Supreme Court Weekly Round Up :June 6- June 11,2022

Supreme Court Judgements "Totally Misread The Judgment": SC Sets Aside Bombay HC Judgment That Dismissed A Writ Petition In A Tender Matter By Citing 'N. G. Projects Ltd.' Case Case Title: Jai Bholenath Construction vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Nanded | CA 4140 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 542 The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court judgment which dismissed a writ petition by referring to observations made in M/s N. G. Projects Ltd. Vs. M/s Vinod Kumar Jain and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302. We find that the High court has totally misread the Judgment of this Court, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.2. Conviction Cannot Be Based Solely On The Testimony Of A Wholly Unreliable Witness : Supreme Court Case Title: Mahendra Singh vs State of MP | CrA 764 OF 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 543 The Supreme Court observed that when the Court finds that a witness is "wholly unreliable", neither conviction nor acquittal can be based on the testimony of such a witness. Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Hima Kohli referred to Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras (1957) SCR 981and observed: "It could thus be seen that this Court has found that witnesses are of three types, viz., (a) wholly reliable; (b) wholly unreliable; and (c) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. When the witness is "wholly reliable", the Court should not have any difficulty inasmuch as conviction or acquittal could be based on the testimony of such single witness. Equally, if the Court finds that the witness is "wholly unreliable", there would be no difficulty inasmuch as neither conviction nor acquittal can be based on the testimony of such witness. It is only in the third category of witnesses that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial."3. Tribunals Like NGT Are Subordinate To A High Court ; Conflicting Orders Will Lead To Anomalous Situation: Supreme Court Case Title: State of Andhra Pradesh vs Raghu Rama Krishna Raju Kanumuru (MP) | CA 4522-4524 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 544 The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunals like National Green Tribunal is subordinate to High Courts. "There can be no manner of doubt that in such a situation, it is the orders passed by the constitutional courts, which would be prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals.", the bench comprising Justices B R Gavai observed4. When Remedy Under Statute Is Available, High Court Should Discourage Writs: Supreme Court Reiterates Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v Dilip Bhosale| SLP (C) 13241 of 2019 Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 545 The Supreme Court recently reiterated that when a remedy under the statute is available, filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to be discouraged by the High Court. The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi & Vikram Nath rendered this observation while considering SLP preferred by secured creditor assailing Telangana HC's orders passed in a SARFAESI matter.5. High Courts Not To Enquire If There Is Reliable Evidence While Exercising Section 482 CrPC Jurisdiction : Supreme Court Case Title: JAGMOHAN SINGH v. VIMLESH KUMAR & ORS. Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 546 Reiterating that "the Court interferes in criminal proceedings under Cr. P. C. Section 482, in rare and exceptional cases, to give effect to the provisions of the Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice", the Supreme Court has stressed that criminal proceedings can be said to be in abuse of the process of court "when the allegations in the FIR do not at all disclose any offence or there are materials on record from which the Court can reasonably arrive at a finding that the proceedings are in abuse of the process of the Court" The Court has added, "While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court should not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry into whether there is reliable evidence or not. The jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only when such exercise is justified by the specific provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. itself."6.Income, Age, Bigger Family Cannot Be Sole Criteria In Child- Custody Matters : Supreme Court Case Title: Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya vs State of Gujarat | CrA 898 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 547 The Supreme Court observed that income, age , bigger family cannot be the sole criteria to tilt balance in child- custody cases. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose observed thus while it granted custody of five year boy who lost his parents due to covid to his paternal grandfather. While agreeing with the...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up :June 6- June 11,2022

Shruti Kakkar

Tags