Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index[September 1 – 10, 2023]

Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737 To 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 762SUBJECT WISE INDEXArmyBSF Act - Even if an officer pleads guilty of misconduct, the court has to satisfy that confession is voluntary. Union of India v. Jogeshwar Swain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 758 : 2023 INSC 802BailBail - One cannot apply one bail order to all the other subsequent cases. (Para 8) PACL v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 747 : 2023 INSC 795Can anticipatory bail be granted to proclaimed offender? only in exceptional & rare cases, holds the Supreme Court. State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 739 : 2023 INSC 784The Supreme Court directed the Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna to take a look into certain irregularities in uploading an order of the High Court. The issue raised 'serious concerns' and directed the High Court Chief Justice to take necessary steps in this regard. Manish Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 738ChequeCheque bounce case can be quashed u/s 482 only if the amount is patently non-recoverable; whether debt time-barred or not is a question of evidence. K. Hymavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 752 : 2023 INSC 811ConsumerConsumer Protection Act - If commercial use is by purchasers themselves for earning livelihood by self-employment, they'll be 'consumers'. Rohit Chaudhary v. Vipul Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 754 : 2023 INSC 807Contempt of CourtLitigants liable for civil contempt on violating undertaking given on their behalf by advocate to court. Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750 : 2023 INSC 805Criminal Law'State assisted accused, failed to prosecute fairly': Supreme Court directs Bihar Govt to compensate victims in 1995 double murder case. Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 760 : 2023 INSC 738Judge is not a mere recording machine; must actively search for truth in trial : Supreme Court sends back death penalty matter to HC. Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793Section 162 CrPC does not prevent a trial court from putting questions to witnesses suo motu to contradict them. Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793Section 323 Cr.P.C. - Power can be invoked even after deposition / chief examination of witness. Archana v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 742DelayNo litigant should have even an iota of doubt or an impression (rather, a misimpression) that just because of systemic delay or the matter not being taken up by the Courts resulting in efflux of time the cause would be defeated, and the Court would be rendered helpless to ensure justice to the party concerned. It would not be out of place to mention that this Court can even turn the clock back, if the situation warrants such dire measures. The powers of this Court, if need be, to even restore status quo ante are not in the realm of any doubt. (Para 32) Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749 : 2023 INSC 804ElectionAs a general rule, the courts do not interfere in election matters. However, this principle is not absolute. It recognized that there are circumstances where executive actions or attempts to disrupt a fair electoral playing field may emerge. In such cases, the Constitutional Courts are not only permitted but also duty-bound to step in and ensure the integrity of the election process. (Para 37) Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749 : 2023 INSC 804Elections to any office / body are required to be free, fair and transparent. Elections lie at the core of democracy. The authority entrusted by law to hold / conduct such elections is to be completely independent of any extraneous influence / consideration. (Para 22) Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749 : 2023 INSC 804The controversy involved in this lis is the non-allocation of the Plough symbol to the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference for its candidates to contest the then-upcoming General Elections of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Kargil (“LAHDC”). The request for allotment of the Plough symbol by R1 was bonafide, legitimate and just, for the plain reason that in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir (which included the present Union Territory of Ladakh), it was a recognized State Party having been allotted the Plough symbol. Upon bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and the creation of two new Union Territories, namely the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the Union Territory of Ladakh, though the ECI had not notified R1 as a State Party for the Union Territory of Ladakh, it cannot be simpliciter that R1 was not entitled for the allotment of plough symbol to it, in the factual background. There is no conflict with any other stakeholder for the reason that the Plough symbol is neither a symbol exclusively allotted to any...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index[September 1 – 10, 2023]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags