Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Tenants Can Be Evicted Only By Following Procedure Laid Down In Applicable Rent Control Laws [Dr. RS Grewal Vs. Chander Parkash Soni] The Supreme Court observed that the protection offered to a statutory tenant by Rent Control Laws can only be overcome by following the procedure laid out in such laws. The bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta observed that such a statutory tenant can be evicted only by following the procedure laid down in applicable rent control laws and not by filing suit for possession against him/her. Magistrate Cannot Suo Motu Direct Further Investigation After Discharging The Accused [Bikash Ranjan Rout Vs. State] The Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to suo moto pass an order for further investigation/reinvestigation after he discharges the accused. The court said that the power to order further investigation which may be available to the Magistrate at the pre-cognizance stage may not be available to the Magistrate at the post-cognizance stage, more particularly, when the accused is discharged by him. Magistrate Cannot Direct Police To File Chargesheet On Receipt Of Closure Report [Ramswaroop Soni vs. State of M] The Supreme Court reiterated that a magistrate, upon receipt of a closure/refer report, cannot direct the police to file charge sheet. Such a direction is wholly unsustainable, said the bench comprising of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra, in the appeal filed by accused. It observed that the judicial discretion to be used by the Magistrate at such stage shall fall in either of the the three categories. If Terms On Exclusion Of Policy Are Not Communicated To Insured, Insurer Cannot Rely On Them To Repudiate Claim [Bharath Watch Company Vs. National insurance Co. Ltd] Setting aside the judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(NCDRC), the Supreme Court held that if the terms of exclusion of policy are not communicated to the insured, the insurer cannot rely on them to repudiate a claim. SC Acquits Murder Accused After 20 Years, Finding That He Was Juvenile At The Time Of Incident [Ashok Kumar Mehra & Anr v. State of Punjab] Supreme Court acquitted a murder accused after 20 years of commission of alleged murder on the crucial finding that the he was a minor at the time of commission of the offence. HC Has No Jurisdiction To Appreciate Evidence While Hearing A Petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Md. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar] The Supreme Court held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C. The division bench of the Supreme Court Comprising of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari held so while allowing an appeal in a case against the order of the High Court of Judicature of Patna, quashing the order of Magistrate wherein cognizance of complaint was taken for commission of offence under sections 323 and 379 r/w section 34 of IPC. Regularization Obtained By Misrepresenting Facts Cannot Be Sustained; SC Upholds Termination Of A 'Chowkidar' [Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority Vs. Karamjit Singh] Holding that the appointment of a Chowkidar on regular basis was invalid, the Supreme Court observed an order of regularization obtained by misrepresenting facts, or by playing a fraud upon the competent authority, cannot be sustained. Person Ineligible To Be Arbitrator Under Sec.12(5) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Appoint Another Arbitrator [Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. Vs. United Telecoms Limited] The Supreme Court held that the appointment of arbitrator by a person who himself is ineligible to be an arbitrator as per Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is void ab initio. Pre-Sentence Hearing On A Separate Date Not Mandatory [Accused X Vs. State of Maharashtra] The Supreme Court observed that there is no bar on the pre-sentencing hearing taking place on the same day after passing the judgment of conviction, if the accused and the prosecution are ready to submit their arguments. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Indira Banerjee observed that the object of Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to provide an opportunity for accused to adduce mitigating circumstances, but it does not mean that the Trial Court can fulfil the requirements of Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. only by adjourning the matter for one or two days to hear the parties on sentence. Post Conviction Mental Illness Is A Mitigating Factor To Commute Death Sentence The Supreme Court held that post conviction mental illness will be a mitigating factor while considering appeals of death convicts. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

Tags