Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index [January 1 to 7]

Adverse PossessionTenants cannot claim adverse possession against their landlords since their possession is permissive in nature. (Para 9.4) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 17Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - An award could be said to be against the public policy of India in, inter alia, the following circumstances: 1. When an award is, on its face, in patent violation of a statutory provision 2. When the arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal has failed to adopt a judicial approach in deciding the dispute. 3. When an award is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. When an award is unreasonable or perverse. 5. When an award is patently illegal, which would include an award in patent contravention of any substantive law of India or in patent breach of the 1996 Act. 6. When an award is contrary to the interest of India, or against justice or morality, in the sense that it shocks the conscience of the Court. (Para 27) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 14Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Sections 34 and 37 - Modification of Arbitral Award not allowed under Section 34. Court could have at best set aside the award and could not modify the same. (Para 32.8) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 14Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Statement recorded u/s. 313 CrPC cannot form the sole basis of conviction. Mere omission to take a specific plea by accused when examined u/s 313 CrPC, is not enough to denude him of his right if the same can be made out otherwise. (Para 33) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 13Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 357(1) - A victim of a crime cannot be treated merely as a prosecution witness. Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. empowers the court to order that the fine amount recovered be given to any person as compensation who has suffered any loss or injury caused due to that offence. There may be times when the situation may demand that a substantive amount of compensation be paid to the victim and the convict may not be financially that strong to bear that burden. For such situations, Section 357A was therefore introduced in Criminal Procedure Code for this reason, where compensation to the victims may be paid out of State funds, as the State had the responsibility to protect the victim against the offence that had been committed against the victim of the crime. (Para 19) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 7Code of Criminal Procedure, 19783; Section 161 - If the PWs had failed to mention in their statements about the involvement of an accused, their subsequent statement before court during trial regarding involvement of that particular accused cannot be relied upon. Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation. The evidence of that witness regarding the said improved fact is of no significance. (Para 26) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 13Constitution of India, 1950Constitution of India, 1950; Article 229 - Officers and servants and the expenses of High Courts - Article 229 (2) pertains only to the service conditions of 'officers and servants' of the High Courts and does not include Judges of the High Court (both sitting and retired judges). The Chief Justice does not have the power, under Article 229, to make rules pertaining to the post-retiral benefits payable to former Chief Justices and judges of the High Court. Therefore, the Rules proposed by the Chief Justice, in the present case, do not fall within the competence of the Chief Justice under Article 229. (Para 25) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 3Constitution of India, 1950; Article 229 (2) - The High Court did not have the power to direct the State Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice pertaining to post-retiral benefits for former Judges of the High Court. The Chief Justice did not have the competence to frame the rules under Article 229 of the Constitution. Further, the High Court, acting on the judicial side, does not have the power to direct the Government to frame rules proposed by it on the administrative side. (Para 24 – 30) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 3Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - 'Civil Contempt' and 'Criminal Contempt' - The Act makes a clear distinction between two types of contempt. 'Wilful disobedience' of a judgement, decree, direction, order, writ, or process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court amounts to 'civil contempt'. On the other hand, the threshold for 'criminal contempt' is higher and more stringent. It involves 'scandalising' or 'lowering' the authority of any court; prejudicing or interfering with judicial proceedings; or interfering with or obstructing the administration of justice. (Para 32) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 3Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Criminal Contempt cannot be initiated against a party for availing legal remedies and raising a legal challenge to an order. (Para 31 – 37) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 3Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The power of the High Courts to...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index [January 1 to 7]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags