Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, August 16 To August 22, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Default Sentences Cannot Be Directed To Run Concurrently: Supreme CourtCase: Dumya Alias Lakhan Alias Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra ; CrA 818-820 OF 2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 396The Supreme Court observed that the default sentences imposed on a convict cannot be directed to run concurrently.In this case, the accused were convicted under 3(1)(ii) ,3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to imprisonment of 7/10 years. Rupees Five lacs fine was imposed on each and in default three years rigorous imprisonment was ordered. However, all the sentences was ordered to run concurrently.While considering these contentions, the bench of Justices UU Lalit and Ajay Rastogi noted that in Sharad Hiru Kilambe vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 718] it was held that the default sentence cannot be directed to run concurrently.2. Investigating Officer Is Not Required To Arrest Each And Every Accused At The Time Of Filing Charge-sheet: Supreme CourtCase title: Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ; SLP(Crl) 5442/2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 391The Supreme Court held that Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. that it does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the charge sheet.The court observed that the practice of some Trial Courts of insisting on the arrest of an accused as a pre-requisite formality to take the charge-sheet on record is misplaced and contrary to the very intent of Section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code.In the appeal before the Supreme Court against dismissal of an anticipatory bail application, the court noted that the trial court had taken a view that unless the person is taken into custody the chargesheet will not be taken on record in view of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C.3. Right Of Equity Of Redemption Of Mortgage Is Subsidiary To Right Of Ownership: Supreme CourtCase: Narayan Deorao Javle (Deceased) Vs. Krishna ; CA 4726 OF 2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 389The Supreme Court observed that the right of equity of redemption is subsidiary to the right of ownership.The expression equity of redemption is a convenient maxim but an owner, who has stepped into the shoes of the mortgagor, after the purchase from the mortgagor but before filing a suit for foreclosure is entitled to redeem the property in terms of Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna observed.One of the issues raised in appeal was whether the plaintiff was a necessary party in a suit for foreclosure filed by the mortgagee after the purchase? The court observed that the plaintiff rightly claimed that he was required to be impleaded, as he was a necessary party in a suit for foreclosure filed by the mortgagee after the purchase of part of the mortgaged land.4. Process Of Determination Of Motor Accident Compensation Cannot Be By A Continuing Mandamus, It Must Take Place At One Go: Supreme CourtCase: HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mukesh Kumar; CA 4576/2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 385The Supreme Court observed that while determining compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, a court cannot direct the continued maintenance by Insurance Company of a prosthetic limb for the injured claimant.The process of determination of such compensation cannot be by a continuing mandamus, in a colloquial sense, and the determination must take place at one go, the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed.5. Genuineness Of Property Transaction Cannot Be Doubted Merely Because Thumb Impression Was Affixed Instead Of Signature: Supreme CourtCase: Lachhmi Narain Singh (D) vs. Sarjug Singh (Dead)Citation: LL 2021 SC 388 The Supreme Court observed that genuineness of property transaction cannot be doubted merely because thumb impression was affixed instead of signature.The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Krishna Murari also observed that every person has a unique thumb impression and thus 'forgery of thumb impressions is nearly impossible'.The court noted that in present case probate applicant never raised any objection in regards to mode of proof of cancellation deed before the Trial Court. The court said that the plea regarding mode of proof cannot be permitted to be taken at the appellate stage for the first time, if not raised before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. 6. Mere Over-ruling Of Principles By A Subsequent Judgment Will Not Dilute Binding Effect Of Decision On Inter-parties: Supreme CourtCase: Neelima Sreevastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ; CA . 4840 OF 2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 386Emphasizing the distinction between over-ruling a principle and reversal of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed that mere over-ruling of the principles by a subsequent judgment will not dilute the binding effect of the decision on inter-parties."Mere over-ruling of the principles, on which the earlier...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, August 16 To August 22, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags