Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up


28 Oct 2019 8:16 AM GMT

  • Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

    SC Grants Bail To Chidambaram In CBI Case In INX Media Scam [P Chidambaram V. CBI] The Supreme Court granted bail to former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram in the case registered by CBI on corruption allegations in relation to INX Media FDI transaction. The bench comprising Justices R Banumathi, A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy had reserved judgment on October 18 in his...

    SC Grants Bail To Chidambaram In CBI Case In INX Media Scam [P Chidambaram V. CBI]

    The Supreme Court granted bail to former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram in the case registered by CBI on corruption allegations in relation to INX Media FDI transaction. The bench comprising Justices R Banumathi, A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy had reserved judgment on October 18 in his petition challenging the September 30 judgment of the Delhi HC that had denied him bail.

    Flight Risk Of Economic Offenders Cannot Be Looked At As A National Phenomenon To Deny Bail [P Chidambaram V. CBI]

    "Flight risk" of economic offenders cannot be looked at as a national phenomenon, said the Supreme Court while rejecting the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's contention against grant of bail to P. Chidambaram. The bench headed by Justice R. Banumathi said that "flight risk" is to be considered on individual basis being uninfluenced by the unconnected cases, more so, when the personal liberty is involved.

    Disputed Property Claim Based On Inheritance Cannot Be Decided In A Criminal Proceeding [M. Srikanth vs. State of Telangana]

    The Supreme Court observed that a disputed property claim based on inheritance can be only in an appropriate civil proceeding and not in a criminal proceeding. The bench of Justice Navin Sinha and Justice BR Gavai quashed a complaint, which it noted is only a civil dispute with regard to inheritance amongst the legal heirs.

    Execution- Court Order Required Before Providing Police Assistance To Deliver Possession To Decree Holder [Om Prakash V. Amar Singh]

    The Supreme Court observed that in execution proceedings, the concerned court's order has to be obtained before providing police assistance to deliver possession to the decree holder.

    (Rape) Conviction Cannot Be Solely Based On Statements Made To Police U/s 154/161 CrPC [Narra Peddi Raju vs. State of AP]

    The Supreme Court, while acquitting a rape accused, observed that the conviction of an accused cannot be based solely on a statement of the witnesses recorded by the Police under Section 161 or 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Surya Kant acquitted a man convicted in a rape case by the Trial Court fifteen years ago, in 2004.

    HC Cannot Modify Order Affirmed By SC Invoking Its Inherent Powers U/s 482 CrPC [State of Punjab vs. Ranjit Kaur]

    The Supreme Court observed that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not enable the High Court to alter, add to, modify or vary any order that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. In this case, the High Court had allowed the petition filed by the accused and had ordered that the sentences imposed in 69 Challan cases pertaining to FIR 21/1996 should run concurrently.

    State Consumer Commission Cannot Set Aside Ex-Parte Order [Samaresh Prasad Chowdhury V. UCO Bank]

    The District Consumer Forums and the State Commissions have no power to set aside ex-parte orders, the Supreme Court reiterated the legal position while allowing an appeal filed by Judicial Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal.

    Tests To Be Applied While Sentencing In A Criminal Case; SC Explains [State of MP vs. Udham]

    The Supreme Court briefly explained three tests to be applied while sentencing in a criminal case. The court said that the crime test, criminal test and comparative proportionality test have to be applied while sentencing an accused in a criminal case. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shanthanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi were considering the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) in which reduced the sentence awarded by the Trial Court to the period already undergone for the offences under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of IPC, and Section 452 of the IPC.

    498A IPC-Criminal Complaint Cannot Continue After Settlement Between Parties In Marital Disputes [Rajiv Kumar Sharma V. State of Uttar Pradesh]

    The Supreme Court held that a criminal complaint made u/s 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act cannot continue if the parties have amicably settled the matter. The order passed by a bench of Justices A.M.Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari found that the High Court despite the arrangement arrived at between the parties declined to quash the proceedings. It was held that the High Court should have taken note of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved all their differences and consciously chose to unconditionally drop all proceedings related to marriage inter se including the criminal action initiated by the complainant.

    Courts Should Be Conscious Of Bureaucratic Delays While Considering Delay Condonation Pleas By State [State of Manipur vs. Koting Lamkang]

    The Supreme Court observed that while considering the delay condonation pleas filed by State, the Courts should be conscious of the bureaucratic delays and the slow pace in reaching a Government decision and the routine way of deciding whether the State should prefer an appeal against a judgment adverse to it.

    All Maradu Flat Owners To Get Rs 25 Lakhs As Interim Compensation Regardless Of The Amount Shown In Sale Deeds [The Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority Member Secretary V. Maradu Municipality]

    The Supreme Court clarified that each flat owner in the soon to be demolished apartment complexes in Maradu, Kochi is entitled to receive compensation of Rs 25 lakhs, regardless of the amount stated in the sale deeds. The bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and Ravindra Bhat passed orders in this regard on Friday, after noticing that the Court-appointed committee headed by former Kerala HC judge Justice K Balakrishnan Nair had directed the disbursal of lesser amounts based on the consideration shown in the sale deeds.

