Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini
28 April 2019 3:42 PM GMT
Supreme Court Weekly Round Up
x

Sentence Can Be Enhanced In Convict's Appeal Only By Giving Him Notice Of Enhancement [Kumar Ghimirey V. The State of Sikkim] The Supreme Court reiterated that the power of a High Court to enhance sentence awarded to a convict, while considering his appeal, can only be exercised after giving him the notice of enhancement. Kumar Ghimirey was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment by...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

Sentence Can Be Enhanced In Convict's Appeal Only By Giving Him Notice Of Enhancement [Kumar Ghimirey V. The State of Sikkim]

The Supreme Court reiterated that the power of a High Court to enhance sentence awarded to a convict, while considering his appeal, can only be exercised after giving him the notice of enhancement. Kumar Ghimirey was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment by the Trial Court finding him guilty of sexually assaulting a seven year old girl. The Sikkim High Court, in his appeal against conviction, enhanced it to ten years.

Adverse Possession Plea Can Be Sustained Only When Possession Is In Denial Of True Owners' Title [Mallikarjunaiah vs. Nanjaiah]

The Supreme Court reiterated the principles of acquisition of title by adverse possession. The bench comprising of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari observed that mere continuous possession howsoever long it may have been qua its true owner is not enough to sustain the plea of adverse possession unless it is further proved that such possession was open, hostile, exclusive and with the assertion of ownership right over the property to the knowledge of its true owner.

Witness Can Be Called 'Interested' Only When He/She Derives Some Benefit Seeing An Accused Person Punished [Sadayappan @ Ganesan vs. State]

The witness may be called "interested" only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished, the Supreme Court observed while rejecting a defence contention in a criminal appeal.

Suppression Of Facts Made In Proposal Form Will Render Insurance Policy Voidable By The Insurer [Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Rekhaben Nareshbai Rathod]

The Supreme Court, observed that failure of the insured to disclose the policy of insurance obtained earlier in the proposal form entitled the insurer to repudiate the claim under the policy. The bench comprising Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta said that any suppression, untruth or inaccuracy in the statement in the proposal form will be considered as a breach of the duty of good faith and will render the policy voidable by the insurer.

States Can Impose Restrictions To Consider Remission Claims: SC Upholds Rajasthan Rule [State of Rajasthan vs. Mukesh Sharma]

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha observed that there is no requirement for laying of the Rules before the Legislature prior to promulgation and no time limit has been prescribed for laying has been provided. The use of words "as soon as" coupled with the absence of any consequence for not laying makes the provision directory and not mandatory, said the bench.

'Attack' Cannot Be Said To Be Made At 'Spur Of The Moment Without Premeditation' When There Are Multiple Wounds [Nagji Odhavji Kumbhar & Anr v. State of Gujarat]

It cannot be said that the attack was made at the spur of the moment without pre-meditation when there are multiple wounds, observed the Supreme Court while deciding a criminal appeal. The appeal in the case Nagji Odhavji Kumbhar & Anr v. State of Gujarat arose against the order of the High Court of Gujarat upholding the conviction of the appellants for the offences under sections 302 and 324 of IPC.

Strong Suspicion Based On Materials Which Can Be Translated Into Evidence Required While Framing Charge Against Accused [Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel V. State of Gujarat]

The Supreme Court observed that a strong suspicion would suffice at the stage of framing charge against the accused. The bench was hearing an appeal filed by Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel who had challenged the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court refusing to discharge him of the offences under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

'Admission' Made By Accused To Police Officer Before Investigation Commences May Be Admissible [Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel V. State of Gujarat]

The Supreme Court observed that a statement made by the accused to a police officer before the investigation commences, is admissible in evidence, if it contains only an admission [and not a confession]. The bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph observed that the bar under Section 162 CrPC operates in regard to the statement made to a Police Officer in between two points of time, viz., from the beginning of the investigation till the termination of the same.

Fee For RTI Application Shall Be Sought As Per RTI Rules Only [Institute Of Companies Secretaries Of India V. Paras Jain]

The Supreme Court held that if a person seeks information under the provisions of the Right to Information, then payment has to be sought under the Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005 only. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer was considering an appeal by Institute Of Companies Secretaries Of India against Delhi High Court judgment which had quashed the Guideline framed by it prescribing fee of Rs.500 per answer sheet payable for supply of certified copy(ies) of answer book(s) and Rs.450 per answer book.

Sec 498A & 306 IPC: Incidents Which Happened Much Before Wife's Death Can't Be Treated As Conduct Which Drove Her To Suicide [Jagdishraj Khatta V. State of Himachal Pradesh]

The Supreme Court observed that the incidents which had taken place between husband and wife much before latter's death by suicide could not be treated as the conduct which drove her to commit suicide. Setting aside the High Court judgment, the bench restored the Trial Court order of acquittal.

