Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Subject /Statute Wise Index [July 10 to 17]

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 451 to 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 477Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order 2 Rule 2 – Bar to subsequent suit on same cause of action – Observing that the suit for recovery of possession is different from the suit for arrears of rent and damages, the Supreme Court held that there's no bar to file a separate suit for arrears of rent and damages after a suit for possession. Held, a plea of a bar under 0. 2. R. 2, Civil Procedure Code can be established only if the defendant files in evidence the pleadings in the previous suit and thereby proves to the Court the identity of the cause of action in the two suits. Hence, both the causes of action being separate, the second suit was clearly maintainable. (Para 17) Uniworld Logistics Pvt. Ltd. V. Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd; 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 469Order 21 Rule 90 - A person aggrieved by an auction sale conducted by the public functionary in gross violations of the mandatory provisions of law cannot be called upon to establish the dual conditions stipulated in Order XXI Rule 90 CPC for setting aside the auction sale. Al-Can Export Pvt. Ltd. v. Prestige H.M. Polycontainers Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 453Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Conviction in question – Held, the Court had appropriately appreciated the evidence on record and convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 upon satisfying itself that the ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 494 I.P.C., have been made out by the appellant. Hence, no more narrative on the correctness of the reversal of the by the High Court is required as it is indisputable that its reversal was accepted by accused Nos.1 and 2 and they had undergone the sentence imposed by the High Court consequent to the reversal judgment. (Para 10) Baba Natarajan Prasad v. M. Revathi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 474Framing of charge – Requirements – The standard of test and judgment which is finally applied before recording a finding of conviction against an accused is not to be applied at the stage of framing the charge and just a very strong suspicion, based on the material on record, would be sufficient to frame a charge. The strong suspicion should be the one emerging from the materials on record brought by the prosecution. It is within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused concerned has been made out. Held, the question of framing the charge would arise only in a case where the court upon such exercise satisfies itself about the prima facie case revealing from “the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith” against the accused concerned. Hence, the intention embedded is to ensure that an accused will be made to stand the ordeal of trial only if 'the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith' discloses ground for proceeding against him. Further held, there is no ground for a prima facie case revealed from the materials produced by the prosecution. (Para 14, 15, 19 & 32) Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 475Section 125 – A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to file a petition for maintenance against her ex-husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This right of a Muslim woman is in addition to the right under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986. Mohd Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 452Section 227 – Discharge of accused in criminal cases – When an application for discharge is filed under Section 227, Cr.PC, the Court concerned is bound to disclose the reason(s), though, not in detail, for finding sufficient ground for rejecting the application or in other words, for finding prima facie case, as it will enable the superior Court to examine the challenge against the order of rejection. (Para 22) Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 475Section 311 - A conjoint reading of Section 311 CrPC and Section 165 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that the trial Court is under an obligation not to act as a mere spectator and should proactively participate in the trial proceedings, so as to ensure that neither any extraneous material is permitted to be brought on record nor any relevant fact is left out. It is the duty of the trial Court to ensure that all such evidence which is essential for the just decision of the case is brought on record irrespective of the fact that the party concerned omits to do so. (Para 48) Gaurav Maini v. State of Haryana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 471Section 321 – Permission for withdrawal of the prosecution against an accused is challenged – Held, the Trial Court's has taken a casual approach towards the accusations against the then sitting Member of Legislative Assembly in allowing withdrawal of his prosecution and merely because an accused person is elected to the Legislative Assembly cannot be a testament to their image among the general public. Matters of a...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Subject /Statute Wise Index [July 10 to 17]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags