Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Delay To File Suit For Specific Performance Not A Ground To Deny Relief If It Was Filed Within Limitation Period [R. Lakshmikantham vs. Devaraji] The Supreme Court observed that the delay in filing suit for specific performance cannot be a ground to deny relief to the plaintiff, as long as it is filed within the period of limitation. Failure To Recover Dead Body By Itself Doesn't Entitle Accused To Benefit Of Doubt [Sanjay Rajak vs. State of Bihar] The Supreme Court observed that the failure of the police to recover the corpus delecti will not by itself render the prosecution case doubtful entitling the accused to acquittal on benefit of doubt. It is only one of the relevant factors to be considered along with all other attendant facts and circumstances to arrive at a finding based on reasonability and probability based on normal human prudence and behavior., the bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha said. Plea Based On Equity/Hardship Not Legally Sustainable In Tax Matters [Prashanti Medical Services & Research Foundation V. Union of India] The Supreme Court observed that, in a taxing statute, a plea based on equity or/and hardship is not legally sustainable and the constitutional validity of taxing provisions cannot be struck down on such reasoning. Offence Of Abetment To Suicide (Sec 306 IPC) May Attract When Accused Played Active Role In Tarnishing Self Respect Of Deceased Victim [Ude Singh V. State of Haryana] The Supreme Court observed that if the accused is found to have played in an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, he can be held guilty of abetment of suicide. A Person Can Be Held Guilty For Violation Of Injunction Only When Disobedience Was Willful [U.C. Surendranath V. Mambally's Bakery] The Supreme Court observed that a person can be held guilty of willful disobedience of the Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, not for mere "disobedience" but only for "willful disobedience." EPF: Merely Because Workers Were Permitted To Do Work Off Site, It Would Not Take Away Their Status As 'Employees' [The Officer In Charge, Sub Regional Provident Fund Office, vs. M/s Godavari Garments Limited] The Supreme Court observed that merely because workers were permitted to do the work off site, it would not take away their status as employees for the purpose of Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. A Writ Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over An Administrative Decision [West Bengal Central School Service Commission vs. Abdul Halim] In a judgment delivered, the Supreme Court reiterated the principles to be followed by a High Court while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.The bench comprising ofJustice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee, while considering the appeal against the High Court judgment, observed that the High Court has lost sight of the limits of its extraordinary power of judicial review and has in fact sat in appeal over the decision of the authorities. Specific Performance Decree Not To Be Rescinded Merely Because Plaintiff Deposited Balance Sale Consideration After Appeal [Surinder Pal Soni V. Sohan Lal] The Supreme Court found fault with the judgment of a Punjab and Haryana High Court which had held that a decree for specific performance to be inexecutable as the balance sale consideration was deposited by the plaintiff after the appeal, beyond the period fixed by the trial court. The SC bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee held that the trial court's decree had merged with the appeal court's decree. Hence, there was no delay on the part of plaintiff in depositing the balance sale consideration. Standard Of Proof For Summoning A Person As An Accused U/s 319 CrPC Higher Than That For Framing A Charge [Shiv Prakash Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh] Reiterating that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, the Supreme Court observed that the standard of proof employed for summoning a person as an accused person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is higher than the standard of proof employed for framing a charge against the accused person. The bench comprising ofJustice R. Banumathi and Justice AS Bopanna upheld an order of the High Court refusing to summon a person on the ground that the statements of the witnesses were contradictory. Special Court Can Take Cognizance Of An Offence Without Committal If The Special Act Empowers It To Do So [A.M.C.S. Swamy, ADE/DPE/Hyd (Central) vs. Mehdi Agah Karbalai] When there is express provision in the Special Act empowering the Special Court to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed, it cannot be said that ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

Tags