Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up (18-24th September)

Supreme Court Comes To Rescue Of Party Who Filed Cheque Bounce Case In Wrong Court After Noting He Got Incorrect Legal AdviceCase title: Bijoy Shankar Mishra v. State of JharkhandCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 798In a notable case, the Supreme Court recently gave relief to a party whose complaint for cheque dishonour was dismissed by the Magistrate at the final hearing stage on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.The Supreme Court invoked its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer the case to the appropriate Court, after noting that the party did not receive proper legal assistance.Res Judicata Can't Be Decided In Application Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC As Previous Suit Documents Have To Be Seen: Supreme CourtCase title: Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep SoodCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 799The Supreme Court has recently reiterated that the principle of res judicata cannot be invoked as a ground for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).This decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal clarified the scope and application of Rule 11(d) of CPC and its relationship with the doctrine of res judicata.Order V Rule 2 Of Civil Procedure Code Requires Service Of Summons With Plaint: Supreme CourtCase Title: National Insurance Company Ltd V. M/S National Building Construction India LtdCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 800The Supreme recently said that service contemplated under Order V Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, implies service of summons along with the copy of the plaint.Working For Long Period On Contractual Basis Creates No Vested Right For Regularisation: Supreme CourtCase Title: Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar V. State Of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 801The Supreme Court recently held that by working for a long period of time on contractual basis, no vested legal right is acquired for regularisation in serviceDividend Income From Indian Entity's Establishment In Oman Having ‘Permanent Establishment’ Status Under DTAA Not Taxable In India: Supreme CourtCase Title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-10 v M/S Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 802The Supreme Court has held that if an Indian Entity’s Establishment is operating in Oman and has a ‘Permanent Establishment’ status under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”), then the dividend income received by the Indian Entity from such Establishment would not be taxable under Indian Taxation laws.As per the laws in Oman, the dividend distributed by all companies, including the tax-exempt companies would be exempt from payment of income tax in the hands of the recipients. Ideally such income was taxable under laws of Oman, but an exemption was given.Eyewitness Account Can't Be Discarded Merely Because Of Inconsistencies With Medical Evidence: Supreme CourtCase title: Rameshji Amarsingh Thakor v. State of GujaratCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 804The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the paramount importance of eyewitness accounts in criminal trials. The Court relied on Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 476 and Anvaruddin v. Shakoor 1990 (3) SCC 266 to emphasize the importance of ocular evidence over the opinion of medical experts. The judgment underlined that eyewitness testimony, even if not detailed in every aspect, holds substantial weight in establishing the sequence of events.No Party Should Be Vexed Twice In A Litigation For One And The Same Cause: Supreme Court On 'Constructive Res JudicataCase Title: Samir Kumar Majumder v. The Union of IndiaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 806; 2023INSC836Recently, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, reiterated the established law on the doctrine of res judicata that has been recognized by this Court in several judgments. The Court opined:“The doctrine itself is based on public policy flowing from the age-old legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which means that in the interest of the State there should be an end to litigation and no party ought to be vexed twice in a litigation for one and the same cause”No Pension For Past Service If Central Govt Employee Resigns To Join Another Govt Post Without Permission: Supreme CourtCase Title: Case title: Union of India v. H.R. Vijaya Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 7351/2013Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 807The Supreme Court recently ruled that unauthorized resignation from government service for another government job will result in the forfeiture of past service and pension benefits.SARFAESI Act | Borrower's Right To Redeem Mortgage Extinguishes Once Bank Publishes Auction Notice For Secured Asset: Supreme CourtCase Title: Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. And Ors C.A. No. 5542-5543/2023Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 21) pronounced a judgement holding that the borrower's right of redemption of mortgage under the Securitisation and Reconstruction...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up (18-24th September)

Suraj Parmar

Tags