Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Section 38 Specific Relief Act: Plaintiff Has To Prove His Actual Possession On The Date Of Filing The Suit [Balakrishna Dattatraya Galande V. Balakrishna Rambharose Gupta] The Supreme Court observed that in a suit filed under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, permanent injunction can be granted only to a person who is in actual possession of the property on the date of suit. Suit In Respect To Properties Situated In Jurisdiction Of Different Courts Can Be Instituted In One Of Those Courts [Shivnarayan V.Manik Lal] The Supreme Court observed that, a suit in respect to immovable property or properties situate in jurisdiction of different courts may be instituted in any court within whose local limits of jurisdiction, any portion of the property or one or more properties may be situated. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph observed that interpretation of word "portion of the property" in Section 17 CPC cannot only be understood in a limited and restrictive sense of being portion of one property situated in jurisdiction of two courts. Civil Court Has No Jurisdiction When There Is A Dispute As To Whether Suit Property Is Wakf Or Not [Punjab Wakf Board V. Sham Singh Harike] The Supreme Courtobserved that when issue in the suit is as to whether suit property is Wakf property or not, it is required to be decided by the Tribunal and the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph were considering appeals filed by Punjab Wakf Board against two orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in different cases. Magistrate Is Not Required To Record Reasons For Summoning Accused in Cases Instituted On Police Report [State of Gujarat V. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta] Allowing appeal against a Gujarat High Court Judgment the bench of Justices R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee has explained the procedure to be adopted by a Magistrate in a case instituted upon a Police Report. The Bench observed that in summoning the accused, it is not necessary for the Magistrate to examine the merits and demerits of the case and whether the materials collected is adequate for supporting the conviction. ESI Act: Company Directors, Who Receive Remuneration, Are Also 'Employees' [Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs. Venus Alloy Pvt. Ltd.] The Supreme Court held that Directors of Company, who are receiving remuneration, comes within the purview of "employee" under sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Sec.43 TP Act - Transfer By Erroneous Representation Of Title Will Hold Good If Transferor Acquires Title Later [Tanu Ram Bora V. PramodCh Das] Applying the principle of "feeding the grant by estoppel" under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Supreme Court granted relief to a party, who was misled to purchase a property by erroneous representation of title by the vendor. Lieutenant General (Rtd) Cannot Be Tried In A General Court Martial Consisting Of Members Below His Rank [Ex.Lt. Gen. Avadhesh Prakash V. Union of India] The Supreme Court observed that an army officer holding the rank of Lieutenant General cannot be tried by the General Court Martial (GCM) consisting of members below his rank. The bench comprising Justice AK Sikri, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice MR Shah, was considering an appeal filed by Ex. Lt. Gen. Avadhesh Prakash who was dismissed from service by the GCM for his alleged involvement in 'Sukna Land Scam'. Proof Of Grievous/Life Threatening Hurt Not Necessary For Conviction Under Section 307 IPC [Attempt To Murder] [The State of Madhya Pradesh V. Kanha @ Omprakash] The Supreme Court observed that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence under Section 307 [Attempt to Murder] of the Indian Penal Code. The bench comprising Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that had acquitted the accused from attempt to murder charges on the ground that there was no evidence to prove that the injuries caused to the deceased were grievous in nature or life-threatening. Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Award Interest If Agreement expressly Bars Its Payment [Jiprakash Associates LTd. V. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Inida Ltd.] The Supreme Court has reiterated that arbitrator cannot award interest on award if the agreement expressly prohibits grant of interest. The bench of Justices A K Sikri, Abdul Nazeer and M R Shah dismissed an appeal to uphold a judgment of Delhi High Court, which had set aside an arbitration award to the extent it granted interest overlooking the prohibition in the agreement. Irregularity In Local Commissioner's Report Not A Ground To Dismiss The Suit: SC [Ram Lal V. Salig Ram] The Supreme...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

Tags