Supreme court
Supreme Court Annual Digest 2023- Indian Evidence Act, 1872
AbscondingEffects of Absconding - Mere absconding by itself cannot constitute a sole factor to convict a person. It may be because an accused may abscond as he might fear an illegal arrest. (Para 25) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 889 AdmissionAny concession or admission of a fact by a defence counsel would definitely be binding on his client, except the concession on the point of law. (Para 39) 2023...
Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up (2nd- 6th January, 2024)
With another week gone at the Supreme Court of India, Live Law is back with its Supreme Court Weekly Digest, dedicated to keeping our readers abreast of the most recent legal developments in the country's apex court. This digest aims to inform you about the latest judgments, orders, and Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed in the Supreme Court during the past week, providing a...
Notice Under S.138 NI Act Invalid If Omnibus Demand Is Made Without Specifying Cheque Amount : Supreme Court
Finding the demand raised in a notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to be omnibus in nature, the Supreme Court quashed a criminal case for the dishonour of a cheque. The appellant-notice holder filed a petition before the Delhi High Court for quashing of summoning order passed by Magistrate taking a plea that the notice has made out an omnibus demand...
Decide On Invoking Delimitation Act To Ensure Proportionate Representation For SCs/STs In Legislature : Supreme Court Directs Centre
In a judgment delivered last November, the Supreme Court declined to pass directions to provide proportionate representation for the Scheduled Tribes (STs) in Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies of States of West Bengal (WB) and Sikkim, observing that it was a matter requiring amendments to the Representation of Peoples Act.Noting that the reservation schedules in the Representation of...
'Yawning Gap In Evidence' : Supreme Court Finds Conviction Wrong In 2004 Murder Case; Sets Aside Concurrent Findings Of HC & Trial Court
The Supreme Court has observed that when the prosecution case is solely based on the circumstantial evidence, then the courts must be vigilant while examining the facts proving the circumstantial evidence i.e., it must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should be free from doubts, improbabilities and inconsistencies. Reversing the concurrent findings of the...
Appellate Court Should Give Benefit Of Doubt To Accused If A View Different From Trial Court's View Is Possible : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has observed that an appellate court should give the benefit of doubt to the accused persons if the evidence on record indicates the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that a plausible view, different from the one expressed by the courts below can be taken.Reversing the concurrent findings of guilt entered by the trial court...
Insurance Policy Effective From Date Of Issuance, Not From Date Of Proposal Or Date Of Issuance Of Receipt: Supreme Court
In the context of insurance protection, the Supreme Court held that the policy issuance date would be the relevant date for all purposes.The issue before the Court was what would be the date from which the policy becomes effective; whether it would be the date on which the policy is issued or the date of the commencement mentioned in the policy, or it would be the date of the issuance of...
No Case Of Rape By False promise Of Marriage When Marriage Was Solemnised Ultimately: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court (on January 03), while quashing a criminal case against the accused-appellant for raping a 25-year-old woman on the pretext of marriage, held that there was a consensual relationship that culminated into marriage. Thus, the Court did not find any basis for the allegation that the physical relationship was due to the false promise of marriage as, ultimately, the marriage...
Tenant Can't Claim Adverse Possession Against Landlord; Tenancy Is Permissive Possession : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that tenants cannot claim claim adverse possession against their landlords, since their possession is permissive in nature.A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal was deciding an appeal filed by a plaintiff challenging a judgment of the Allahabad High Court which dismissed the suit for ownership/possession as time-barred.The plaintiff claimed...
S.138 NI Act : Supreme Court Slams Accused In Cheque Bounce Case For Not Honouring Undertaking To Pay; Imposes Rs 5 Lakhs Cost
The Supreme Court (on January 03) took a strong stand while affirming the suspension of the accused/ present appellant's sentence, who was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.The Court highlighted that the complainant has been litigating since 2007, i.e., for almost 16 years, but has not been able to receive its due amount. This was irrespective of an...
Preventive Detention | When Detenu Receives Grounds Of Detention In Language Known To Him, No Need For Oral Information Again : Supreme Court
While dismissing a challenge to detention on the ground that the detenu/appellant was not informed by authorities of his rights, the Supreme Court observed that if a detenu receives the grounds of detention in a language known to him and the same contain a clear statement over his right to make representation, there is no need for informing him verbally again. Speaking of Article...
Arbitral Awards Cannot Be Modified Under Sections 34 & 37 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act : Supreme Court
While deciding on a plea whether there is a scope of interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Supreme Court has reiterated the settled position of law that any attempt to “modify an award” while adjudicating Sections 34 and 37 petitions is not permissible under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.The Division Bench...