Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: October 10 To October 16, 2022

JUDGMENT THIS WEEK Writ Of Quo Warranto Can Be Issued Where An Appointment Has Not Been Made In Accordance With Law : Supreme Court The Supreme Court observed that a writ of quo warranto can be issued where an appointment has not been made in accordance with the law. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli observed thus while dismissing the appeals filed by the State of West Bengal and Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee challenging the order of the Calcutta High Court which had set aside the decision of the State to re-appoint Banerjee as Vice-Chancellor (VC) of Calcutta University. The High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by Anindya Sundar Das, an alumnus of Calcutta University and a practicing advocate seeking a writ of quo warranto against the Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University. Section 204 CrPC - Magistrate's Order Of Issuance Of Process Liable To Be Set Aside If No Reasons Are Given: Supreme Court The Supreme Court observed that an order of issuance of process is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. The court made this observation while setting aside a summoning order of a magistrate in a complaint filed under Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. "The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself.", the bench of Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar observed. The court clarified that such an order need not contain detailed reason. Four Months Time Limit U/Sec 19 PC Act To Decide A 'Sanction Request' Mandatory ; But Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed For Delay : Supreme Court The Supreme Court held that, the period of three months (extendable by one more month for legal consultation) under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the Appointing Authority to decide upon a request for sanction is mandatory. However, the consequence of non-compliance with this mandatory requirement shall not be quashing of the criminal proceeding for that very reason, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha clarified. Part-Payment Made After Cheque Is Drawn Must Be Endorsed On Cheque As Per Section 56 NI Act : Supreme Court The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli has held that when a part- payment of the debt is made after the cheque was drawn but before the cheque is encashed, such payment must be endorsed on the cheque under Section 56 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque cannot be presented for encashment without recording the part payment. If the unendorsed cheque is dishonoured on presentation, the offence under Section 138 NI Act would not be attracted since the cheque does not represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment. Abetment To Suicide - Acts Of Accused Must Be Proximate To Occurrence For Conviction Under Section 306 IPC : Supreme Court The Supreme Court reiterated that positive action proximate to the time of suicide on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide should be established for conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide, the bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed. Further Investigation/Reinvestigation Can Be Ordered By High Court Under Section 482 CrPC In Appropriate Cases: Supreme Court The Supreme Court observed that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by a High Court to direct further investigation or even reinvestigation in an appropriate case. "The provisions of Section 173(8) CrPC do not limit or affect such powers of the High Court to pass an order under Section 482 CrPC for further investigation or reinvestigation, if the High Court is satisfied that such a course is necessary to secure the ends of justice.". the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose observed. Order VIII Rule 6A CPC - No Bar In Taking On Record A Counter Claim Filed Long After Filing Of Written Statement But Before Framing Of Issues: Supreme Court The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose observed that there is no bar in taking on record a counter claim filed long after filing of written statement but before framing of issues. In this case, the counter-claim in question was filed nearly 13 years after filing of the written statement. Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dealing with the trial of suit in question, had accepted the notice of motion moved by the defendant-appellant so as to take the belatedly filed counter-claim on record. The Division Bench of the High Court later set aside the said order...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: October 10 To October 16, 2022

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags