Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

The entirety of the averments in the plaint have to be taken into account while considering a plea seeking rejection of plaint, the Supreme Court reiterated. In this case, a suit was filed by the plaintiff in 2016 to set aside a sale deed executed in 2008. The High Court had held that since litigation was generated after more than a period of 8 years, it is clearly hit by law of limitation and rejected the plaint.

Service Of Notice On The Chartered Accountant Of A Company Who Acts As Its Agent Is Due Service [Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - I vs NRA Iron and Steel Pvt Ltd.]

Holding that service of notice on the Chartered Accountant of a company who is acting as its agent is valid service of notice, the Supreme Court refused to recall a judgment which was passed ex-parte. The order was passed by a bench comprising Justices U U Lalit and Indu Malhotra .

Power To Condone Delay Under Sec 5 Limitation Act Applies To Special Or Local Laws If It Is Not Expressly Excluded [Superintending Engineer, Dehar Power Circle, Bhakra Beas Management Board (PW) Slapper and another Vs Excise and Taxation Officer]

The Supreme Court reiterated that the power to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings under special or local laws if it is not expressly excluded by such laws.Applying this principle, the bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, M R Shah and BR Gavai held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be invoked to condone the delay in filing revision to the High Court under Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act.

Magistrate Cannot Assume Jurisdiction U/s 125 CrPC In A Proceedings U/s 20 Of Domestic Violence Act [P. Rajkumar vs. Yoga @ Yogalakshmi]

Can a Magistrate after rejecting a plea seeking maintenance under Domestic Violence Act assume jurisdiction under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and grant maintenance? This was the issue before the Apex Court in the instant case in which it answered in the negative. The bench comprising Justice Navin Sinha and Justice BR Gavai observed that once the learned Magistrate declined to grant maintenance for reasons specified, it was not open for him to assume jurisdiction in a proceeding under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. which was not pending before him and was a completely independent proceeding to direct grant of maintenance under the same.

Signed Carbon Copy Prepared In Same Process As Original Document Is Primary Evidence Under Sec.62 Evidence Act [Mohinder Singh V. Jaswanth Kaur]

The Supreme Court held that signed carbon copy prepared in the same process as the original document is admissible in evidence as the original document as per Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act. On this ground, the bench comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose set aside a judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had refused to accept the signed carbon copy as original document.

Inconvenience Of Accused To Approach Court Seeking Permission To Travel Abroad Not A Reason To Dilute Such Bail Condition [Barun Chandra Thakur vs. Ryan Augustine Pinto]

The Supreme Court has observed that mere inconvenience in the matter of approaching the court seeking permission to travel abroad cannot be a reason to dilute such condition imposed in an Anticipatory bail order. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Ravindra Bhat observed thus in an appeal filed by a victim's father against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that diluted conditions in the anticipatory bail order by allowing an application filed by the accused.

Medical Negligence - Trial Court Should Examine Medical Expert Before Framing Charges [Aruna V. Mukund]

The Supreme Court reiterated that examination of a report of an independent medical expert is crucial before proceeding against a doctor accused of medical negligence. Earlier, the Apex Court had in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2005) 6 SCC 1, laid down guidelines governing the prosecution of doctors for the offence of criminal negligence, punishable under Section 304A of IPC.

Amendment In Criminal Laws Beneficial To Accused Can Be Applied In Pending/Earlier Cases [Trilok Chand V. State oh Himachal Pradesh]

The Supreme Court reiterated that if the amendment in a criminal law is beneficial to the accused persons, it could be applied with respect to earlier cases as well which are pending in the Court. In this case, Trilok Chand was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He was sentenced to three months' imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500.His revision petition was dismissed by the High Court.

Limitation To File Appeal To Be Computed On The Basis Of Endorsement As Contained In Certified Copy Of Impugned Order

The Courts are obliged to compute the limitation on the basis of the endorsement as contained in the certified copy, observed Supreme Court recently while dismissing a Special Leave Petition.