Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Landlord Can't Be Precluded From Filing Eviction Petition On The Ground Of Bonafide Need Regarding Non-Residential Premise [Vinod Kumar vs. Ashok Kumar Gandhi] The Supreme Court held that the judgment of Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India which held that Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is unconstitutional to the extent it discriminates between the premises let for residential and non-residential purposes, cannot be held to be per incuriam. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph also rejected the request that Satyawati Sharma judgment needs to be referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration. Person Claiming Title By Adverse Possession Can Maintain A Suit Under Article 65 Limitation Act [Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs. Manjit Kaur] In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court held that any person who has perfected title by way of adverse possession, can file a suit for restoration of possession in case of dispossession. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice MR Shah observed that plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. Criminal Trial- Evidence Of A Solitary Witness Will Call For Heightened Scrutiny [Jagdish vs. State of Haryana] The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha observed that the evidence of a solitary witness in a criminal case requires heightened scrutiny. Victim Has Right To Assist The Court In A Trial Before The Magistrate [Amir Hamza Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra] The Supreme Court observed that, though the Magistrate is not bound to grant permission to a victim to conduct prosecution at the mere asking but the victim has a right to assist the Court in a trial before the Magistrate. The bench comprising of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta observed that if the magistrate is satisfied that the victim is in a position to assist the Court and the trial does not involve such complexities which cannot be handled by the victim, he/she would be within its jurisdiction to grant of permission to the victim to take over the inquiry of the pendency before the Magistrate. A Few Days Before Article 370 Repeal, SC Decriminalized Adultery In J&K As Well [Col. Rajnish Bhandari vs. Union of India] Just a few days before the special status of Jammu and Kashmir was scrapped by a Presidential order, the Supreme Court held that the entire Section 497 of the Ranbir Penal Code which criminalizes Adultery is also unconstitutional. Weakness In The Defence Taken Cannot Become The Strength Of The Prosecution [Anand Ramachandra Chougule vs. Sidarai Laxman Chougala] Weakness in the defence taken cannot become the strength of the prosecution, remarked the Supreme Court while reiterating that the benefit of doubt must follow unless the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha upheld the acquittal of the accused in a murder case by the High Court granting them benefit of doubt. DNA Test Cannot Be Ordered Without There Being Appropriate Satisfaction For Its Requirement[Kathi David Raju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh] The Supreme Court observed that DNA test cannot be ordered without there being appropriate satisfaction for requirement of such test. In this case FIR was registered under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC against the accused alleging that he obtained fake caste certificate. The Court allowed an application seeking a DNA test of the accused, his mother two brothers. The High Court refused to quash the order. Unlawful Assembly-Trial Of Offence U/s 149 IPC Not Illegal Merely Because Section 141 IPC Was Not Invoked [Dev Karan vs. State of Haryana] The Supreme Court observed that as long as the ingredients of unlawful assembly are met, Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code can be invoked and non invocation of Section 141 IPC would not render the trial under Section 149 IPC illegal. Filing Of Criminal Complaint For Settling Civil Dispute Is Abuse Of Process Of Law [Commissioner of Police vs. Devender Anand] The Supreme Court observed that filing of criminal complaint for settling a dispute of civil nature is abuse of process of law. The Three judge bench comprising of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice MR Shah observed thus while setting aside a High Court order issuing directions in a writ petition filed by the complainant. Filing Of Cross Objections By Defendants Not Necessary To Dispute Adverse Findings In The Dismissed Suit [State Of Andhra Pradesh vs. B. Ranga Reddy] The Supreme Court observed that it is...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags