Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

NI Act- Once The Presumption Under Sec.139 Is Drawn, Complainant Need Not Prove Source Of Fund Till Accused Discharges His Burden [Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel V. State of Gujarat] The Supreme Court held that once the court has drawn presumption of existence of legally enforceable debt as per Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, factors like source of funds are not relevant if the accused has not been able to rebut the presumption. Plaint Can Be Rejected If Suit Is Clearly Barred By Limitation [Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh] The Supreme Court observed that a plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, if by considering the averments, it is found that the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation. Section 320 CrPC: Courts Have Discretion To Refuse Compounding Of Offences Having Social Impact [Bhagyan Das V. State of Utarakhand] The Supreme Court observed that a court has discretion to reject a plea to compound an offence having social impact, even if the offence is compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mere Disclosure Of Names By Some Witnesses During Trial Not Enough To Add Persons Not Named In FIR As Additional Accused [Periyasami V. S. Nallasamy] The Supreme Court observed that mere disclosure of the names of some persons by the witnesses during trial cannot be said to be strong and cogent evidence to summon them under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. SC Sets Aside Life Ban Imposed On Cricketer Sreesanth; Asks BCCI To Take Fresh Decision On Punishment [S. Sreesanth V. BCCI] Partly allowing the appeal of cricketer S Sreesanth, the Supreme Court set aside the life ban imposed by the Board of Control of Cricket in India(BCCI) on him for indulging in spot-fixing during 2013 Indian Premier League. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph has directed the disciplinary committee of BCCI to take a decision on the quantum of punishment within 3 months from today. If Contempt Is In The Face Of Court, Judges Can Take Immediate Action Without Issuing Notice [National Lawyers Campaign For Judicial Transparency and Reforms V. Union of India] To hold Advocate Mathews Nedumpara guilty of contempt, the Supreme Court followed the dictum that when contempt is in the face of court, summary procedure can be followed to inflict punishment "then and there". "When contempt is committed in the face of the Court, judges' hands are not tied behind their backs. The majesty of this Court as well as the administration of justice both demand that contemptuous behavior of this kind be dealt with sternly", observed the judgment by the bench of Justice R F Nariman and Vineet Saran. SC Reiterates Basic Principles Of Judicial Review Of Administrative Decisions [Sarvepalli Ramaiah vs. The District Collector, Chittoor District] The Supreme Courtreiterated some basic principles of judicial review of administrative decisions. The bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee were considering an appeal against an order of High court of Andhra Pradesh declining to interfere with the order of the District Collector in refusing to grant ryotwari patta in favour of the appellants. The Apex court upheld the High Court finding that, since the land is classified as "Peddacheruvu Tank" vested with the government and thus there could not be issuance of ryotwari patta in view of the bar contained in Section 2-A of the Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. Dismissal Of Soldier For Unauthorized Absence Not Harsh Punishment [Union of India V. Kulbeer Singh] The Supreme Court upheld dismissal of a soldier of Indian Army on the ground of unauthorised absence of 302 days. Kulbeer Singh was tried in a Summary Court Martial on two counts: the first count was his unauthorized absence over a period of 302 days without leave; while the second count related to the loss of certain equipment and clothing. After he pleaded guilty, he was sentenced to dismissal from service. Gramin DakSewak Is Not An 'Employee' Under Payment Of Gratuity Act [Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices vs. Gursewak Singh] The Supreme Court held that a Gramin DakSewak is not an "employee" under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The bench comprising Justice UdayUmesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra observed that Gramin DakSewaks are engaged as Extra Departmental Agents, a post governed by the 2011 Rules, which have a separate provision for payment of Gratuity to the Extra Departmental Agents. Married Daughter Also Has A Right Of Succession In The "Lease Premises" Under Goa Succession Law [Uma Mahesh Bandekar vs. Vivek SadanandMarathe] The Supreme Court observed that a married daughter would have a right of succession in the "lease premises", as per...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

Tags