    Rape Case Can't Be Quashed When Victim Has A Case That 'Settlement' Was Made Under Threat & Coercion [Miss XYZ V. State of Gujarat]

    The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order which had quashed a rape case by recording 'settlement' between the accused and the victim. The girl had lodged an FIR alleging that her manager raped her by threatening to publish her nude picture he had with him. FIR was registered under Sections 376, 499 and 506(2) of IPC.

    Order From Magistrate Not Necessary For Every Facet Of Investigation [Praveen Kumar Prakash vs. State of Jharkhand]

    The Supreme Court observed that there is no requirement that for every facet of investigation, orders from the Magistrate are required. In this case, CBI was investigating an FIR in connection with conduct of Combined Civil Services Examination conducted by Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC).

    Statement Of Accused U/s 313 CrPC Can Be Used As An Aid To Lend Credence To Prosecution Evidence [Rajender @ Rajesh @ Raju Versus State (NCT of Delhi)]

    The Supreme Court observed that a statement made by an accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be used as an aid to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution. The bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shanthanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi observed thus while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by a murder convict

    Illegal Structures Cannot Be Permitted To Be Re-Erected Merely Because Of Procedural Violation While Demolishing Them [Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai V. M/S Sunbeam High Tech Developers Private Ltd.]

    The Supreme Court observed that illegal structures cannot be permitted to be re-erected merely because there was procedural violation while demolishing it. The bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose disapproved a 'regular practice' followed by Bombay High Court in which it allows reconstruction of such structures demolished without following proper procedure.

    SC Allows Centre's Plea To Recover Adjusted Gross Revenue Of Rs 92k cr From Telecom Companies [Union Of India V. Association Of Unified Telecom Service Providers Of India Etc.Etc.]

    In a setback to telecom service providers, the Supreme Court allowed the Centre's plea to recover adjusted gross revenue (AGR) of about Rs 92,000 crore from them. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Arun Mishra, upheld the definition of adjusted gross revenue formulated by the Department of Telecom (DoT).

    Ouster Of Civil Court Jurisdiction: SC Reiterates Tests Formulated In 1968 Constitution Bench Judgment [M. Hariharasudhan V. R. Karmegam and Ors.]

    Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Courts to try all civil suits unless barred. It states that the Courts shall (subject to the provisions therein contained) have jurisdiction to try all Suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. The tests to be adopted while considering a question as to ouster of civil court jurisdiction, was summarized in 1968 itself by a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Dhulabhai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1969 SC 78.

    Other Significant Orders and Proceedings

    • Issued notice to Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel on CBI's plea to transfer the trial of the 2017 'sex CD' case out of the state.The apex court stayed the ongoing trial after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for CBI, submitted that witnesses in the case were feeling threatened by the Chief Minister.
    • Stating that it had little doubt that the conduct of the lawyers at Orissa, who have been boycotting the Chief Justice's court, amounted to contempt, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Chairman of the Orissa State Bar Council and the President of the Orissa High Court Bar Association, with directions to appear in person.
    • Extended the status quo order passed on October 7 regarding the cutting of trees in Aarey colony in Mumbai suburbs.The bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and Deepak Gupta also clarified that there is no stay on the construction activities related to Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL).
    • Allowing the reconstruction of the Sant Ravidas Temple in Delhi, the Supreme Court acceded to the Centre's proposal to assign 400 sq. m. of land at the same site in Thuglakabad where the temple had stood before it was razed down based on apex court's directions.
    • Allowing the petition filed by Facebook Inc, the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of cases pending in the High Courts of Madras, Bombay and Madhya Pradesh seeking the authentication of social media accounts with Aadhaar. The bench comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose has listed the matter for hearing in the first week of January.
    • Condemning the acts of lawyers of Orissa who have been boycotting the court of Chief Justice of the high court, the Supreme Court sought a report from Advocate Sibo Sankar Mishra, counsel appearing on behalf of High Court of Orissa in the matter.
    • Rejected the plea for the recusal of Justice Arun Mishra from heading the Constitution Bench formed to settle the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Act.
    • The bench headed by Chief Justice of India ( CJI) Ranjan Gogoi refused for urgent hearing of a plea which has challenged the Allahabad High order banning loud speakers and DJs in Uttar Pradesh during festive seasons.
    • The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court discussed the framing of issues in the Kaushal Kishor case. Senior Advocate Harish Salve, who has been appointed as an amicus curiae in the case.
    • Issued Notice on plea challenging provisions allowing exclusive custody of child to one of the parents.
    • Sought the Centre's response by November 5 on a plea seeking entry of Muslim women in mosques across the country and claiming that such restriction was "unconstitutional" and violative of fundamental rights to life, equality and gender justice.

    Next Story