Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Statutory Appeal Can Be Filed Even If Application To Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree [ Order IX Rule 13 CPC] Is Dismissed [Bhivchandra Shankar More vs. Balu Gangaram More] The Supreme Court observed that the right of appeal under Section 96(2) CPC is a statutory right and the defendant cannot be deprived of the statutory right of appeal merely on the ground that the application filed by him under Order IX Rule 13 CPC [to set aside ex-parte decree] has been dismissed. Writ Of Habeas Corpus Can Be Issued When The Detention Of A Minor Is By A Person Who Is Not Entitled To His Legal Custody [Tejaswini Gaud vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari] The Supreme Court observed that the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law. The bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy affirmed a Bombay High Court judgment that directed the relatives of a deceased mother to hand over the custody of the child to the-father. The contention raised in this case Specific Performance: Plea Of Hardship Cannot Be Raised If Not Pleaded In Written Statement [Beemaneni Maha Lakshmi vs. Gangumalla Appa Rao] The Supreme Court observed that a defendant in a specific performance suit should plead in his written statement the hardship that will be caused if the decree of specific performance of the contract is passed against him. Otherwise, such plea cannot be permitted to be raised in a later stage, the bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah said while confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 30.12.1985. Information Contained In A Document Is A 'Corporeal Property' And Can Be Subject Matter Of Theft [Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz Investments And Holdings Limited] The Supreme Court held that the "document" as defined in Section 29 of the Indian Penal Code is a "moveable property" within the meaning of Section 22 IPC and the information contained thereon in the documents would also fall within the purview of the "corporeal property" and can be the subject matter of the theft. Lawyer Is Not Just His Client's Mouthpiece; Be Responsible While Making Presentation To The Court [Lal Bahadur Gautam V. State of U.P.] Everyone has to be responsible and careful in what they present to the Court, said the Supreme Court while reiterating that a lawyer demeans himself if he acts merely as a mouthpiece of his client. This observation was made by a bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha on Wednesday while allowing an appeal filed by a lecturer in a private unaided college affiliated to the Chaudhary Charan Singh University. Mere Incorrect Statement In Vakalatnama Not Forgery, SC Quashes Criminal Case Against MP Sasikala Pushpa [Sasikala Pushpa V. State of Tamil Nadu] The Supreme Court quashed a criminal case lodged against expelled AIADMK Leader and Member of Parliament Sasikala Pushpa and her husband with respect to the alleged forgery committed by them in signing the Vakalatnama. Borrower Has No Right To Be Represented By Lawyer Before In-House Committee Probing 'Wilful Default' [SBI V M/s Jah Developers Pvt. Ltd] The Supreme Court observed that a borrower has no right to be represented by a lawyer before the In-House Committee of banks constituted for the purpose of determining whether he is a willful defaulter or not. The bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran set aside a Delhi High Court judgment that held that a lawyer has the right to represent his client before such in-house committees. Quantity Of Narcotic Substance A Relevant Factor To Award Punishment Higher Than The Minimum Under NDPS Act [Rafiq Qureshi V. Narcotic Control Bureau Eastern Zonal Unit] The Supreme Court observed that the decision to impose a punishment higher than the minimum prescribed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is not confined or limited to the factors enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 32B of the. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph observed that the quantity of substance with which an accused is charged is a relevant factor, which can be taken into consideration while fixing quantum of the punishment. Revision Petition Before NCDRC Not Maintainable Against An Order Passed In Execution Proceedings [Karnataka Housing Board V. K.A. Nagamani] The Supreme Court held that a Revision Petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [NCDRC] is not maintainable against an order passed by the State Consumer Commission in execution proceedings. The bench comprising Justice UU Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra observed that orders passed for...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

Tags