Supreme Court Judgements 1. No Need To File Separate Final Decree Proceedings In Partition Suit ; Trial Courts Should Proceed Suo Motu Soon After Passing Preliminary Decree: Supreme Court Case Title: Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan vs Kattukandi Edathil Valsan | CA 6406-6407 OF 2010 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 549 The Supreme Court has directed the Trial...
Supreme Court Judgements
Case Title: Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan vs Kattukandi Edathil Valsan | CA 6406-6407 OF 2010
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 549
The Supreme Court has directed the Trial Courts dealing with partition suits to proceed suo motu with the case soon after passing the preliminary decree.
"We direct the Trial Courts to list the matter for taking steps under Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC soon after passing of the preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the property, suo motu and without requiring initiation of any separate proceedings.", the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath observed.
Case Name: Somakka (Dead) By Lrs. v. K.P. Basavaraj (Dead) By Lrs.
Citation: 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 550
The Supreme Court held that, non-consideration of the evidence on record, in particular those relied upon by the Trial Court and not stating the points for determination, by the First Appellant Court would lead to infirmity in its judgment.
The Apex Court reiterated that it is the duty of the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal keeping in view the scope and powers conferred to it under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC").
A Bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath set aside an order of the Karnataka High Court and reinstated the decree passed by the Trial Court. It noted that the High Court had neither formed the points for determination nor considered the evidence on record, especially those appreciated by the Trial Court. It was of the view that the judgment of the Appellate court should reflect application of mind and record findings with reason in respect of all the issues, along with the contentions raised by the parties. It held that in the present case, the judgment of the High Court being non-compliant with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 was unsustainable in law.
3. Accused Taking Plea Of Self Defence Need Not Prove It Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court
Case Title: Ex. Ct. Mahadev vs Director General, Border Security Force | CA 2606 of 2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 551
The Supreme Court observed that an accused who takes up the plea of self defence need not prove it beyond reasonable doubt and that it would suffice if he could show the preponderance of probabilities.
The accused, who was serving in the BSF, had allegedly caused the death of a civilian namely Nandan Deb. General Security Force Court rejected his plea of private defence and held him guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (murder) and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. Delhi High Court dismissed his appeal and therefore he approached the Apex Court.
Case Name: Bharat Bhushan Gupta v. Pratap Narain Verma And Anr.| Civil Appeal No. 4577 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 552
The Supreme Court has held that the nature of relief claimed in a plaint is decisive in the valuation of the suit. Market value does not become decisive of suit valuation merely because immovable property is the subject-matter of litigation. The Apex Court further stated that it is trite law that a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction is not required to be valued at the market value of the property.
A Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath allowed an appeal assailing the order of the Delhi High Court, which had held that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 250 for each of the reliefs of mandatory and prohibitory injunction and at Rs. 1 lakh for damages was wholly arbitrary when it is an admitted fact that the value of the property at the time of filing the suit was as high as Rs. 1.8 crores.
Supreme Court Updates
1. Supreme Court Issues Notice On Actor Mohd Naseer's Plea Seeking Bail In Chit Fund Scam Case
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a writ petition preferred by disabled actor Mohd Naseer, seeking bail in the FIR registered against him for allegedly cheating and siphoning of monies in the name of chit fund schemes.
2. Supreme Court Halts Dispossession Of Pujaris For Kalkaji Temple Redevelopment
While considering a Special Leave Petition assailing Delhi High Court's order directing pujaris and unauthorized occupants in city's Kalkaji Temple to vacate the premises by June 6, the Supreme Court on Monday said that the temple's redevelopment can be carried out without dispossessing the pujaris from the premises where they are said to be residing.
The vacation bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Vikram Nath issued notice in the SLP, wherein the pujaris were also aggrieved by the High Court's order dated May 20.
The bench further tagged the SLP with the other pleas that are pending before the Top Court and are to be heard on August 24, 2022.
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Uttar Pradesh government not to carry out demolition activities except in accordance with the procedure established by law. It has also granted three days' time to the State, to demonstrate how the recent demolitions were in compliance with the procedural and municipal laws. "Action will only be in accordance with law," it said.
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre to make public the decision taken by the CJI-led Committee on the issue of extending the tenure of 23 NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal) members from 3 years to 5 years.
The Centre had claimed secrecy over the resolutions passed by a Committee chaired by the Chief Justice of India N. V. Ramana and consisting of Justice Surya Kant and the Secretary of the MCA, on June March 20 and June 6. "I can file it in a sealed cover by tomorrow, give me time," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had submitted.
Taking exception to this, a Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Hima Kohli said,
" There cannot be so much secrecy. Individual cases we can understand, but here... "
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in the application seeking interim stay on the order dated February 17, 2022 passed by the Tamil Nadu Government on banning the use of purse seine nets for fishing.
Directing the counsel to serve the copy of the IA on the counsel for the respondents, the vacation bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Vikram Nath in their order said, "Issue notice. Dasti in addition. List after service is complete."
The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned the petition filed by the Jharkhand Government's plea assailing the High Court's order accepting the maintainability of a PIL seeking independent probe against Chief Minister Hemant Soren for alleged money laundering through shell companies.
A vacation bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Hima Kohli adjourned the case on the request of Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the State, and directed it to be listed before the appropriate bench after vacation.
The Supreme Court on Friday observed that it will be appropriate to transfer alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar and his wife Leena Paulose from Tihar Jail to allay the apprehensions raised by them regarding danger to life from jail officials.
The Court has asked the Center to take an appropriate decision with regards to the jail where Chandrashekhar could be transferred to.
8. Orissa Chit Fund Scam: Supreme Court Issues Notice In Bail Plea Of Accused Mohd Arif
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in plea seeking bail filed by Mohammad Arif, an accused in the Fine Indisales chit fund scam case.
A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Hima Kohli has tagged the matter with another bail plea filed by disabled actor Mohd Naseer who's also an accused in the same case.
Former Judges and various Advocates have written to the Supreme Court urging it to take suo moto cognizance of various incidents in the State of Uttar Pradesh of illegal detention, bulldozing of residences and alleged police violence on protestors and those in police custody, following protests against remarks made by BJP spokespersons on the Prophet Mohammed.
A PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Delhi government to sack its Health Minister- Satyendar Jain and to the Maharashtra government to sack its Cabinet Minister- Nawab Malik, in connection with the money laundering cases being investigated against them.
11. Prophet Remark Row: Lawyer Moves Supreme Court Seeking Former BJP Spokesperson Nupur Sharma's Arrest
In the backdrop of the ongoing Prophet Remark row, a lawyer has moved the Supreme Court seeking directions to the authorities to act and arrest former BJP Spokesperson Nupur Sharma for her alleged hate statement against the revered Prophet Mohammad and hurting sentiments of the Muslim community.
Arguing that vulgar remarks were made by Sharma against the revered Prophet Mohammad and Muslim community, the PIL has sought directions for 'independent, credible and impartial investigation' into the incident which may ensure her immediate arrest.
Setting aside an NCDRC order by which a revision petition filed after 67 days' delay was dismissed, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian has observed that "the question of limitation is not to be examined with a view to decline the condonation, but to do substantial justice".
Remarking that "delay in filing the revision was not huge, that should not have been condoned under the Consumer Protection Act", the Court remitted the matter back to the NCDRC for decision on merits.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the setting up of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to enquire into mass violence and damage to public properties, including that of railways, during the widespread protests against the Centre's "Agnipath" recruitment scheme for armed forces.
Junior Resident Doctors who've completed their MBBS courses from Institutions/ Hospitals run by the Employees State Insurance Corporation ("ESIC") have approached the Supreme Court seeking to be included in the 50% "in- service" doctors reservation for PG courses, which is currently restricted to Insurance Medical Officers grade.