Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: May 9 To May 15 2022

Supreme Court Judgements 1. Section 138 NI Act - No Vicarious Liability For Cheque Dishonour Merely Because A Person Was A Partner Or Stood Guarantor For Loan : Supreme Court Case Title : Dilip Hariramani vs Bank of Baroda Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 457 The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna has held that a person cannot be convicted for the offence of dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act merely because he was a partner of the firm which had taken the loan or that he stood as a guarantor for such a loan. 2. Order XIV Rule 2 CPC - Res Judicata Plea Cannot Be Determined As Preliminary Issue When It Is A Mixed Question Of Fact & Law : Supreme Court Case Title: Sathyanath vs Sarojamani | CA 3680 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 458 The Supreme Court observed that a plea of res judicata cannot be determined as preliminary issue when it is a mixed question of law and fact. Preliminary issues can be those where no evidence is required and on the basis of reading of the plaint or the applicable law, if the jurisdiction of the Court or the bar to the suit is made out, the Court may decide such issues with the sole objective for the expeditious decision, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian said. 3. [Delhi Govt vs LG] Supreme Court Refers Questions On The Issue Of Services To Constitution Bench Case Title: Govt Of NCT Delhi vs Union of India: CA 2357/2017 Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 459 A 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli referred to a Constitution Bench limited questions pertaining to the legal dispute between the Delhi Government and the Central Government regarding the control over administrative services in the national capital. 4. Inmates Of Old Age Home Are Licensees ; Have No Legal Right To Protect Their Possession Without Complying With Corresponding Obligations: Supreme Court Case Title: Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar vs Rajendra Prasad Agarwa Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 460 The Supreme Court observed that the inmates of a old age home are licensees and have a legal right to stay in the room of the old age home only so long as they comply with the terms and conditions of such license. "The inmates in the old age home are licensees and are expected to maintain a minimum level of discipline and good behaviour and not to cause disturbance to the fellow inmates who are also senior citizens.", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian. 5. Certificate U/Sec 65B(4) Evidence Act Mandatory For Production Of Electronic Evidence ; Oral Evidence Cannot Possibly Suffice: Supreme Court Case Name: Ravinder Singh @ Kaku vs State of Punjab | CrA 1307 OF 2019 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 461 The Supreme Court bench of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran has observed that the certificate under Section 65B(4) of Evidence Act is mandatory to produce electronic evidence and that the oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice. 6. Execution Of Document Does Not Stand Admitted Merely Because A Person Admits To Having Signed It: Supreme Court Case Title: Veena Singh (D) vs District Registrar/Additional Collector (F/R) Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 462 The Supreme Court observed that the execution of a document/deed does not stand admitted merely because a person admits to having signed the document/deed. The "term" execution in Section 35(1)(a) Registration Act means that a person has signed a document after having fully understood it and consented to its terms, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed. 7. "Bordering On Break Down Of Rule Of Law": Supreme Court On Madhya Pradesh Not Holding Elections In Over 23,000 Local Bodies Case Title : Suresh Mahajan versus State of Madhya Pradesh Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 463 Noting that "the reality in the state of Madhya Pradesh as of now, is that, more than 23, 263 local bodies are functioning without the elected representatives for last over two years and more", the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed, "This is bordering on break down of rule of law and more so, palpable infraction of the constitutional mandate qua the existence and functioning of such local self-government, which cannot be countenanced" 8. State Enactments Like Kerala/Gujarat Money Lenders Act Have No Application To NBFCs Registered Under RBI Act: Supreme Court Case Name: Nedumpilli Finance Company Limited vs State of Kerala | CA 5233 0F 2012 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 464 The Supreme Court has held that the state enactments such as Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and...

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: May 9 To May 15 2022

Shruti Kakkar

Tags