Supreme Court Weekly Round Up- December 13 To December 19, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Alienation Of Joint Hindu Family Property By 'Karta' For Legal Necessity Or Benefit Of Estate Binding On Other Members: Supreme CourtCase name: Beereddy Dasaratharmi Reddy vs V. ManjunathCitation: LL 2021 SC 732Where a Karta has alienated a joint Hindu family property for value either for legal necessity or benefit of the estate it would bind the interest of all undivided members of the family even when they are minors or widows, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment.In this case, K. Veluswamy as a Karta of the joint Hindu family executed the agreement to sell of the suit property for Rs.29 lakhs and had received Rs.4 lakhs in advance from Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy. Beereddy Dasaratharmi Reddy instituted the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell impleading both K. Veluswamy and V. Manjunath (son of Veluswamy). This suit was decreed by the Trial Court.The Apex Court bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna noted that a joint Hindu family is capable of acting through its Karta or adult member of the family in management of the joint Hindu family property.2. Sexual Enhancement Drugs Do Not Attract NDPS Act: Supreme Court Grants Bail To AccusedCase name: Bharat Chaudhary vs Union of IndiaCitation: LL 2021 SC 733Sexual enhancement tablets meant to enhance male potency do not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act, the Supreme Court observed while granting bail to NDPS Accused.In this case, the accused was granted bail by the Special Court on the ground that he was not found to be in possession of any psychotropic substance and no contraband was recovered from his residence or office during the search. That the test reports in respect of the seized material were awaited and it was not established whether the tablets which, as per the accused were sexual enhancement tablets, would qualify either as a narcotic or psychotrophic substance so as to fall within the ambit of the NDPS Act. The High Court later cancelled the bail so granted by the Special Court. The High Court observed that the test reports did not totally negate the fact that the seized contraband goods were not narcotic substances.While considering the appeal filed by the accused, the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli observed that the test report stated that the "quantitative analysis of the samples could not be carried out for want of facilities"3. Ingredients Necessary To Prove Charges Under Section 409, 420 & 477A IPC: Supreme Court ExplainsCase name: N. Raghavender vs State of Andhra Pradesh, CBICitation: LL 2021 SC 734The Supreme Court has explained the ingredients necessary to prove a charge under Section 409, 420 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code.The bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli made these observations while allowing appeal filed by an accused who was concurrently convicted under Sections 409, 420, and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.Referring to the evidence on record, the bench noted the following: First, no financial loss was caused to the Bank. Second, the record does not indicate that any pecuniary loss was caused to B. Satyajit Reddy or to any other customer of the Bank. Third, the material before us does not disclose any conspiracy between the accused persons. Therefore, it held that none of the acts proved against the accused constitute 'criminal misconduct' or fall under the ambit of Sections 409, 420 and 477-A IPC.4. Trial Court Not Expected To Act In A Particular Way Depending On 'Sensitivity' Of A Case: Supreme CourtCase name: Mohan @Srinivas @ Seena @Tailor Seena vs State of KarnatakaCitation: LL 2021 SC 735The Supreme Court observed that a Trial Court cannot be expected to act in a particular way depending upon the sensitivity of the case.Rather it should be appreciated if a trial court decides a case on its own merit despite its sensitivity, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh said while upholding a Trial Court judgment acquitting two young men accused of murdering a police officer.The prosecution case against the accused duo was that both the accused carried three weapons, waylaid the deceased at a signal in a main road at about 5 p.m. and after the initial attack, dragged him to the pavement, and thereafter inflicted multiple injuries. During trial, most of the witnesses pertaining to conspiracy, occurrence, recovery and extraordinary judicial confession turned hostile. The accused were acquitted by granting benefit of doubt.5. Applications To Condone Delay In Filing Version In Consumer Cases Pending On 04.03.2020 Not Impacted By CB Judgment : SC ClarifiesCase Title : Diamond Exports and another versus United India Insurance Co Ltd and othersCitation : LL SC 736Settling a conflict between two division bench judgments, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday clarified that the applications to...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up- December 13 To December 19, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags