Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Non Recovery Of Weapon Of Assault Not Always Fatal To Prosecution Case [Prabhash Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar] The Supreme Court held that a prosecution case cannot be disbelieved merely because the weapon of assault or the bullet was not recovered. The main contention in the appeal before the Supreme Court against concurrent conviction of the accused in a murder case was that the medical evidence is inconclusive to connect killing of the deceased victim with bullet injury. It was contended that the bullet or any part thereof was also not recovered. Grant Of Leave Is A Necessary Prerequisite To Entertain A Suit Under Section 92 CPC[Bhupinder Singh vs. Joginder Singh (D)] The Supreme Court observed that in every suit filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure the grant of leave is necessary before the suit can be said to be properly instituted. Though the bench found that the defendant was legally right that the suit could not have been instituted without taking leave, it dismissed the appeal taking note of the fact that the defendant had not raised the issue before the Trial Court. Consumer Forum Has Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Dispute Concerning Validity Of Statutory Due Arising Out Of Deficiency In Service [Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Now GLADA) vs Ram Singh] The Supreme Court held that determination of the dispute concerning the validity of the imposition of a statutory due arising out of a "deficiency in service", can be undertaken by the consumer fora as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. A three judge bench comprising of Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shanthanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi was answering a reference from a two judge bench which had doubted the correctness of the judgment in HUDA vs. Sunita, (2005) 2 SCC 479. Acquittal By Criminal Court Does Not Preclude Departmental Inquiry Against Delinquent Officer [Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited vs. C. Nagaraju] The Supreme Court reiterated that acquittal by a Criminal Court does not preclude a Departmental Inquiry against the delinquent officer and the Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the judgment of the Criminal Court if the evidence that is produced in the Departmental Inquiry is different from that produced during the criminal trial. The bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta observed thus while setting aside the High Court that had quashed a dismissal order of an employee on the ground that it could not have been passed since he was honourably acquitted by the Criminal Court. Burden Of Proof Ordinarily Rests On Those Who Attack The Deed [Ali Hussain(D) vs. Rabiya] The Supreme Court reiterated that the burden of proof rests ordinarily on those who attack the deed. he bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi noted that there are no pleadings in support that the plaintiff was a pardanasheen illiterate lady and was entitled for protection of law and the burden was on the defendant to prove that the alleged power of attorney was the result of fraud. Appellate Authority Cannot Override Mandatory Statutory Requirements Of Pre-Deposit To Maintain Appeal[TecnimontPvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab] While upholding Section 62(5) of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, the Supreme Court observed that the Appellate Authority cannot override statutory requirement of pre-deposit when the statute mandates that no appeal can be entertained unless such requirement is satisfied. Shebait/Archak Duty bound To Protect Temple Property; Cannot Usurp It For Their Own Gains [Sri Ganapathi Dev Temple Trust V. Balakrishna Bhat] The Supreme Court observed that it is the bounden duty of the shebait, archak to protect the temple property, and they cannot usurp such property for their own gains. Allowing the appeal, the bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi observed that the appellant temple has the right, through its present managing trustee, to undertake proceedings for the benefit of the idol for having such wrongful entries set aside, and such wrongful entries would not be binding on the temple. Refund Claim U/s 27 Customs Act Cannot Be Entertained Unless Order Of Assessment Or Self-Assessment Is Modified [ITC Limited vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise] The Supreme Court has held that the claim for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act cannot be entertained unless the order of assessment or self-assessment is modified in accordance with law by taking recourse to the appropriate proceedings. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Indira Banerjee observed that in case any person is aggrieved by any order which would include self-assessment, he has to get the order modified under Section ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags