Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, September 27 To October 3

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Motor Accidents Claim - Minimum Wage Notification Not An Absolute Yardstick To Fix Income Of Deceased In Absence Of Salary Certificate : Supreme CourtCase Title : Chandra @ Chanda versus Mukesh Kumar Yadav and othersCitation : LL 2021 SC 532While deciding on compensation to be paid in a case of motor vehicle accident, Supreme Court has observed that merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased, the same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income."In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality", the Court observed in the case Chandra @ Chanda versus Mukesh Kumar Yadav and others.2. Chairman, Directors & Officers Can't Be Summoned In Criminal Complaint Against Company Without Specific Allegations About Their Individual Role : Supreme CourtCase: Ravindranatha Bajpe VS Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd.Citation: LL 2021 SC 505The Supreme Court has reiterated that Chairman, Managing Director/Executive Director etc., of a company cannot be summoned in a criminal case if specific allegations about their particular role is not alleged in the complaint, as they cannot be vicariously held liable for the criminal acts of the company."Merely because they are Chairman, Managing Director/Executive Director and/or Deputy General Manager and/or Planner/Supervisor of A1 & A6, without any specific role attributed and the role played by them in their capacity, they cannot be arrayed as an accused, more particularly they cannot be held vicariously liable for the offences committed by A1 & A6", the Supreme Court observed in the case Ravindranatha Bajpe VS Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd and others.3. Family Settlement Document Which Merely Records Past Transaction Does Not Require Compulsory Registration : Supreme CourtCase Title: Korukonda Chalapathi Rao & Ors v Korukonda Annapurna Sampath KumarCitation : LL 2021 SC 530The Supreme Court has held that a family settlement document which merely sets out the existing arrangement and past transaction will not be compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, if it doesn't by itself creates, declares, limits or extinguishes rights in the immovable properties."If we apply the test as to whether the Khararunama in this case by itself 'affects', i.e., by itself creates, declares, limits or extinguishes rights in the immovable properties in question or whether it merely refers to what the appellants alleged were past transactions which have been entered into by the parties, then, going by the words used in the document, they indicate that the words are intended to refer to the arrangements allegedly which the parties made in the past. The document does not purport to by itself create, declare, assign, extinguish or limit right in properties. Thus, the Khararunama may not attract Section 49(1)(a) of the Registration Act," a bench of Justices KM Joseph and SR Bhat remarked in the case Korukonda Chalapathi Rao & Ors v Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar4. Section 92 Evidence Act - Oral Evidence Admissible Only To Show That The Document Is Sham: Supreme CourtCase: Placido Francisco Pinto (D) by LRs & Anr vs Jose Francisco Pinto & AnrCitation: LL 2021 SC 528The Supreme Court has observed that Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act bars giving of oral evidence on a written document except to prove that the document reflects a sham transaction."...the oral evidence of a written agreement is excluded except when it is sought to be alleged the document as a sham transaction", a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian observed in the case Placido Francisco Pinto (D) by LRs & Anr vs Jose Francisco Pinto & Anr.The Court observed that oral evidence is admissible under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act to show that the document is a sham deed.5. Forcing Party To Undergo DNA Test Against Will Impinges On Personal Liberty & Right To Privacy : Supreme CourtCase Title : Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta and others | C.A No.6153/2021Citation : LL 2021 SC 525The Supreme Court has observed that forcing an unwilling party to undergo DNA test impinges on personal liberty and right to privacy."When the plaintiff is unwilling to subject himself to the DNA test, forcing him to undergo one would impinge on his personal liberty and his right to privacy", observed a bench comprising Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy."In circumstances where other evidence is available to prove or dispute the relationship, the court should ordinarily refrain from ordering blood tests. This is because such tests impinge ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, September 27 To October 3

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags