Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Commercial Suits: 120 Days Deadline To File Written Statement Mandatory [SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd] The Supreme Court observed that proviso added to the Code of Civil Procedure by Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, is mandatory and no written statement can be taken on record in commercial suits, if it is not filed within 120 days from the date of service of summons of the Suit. Injury On Vital Part Not An Essential Ingredient Of Section 307 IPC (Attempt To Murder) [State of Madhya Pradesh V. Harjeet Singh] There is no requirement for the injury to be on a "vital part" of the body, merely causing 'hurt' is sufficient to attract S. 307 I.P.C, the Supreme Court held. The bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Indu Malhotra observed that, if the assailant acts with the intention or knowledge that such action might cause death, and hurt is caused, then the provisions of Section 307 I.P.C. would be applicable. Merely Because FIR Contains The Inquest Number It Cannot Be Said That FIR Was Registered After Inquest [Harnam Singh vs. State of MP] The Supreme Court observed that merely because Inquest number is mentioned in First Information Report, it does not affect the prosecution case nor does it affect the credibility of the eye witnesses. In a criminal appeal Entire Testimony Of Witness Cannot Be Discarded Merely Because Part Of It Was Found To Be False [Mahendran vs. State of Tamil Nadu] Is the Principle of "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything) applicable in Indian context? The Supreme Court, in a judgment reiterated the well settled position that the maxim has no application in India. The bench comprising Justice Sanjay KishanKaul and Justice Hemant Gupta again dealt with the contention put forth on behalf of the accused-appellant that, if the testimony of the witness is found to be unreliable in respect of part of the statement, then the other part of the statement cannot be made basis to convict the accused. Maintainability Of Execution Case To Be Considered Along With Issue Of Enforceability Of Foreign Award [LMJ International Ltd. V. Sleepwell Industries Co. Ltd.] The Supreme Court observed that piecemeal consideration of the issue of maintainability of the execution case concerning the foreign awards, in the first place; and then the issue of enforceability thereof, is not envisaged under the scheme of Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Pre-Emptive Judicial Strikes Against Army's Disciplinary Jurisdiction Unwarranted [Union of India V. Lt. Colonel Dharamvir Singh] The Supreme Court observed that High Court should not preempt the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction of the Armed forces by taking over the essential function of determining whether or not recourse to the disciplinary jurisdiction was warranted. The bench comprising Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta was considering appeal filed by Union of India against a Manipur High Court order, which according to it, virtually pre-empts the disciplinary jurisdiction of the competent authority in respect of an officer governed by the Army Act 1950. Independent Assessment Of Merits Of Award Cannot Be Made In An Arbitration Appeal [MMTC Ltd. vs. Vedanta Ltd.] The Supreme Court observed that, a court while considering an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award. The bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Vineet Saran observed that, in such appeals, the court must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the Court under Section 34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision. Relaxation Of Recruitment Rules Impermissible If The Advertisement Did Not Mention About It [Sanjay K. Dixit V. State of Uttar Pradesh] The Supreme Court held that the exercise of the power of relaxation of Recruitment Rules cannot be done if the existence of such power was not mentioned in the advertisement. Only 4 Months Jail For Killing Own Father? SC Restores Sentence Of 3 Years RI [State of Madhya Pradesh V. Suresh] The Supreme Court restored rigorous imprisonment of 3 years awarded to a man by trial court for killing his own father by setting aside the High Court judgment which had reduced the same to the period of imprisonment already undergone (3 months 21 days). The bench observed that the High Court was not justified in reducing the sentence to an abysmally inadequate period of less than 4 months. SC Upholds Dismissal Of Air Force Officer Accused Of Having Sexual Intercourse With Colleague's Minor Daughter [FLT. LT. S Mahendra V. Union of India] The Supreme Court upheld dismissal of ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

Tags