Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Important RulingsDecree Passed On Plaintiff's Evidence Without Defendant's Appearance At Trial Is Ex-Parte Decree [Ratna Raj by LRs vs Sri Muthukumaraswamy Permanent Fund Ltd] The Supreme Court held that a decree passed after taking plaintiff's evidence, without the appearance of defendant at the trial stage, is an ex-parte decree, which could be set aside under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The bench of Justice A M Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari passed the order in an appeal against a High Court judgment, which set aside a preliminary decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Casual Act Of Possession Over Property Does Not Confer 'Possessory Title' [Poona Ram vs. Moti Ram] Holding that possessory title over property cannot be claimed merely on the basis of 'casual possession', the Supreme Court observed that a casual act of possession does not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner. Secured Creditor Can File Winding Up Petition Despite Obtaining Recovery Certificate From DRT [Swaraj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank] The Supreme Court held that a secured creditor can file a winding up petition even after obtaining a decree from the Debts Recovery Tribunal ["DRT"] and a recovery certificate based thereon. The bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Navin Sinha dismissed appeals against Bombay High Court judgment that had rejected the contention that once a secured creditor has obtained an order from the DRT, and a recovery certificate has been issued thereupon, such secured creditor cannot file a winding up petition as the Recovery of Debts Act is a special Act which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the DRT. Additional District Magistrate Can Order ExternmentUnder MP Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam [State of Madhya Pradesh vs. DharmendraRathore] The Supreme Court held that an Additional District Magistrate can pass an Externment order when there is no provision in the statue prohibiting passing of an order by an officer lower than the rank of District Magistrate. Mutation Of Land In Revenue Records Do Not Create Title Over Land [BhimabaiMahadeoKambekar V. Arthur Import and Export Company] Mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over land nor does it have any presumptive value on the title and it only enables the person in whose favour mutation if ordered to pay the land revenue in question, the Supreme Court has reiterated. A bench of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice R Subhash Reddy said so while deciding an appeal against a Bombay High Court order on a dispute arising out of entries made in the revenue records in relation to the disputed land. Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship [H. K. Sharma V. Sri Ram lal] The Supreme Court observed that mere agreement to sell the property of the landlord to the tenant would not result in termination of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties unless there is a stipulation in the agreement itself to that effect. Accused Can't Be Kept In Custody For A Long Time Citing 'Possible Sentence Of Imprisonment' [Rameshwar Yadav @ Umesh Singh V. State of Bihar] Observing that 'Possible Sentence Of Imprisonment' is not a ground for deferment of bail after a long time in custody, the Supreme Court granted bail to a man who is in custody since last July. Legality Of Main Order Cannot Be Challenged In An Appeal Filed Only Against Review Order [Asharfi Devi V. State of UP] The Supreme Court observed that legality of a main order passed by the High court cannot be examined in an appeal filed only against the order passed in review petition. The bench comprising of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari noted that the writ petitioner never challenged the legality and correctness of the main order dated 14.03.2008 passed in the writ petition but confined her challenge only to the order dated 16.12.2008 passed in the review application. Death Sentence Only When The Alternative Option Is Unquestionably Foreclosed [RajuJagdishPaswan V. State of Maharashtra] The Supreme Court commuted death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission. The bench comprising Justice SA Bobde, Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice R. Subhash Reddy observed that, even though the murder involves exceptional depravity and the manner of commission of the crime is extremely brutal, a death sentence can be imposed only when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed. General Principle Of Service Law Applicable To Civil Services Does Not Apply To Air Force [Union Of India V. Subrata Das] Holding that the right of an Air Force officer to withdraw from an...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

Tags