Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

SC Dismisses Centre's Preliminary Objections Against Relying On "Privileged" Documents; Review To Be Heard On Merits [Yashwant Sinha V. Central Bureau Investigation] The Supreme Court dismissed Centre's preliminary objection against using privileged documents for considering the review petitions in the Rafale case. While dismissing the Centre's preliminary objections, the CJI observed that there is no provision in the Official Secrets Act by which Parliament has vested any power in the executive arm of the government either to restrain publication of documents marked as secret or from placing such documents before a Court of Law which may have been called upon to adjudicate a legal issue concerning the parties. No such provision in any other statute has been brought to our notice, the CJI said. Res Judicata Principle Also Applicable To Labour/Industrial Proceedings [Chairman & MD, Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. Vs. Gen. Secretary, FACT Employees Association] The Supreme Court reiterated that principle of Res Judicata defined in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure also applies to the labour/industrial proceedings.The bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra referred to three old judgments of the Apex Court to hold that principle of res judicata applies to the labour proceedings or not, remains no more res integra. Examination Of Witnesses In The Absence Of Accused Is A Curable Irregularity [Atma Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan] Absence of the accused while taking evidence of prosecution witnesses, by itself, would not vitiate the trial, unless great prejudice has caused to the accused, the Supreme Court held, while upholding a High Court judgment which ordered fresh trial in a murder case. The bench comprising of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra was considering an appeal against High court judgment which ordered fresh trial/de-novo by directing the trial court to lawfully re-record statements of the witnesses whose evidence was recorded in the first round without ensuring presence of the accused in the court. 498A Case Can Be Filed At A Place Where A Woman Driven Out Of Matrimonial Home Takes Shelter [Rupali Devi V. State of Uttar Pradesh] Answering a reference pending for about seven years, the Supreme Court held that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code Corroborative Evidence Required If It Is Doubtful Whether Deceased Was In Fit State Of Mind While Making Dying Declaration [Sampat Babso Kale V. State of Maharashtra] The Supreme Court observed that, though conviction can solely be based on dying declaration, corroborative evidence may be required when there is doubt as to whether the victim was in a fit state of mind to make the statement. The bench comprising Justice SA Bobde and Justice Deepak Gupta acquitted Sampat Babso Kale and his sister who were convicted by the Bombay High Court for murder of his wife by pouring Kerosene. Deceased Bachelor's Age To Be Considered For Calculating 'Multiplier' In Motor Accident Claim Cases [Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd vs. Mandala Yadagari Goud] A three judge bench of the Supreme Court held that, in the case of a motor accident where there is death of a person, who is a bachelor, it is the age of the deceased which should be taken into account for calculating the multiplier, not that of dependents. The bench comprising Justice SA Bobde, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar was considering a submission in an appeal against High Court judgment that it is the age of the dependents which has to be taken into account and thus the High Court has fallen into an error by taking the multiplier on the basis of the age of the deceased. Section 138 NI Act: Complainant Bound To Explain His Financial Capacity When It Is Questioned By The Accused [Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa] The Supreme Court observed that a complainant in a cheque bounce case is bound to explain his financial capacity, when the same is questioned by the accused, by leading evidence to that effect. In this case. Court Can't Appoint Arbitrator When The Contract Containing Arbitration Clause Is Insufficiently Stamped [Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. Vs. Coastal Marine Constructions &Engineering Ltd.] The Supreme Court held that it would be necessary for the Court before considering and passing final orders on an application under Section 11(6) of the Act to await the adjudication by the stamp authorities, in a case where the document objected to, is not adequately...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

Tags