Release Under Probation Does Not Entitle An Employee To Claim A Right To Continue In Service [The State Bank of India & Others v. P. Soupramaniane]

Supreme Court held in that the release under probation does not entitle an employee to claim a right to continue in service. It said that the employer is under an obligation to discontinue the services of an employee convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.

All Cases Of Assault Or Simple Hurt Cannot Be Categorized As Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude[The State Bank of India & Others v. P. Soupramaniane]

All cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorized as crimes involving moral turpitude, the Supreme Court observed while granting relief to a SBI Employee who was discharged from service for being convicted under Section 324 IPC.0

Any Person Aggrieved With Violation Of General Directions Issued In A Judgment Can File Contempt Petition [Girish Mittal V. Parvati V. Sundaram]

The Supreme Court observed that when the directions issued in a judgment are general in nature, any aggrieved party (not just the party to the judgment), can file a Contempt petition when there is violation of such directions. The Bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah, while considering a contempt petition, directed the Reserve Bank of India to withdraw the disclosure policy insofar as it contains exemptions which are contrary to the directions issued in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry Judgment.

Mere Abuse In A Filthy Language Does Not Attract Offence Of Criminal Intimidation U/s 506 IPC [Vikram Johar V. State of Uttar Pradesh]

The Supreme Court observed that mere act of abusing a person in filthy language does not satisfy the ingredients of the offence of Criminal Intimidation (Section 506 IPC). The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph was concerned with an appeal filed by one Vikram Johar against the High Court and the Trial Court orders refusing to discharge him from a criminal case.

Non DisclosureOf Pre-Existing Illness In MediClaim Proposal Form A Valid Ground For Repudiation [Life Insurance Corporation of India V. Manish Gupta]

The Supreme Court recently allowed an appeal filed by Life Insurance Corporation of India holding that the failure of the insured to disclose the past history of cardiovascular disease was a valid ground for repudiation.

'Judgment On Admissions' Can Be Ordered Only When Admissions Are Categorical And Unconditional [Hari Steel and General Industries Ltd.v. Daljit Singh]

The Supreme Court observed that 'Judgment on Admissions' can be ordered only when there are categorical and unconditional admissions made in the pleadings.In appeal filed by the defendant company-., the Apex Court bench comprising of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy observed that, there are no categorical and unconditional admissions made by the defendant as claimed by the Plaintiffs. The court said

SC Asks TN Govt To Decide Premature Release Plea Of A 'SriLankan Refugee' Who Spent 3 Decades In Jail [Rajan V. Home Dept. of Tamil Nadu]

The Supreme Court directed the Tamil Nadu Government to decide the representation submitted by a 'Sri Lankan Refugee' who spent 30 years in jail seeking remission of life sentence and for premature release.

Other Important Orders and Proceedings

  • Directed the Gujarat Government to pay Rs 50 lakh compensation and to provide government job to a woman who was gang raped during Gujarat riots of 2002. The bench of CJI Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna also directed the Government to provide her accommodation at a a place of her choice, after noting that she had been living a nomadic life since 2002.
  • Taking note of the fact that the Madras High Court has posted the case against TikTok on April 24, the Supreme Court refrained from passing any orders on the appeal by the mobile app's operator. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said if the Madras High Court fails to decide on the plea of TikTok app against the ban by April 24, then its ban order will stand automatically lifted.
  • Issued notice in the contempt petition filed against Rahul Gandhi for attributing "chowkidar chor hai" remarks to the Supreme Court. The CJI-led bench said that the petition will be considered on April 30 along with the review petition filed against the December 14 verdict in the Rafale case.
  • Said it would hear in August the appeals filed by Congress President Rahul Gandhi and his mother Sonia against the Delhi High Court order allowing re-assessment of their Income Tax for 2011-12 in connection with the National Herald case.
  • In a big boost to transparency Supreme Court of India directed Reserve Bank to disclose willful defaulters list and annual inspection reports under RTI. The Bench comprising of Justice Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah was delivering the Judgment in a contempt petition filed by RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal against Reserve Bank of India (RBI) alleging willful disobedience to the specific directions issued by the court in Reserve Bank of India Vs Jayantilal N Mistry and others.
  • Backed the stand of the Election Commission in refusing to lift the stay on the release of the biopic on PM Narendra Modi until the conclusion of the Lok Sabha polls.
  • A bench of Justices Arun Misra, R F Nariman and Deepak Gupta ordered that former SC judge Justice A K Patnaik will hold enquiry regarding alleged conspiracy by fixers and disgruntled employees against CJI Ranjan Gogoi.
  • Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra held that Advocate Utsav Singh Bains is bound to disclose the information as may be required, and cannot claim privilege under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.
  • Stayed further proceeding of the Justice Arumughaswamy Commission, which is probing into the death of former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu J Jayalalithaa.
  • Directed the Election Commission of India to look into allegations that offensive and sexually coloured remarks are being made against Trinamool Congress Candidate Mahua Moitra.

Next Story
Share it