief. Intent is of no consequence. Granting protection to individuals who are ineligible for the post has a deleterious effect on good governance. The said protection would allow an ineligible person to gain access to a scarce public resource, violate the rights of an eligible person, and perpetuate illegality by unduly bestowing benefits on an ineligible person. (Para 21) Bhubaneswar Development Authority v. Madhumita Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 644 : 2023 INSC 728Civil LawWhen can one escape the effects of a document despite signing it ? Supreme Court explains plea of 'non est factum'. Ramathal v. K. Rajamani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 666 : 2023 INSC 637Civil suit – Non-framing of an issue, which is otherwise covered in a broader issue and for which there was sufficient pleading and evidence, the suit could not have been dismissed on that ground. Ramathal v. K. Rajamani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 666 : 2023 INSC 637Order XVII Rule 2 CPC - Court can proceed only against an absent party whose evidence has been substantially recorded. Y.P. Lele v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 653 : 2023 INSC 732Criminal Delivery SystemFailure of the major stakeholders in the criminal delivery system - Three main stakeholders in a criminal trial, namely the Investigating Officer, the Public Prosecutor, and the Judiciary, have all utterly failed to keep up their respective duties and responsibilities cast upon them. The Trial Court and the High Court miserably failed to notice the sensitivity and intricacies of the case. Both the Courts completely shut their eyes to the manner of the investigation, the Prosecutor’s role, and the highhandedness of the accused as also the conduct of the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court, despite observations and findings having been recorded not only by the Administrative Judge but also by the Division Bench deciding Habeas Corpus petition. They continued with their classical rut of dealing with the evidence in a manner as if it was a normal trial. They failed to notice the conduct of the Public Prosecutor in not even examining the formal witnesses and also that the Public Prosecutor was acting to the advantage of the accused rather than prosecuting the accused with due diligence and honesty. The Presiding Officer of the Trial Court acquitting the accused as also the learned Judge of the High Court dismissing the revision, were both well aware of the facts, legal procedures, as well as the law regarding appreciation of evidence in a criminal case. Both the courts below ignored the administrative reports as also the judgment of the High Court in the Habeas Corpus petition. In fact they should have taken judicial notice of the same. They completely failed to take into consideration the conduct of the accused subsequent to the incident, which was extremely relevant and material in view of Section 8 of the Evidence Act. They failed to draw any adverse inference against the...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index- [August 14 – 20, 2023]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags