[Ayodhya] : SC Allows Temple Construction In Disputed Land; Alternate Plot Of 5 Acres For Mosque [M. Siddiq V. Mahant Suresh Das]
In an unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court held that the entire disputed land of 2.77 acres in Ayodhya must be handed over for the construction of Ram Mandir. At the same time, the Court held that an alternate plot of 5 acres must be allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board for construction of mosque. This direction was passed invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court observed that the destruction of Babri mosque in 1992 was a violation of law. The act of placing idols beneath the central dome of the mosque in 1949 was an act of "desecration", observed the Court.
Section 482 CrPC- Inherent Powers Cannot Be Invoked To Alter Sentence Imposed By The HC Itself [State of MP vs. Man Singh]
The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used by the High Court to reopen or alter an order disposing of a petition decided on merits, the Supreme Court observed. The bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose observed that the High Court has no power to entertain the petition under Section 482 CrPC and alter the sentence imposed by it.
Section 144 CPC [Restitution] Not Attracted When There Is No Variation Or Reversal Of A Decree Or Order [Bansidhar Sharma(Since Deceased) Vs The State Of Rajasthan]
The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not be attracted when there is no variation or reversal of a decree or order .
[Rape & Murder] Accused Cannot Be Convicted Merely Because Extra Judicial Confession Is Proved [Vinod @ Manoj V. State of Haryana]
The Supreme Court acquitted a young man who spent about thirteen years in jail after he was convicted in a rape and murder case. The bench comprising Justice set aside the concurrent conviction by the High Court and the Trial Court and observed that the prosecution has failed to prove other circumstances apart from an extra judicial confession relied upon by it beyond reasonable doubt.
MV Act- Relinquishment Of Shares By A Dependent Doesn't Disentitle Her From Claiming Compensation [Renu Rani Shrivastava Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.]
The Supreme Court observed that relinquishment of share by a claimant (dependent of the deceased) does not disentitle her from claiming compensation. One of the contentions adopted by the Insurance Company was that the wife of the deceased has relinquished her share in favour of her in-laws and got certain properties in lieu thereof and, therefore, the wife of the deceased is not entitled to any compensation
Complaint U/s 138 NI Act Maintainable Against Dishonour Of Cheque Issued Pursuant To Lok Adalat Award [Arun Kumar vs. Anita Mishra]
The Supreme Court observed that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonor of a cheque issued pursuant to the Lok Adalat award is maintainable. In this case as regards the first cheque issued by the accused, a criminal case was preferred u/S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and it resulted in conviction and a sentence of fine. An appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction and both the parties in Lok Adalat to withdraw pending litigation. A cheque was also given in the light of the settlement and the same has been dishonoured. The second complaint has been preferred on account of dishonour of the second cheque.
Dissent By One Judge Not A Bar For Upholding Death Penalty: SC Rejects Review Petition Of Death Convict [Manoharan V. State]
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by Manoharan whose death penalty was upheld it a few months ago. The Supreme Court (2:1) had, in August 2019, upheld the death sentence awarded to Manoharan involved in gang rape of a ten year old girl and thereafter murdering her and her brother. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Surya Kant had upheld the death penalty and Justice Sanjiv Khanna had expressed his dissent against upholding death sentence.
Section 164 CrPC: Presence Of Advocate Not Mandatory When Confession Of Accused Before Magistrate Is Not Recorded By Audio-Video Means [Manoharan V. State]
The Supreme Court observed that it is not mandatory that a confession or statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should necessarily be made in the presence of the advocate(s) except when such confessional statement is recorded with audio-video electronic means.The bench was dealing with the submission of Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, who appeared for the review petitioner death convict Manoharan. He had contended that the absence of a counsel during proceedings before the Magistrate under section 164, CrPC has caused prejudice to the accused.
Lacuna Left By Legislature Cannot Be Filled By Judicial Interpretation [Union of India vs. VR Nanukuttan Nair]
The Supreme Court observed that if the legislature has left a lacuna, it is not open for the Courts to fill it on some presumed intention of the legislature. The bench comprising Justice L Nageswara and Justice Hemant Gupta was considering an appeal against Armed Forces Tribunal's interpretation of a regulation in Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964. The bench observed that the reading of the Regulations does not lead to an inference that the service element should be limited to an individual who has completed minimum 15 years of engagement.
Discharge Plea Cannot Be Discarded Merely Because HC Had Earlier Refused To Quash Criminal Proceedings [Harish Dahiya @ Harish vs. State Of Punjab]
The Supreme Court has observed that a Trial Court cannot decline to consider the application for discharge filed by an accused merely because his earlier application to quash the entire prosecution under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed by the High Court.
Forests In Alagar Hills Does Not Belong To The Deity [The Government of Tamil Nadu V. Arulmighu Kallalagar Thirukoil Alagar Koil]
The Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court judgment which held that the the entire forest area in Alagar Hills belongs to the deity of Arulmigu Kallalagar Thirukoil Alagar Koil. The bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta held that the presumption of lost grant cannot be applied when there is no evidence of continuous possession under an assertion of title.
Interim Mandatory Injunctions Can Be Granted After Giving Opportunity Of Hearing To Opposite Side [Dr. Syed Afzal (Dead) vs. Rubina Syed Faizuddin]
The Supreme Court observed that, the Civil Courts, while considering the application seeking interim mandatory injunction in long pending cases, should grant opportunity of hearing to the opposite side.In this case the appellant's contention was that the High Court, without granting an op portunity of hearing, granted an interim mandatory injunction and police aid.
HCs Have Power To Dispense With Disciplinary Proceedings For Dismissing Judicial Officers By Recording Reasons [Hari Niwas Gupta V. State of Bihar]
The Supreme Court observed that the High Courts have power to dispense with the disciplinary proceedings by invoking clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, by recording reasons.
SC Sets Aside NCLAT Order Which Held That Dissenting Financial Creditor Should Not Be Discriminated [Rahul Jain V. Rave Scans Pvt. Ltd]
The Supreme Court set aside an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal which held that a dissenting financial creditor cannot be discriminated. A bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and Ravindra Bhat allowed the appeal filed by Rahul Jain, the resolution applicant in the insolvency of Rave Scans Private Ltd.
Chit Foreman Entitled To Recover Amount Of Future Subscription From Defaulting Subscriber [Oriental Kuries Ltd. vs. Lissa]
The Supreme Court observed that the relationship between a chit subscriber and the chit foreman is a contractual obligation, which creates a debt on the day of subscription. On default taking place, the foreman is entitled to recover the consolidated amount of future subscriptions from the defaulting subscriber in a lump sum, the bench of Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna said.
Other Significant Orders and Proceedings