Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index [January 1 to 7]

Adverse Possession

Tenants cannot claim adverse possession against their landlords since their possession is permissive in nature. (Para 9.4) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 17

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - An award could be said to be against the public policy of India in, inter alia, the following circumstances: 1. When an award is, on its face, in patent violation of a statutory provision 2. When the arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal has failed to adopt a judicial approach in deciding the dispute. 3. When an award is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. When an award is unreasonable or perverse. 5. When an award is patently illegal, which would include an award in patent contravention of any substantive law of India or in patent breach of the 1996 Act. 6. When an award is contrary to the interest of India, or against justice or morality, in the sense that it shocks the conscience of the Court. (Para 27) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 14

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Sections 34 and 37 - Modification of Arbitral Award not allowed under Section 34. Court could have at best set aside the award and could not modify the same. (Para 32.8) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 14

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Statement recorded u/s. 313 CrPC cannot form the sole basis of conviction. Mere omission to take a specific plea by accused when examined u/s 313 CrPC, is not enough to denude him of his right if the same can be made out otherwise. (Para 33) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 13

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 357(1) - A victim of a crime cannot be treated merely as a prosecution witness. Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. empowers the court to order that the fine amount recovered be given to any person as compensation who has suffered any loss or injury caused due to that offence. There may be times when the situation may demand that a substantive amount of compensation be paid to the victim and the convict may not be financially that strong to bear that burden. For such situations, Section 357A was therefore introduced in Criminal Procedure Code for this reason, where compensation to the victims may be paid out of State funds, as the State had the responsibility to protect the victim against the offence that had been committed against the victim of the crime. (Para 19) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 7

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19783; Section 161 - If the PWs had failed to mention in their statements about the involvement of an accused, their subsequent statement before court during trial regarding involvement of that particular accused cannot be relied upon. Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation. The evidence of that witness regarding the said improved fact is of no significance. (Para 26) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 13

Constitution of India, 1950

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 229 - Officers and servants and the expenses of High Courts - Article 229 (2) pertains only to the service conditions of 'officers and servants' of the High Courts and does not include Judges of the High Court (both sitting and retired judges). The Chief Justice does not have the power, under Article 229, to make rules pertaining to the post-retiral benefits payable to former Chief Justices and judges of the High Court. Therefore, the Rules proposed by the Chief Justice, in the present case, do not fall within the competence of the Chief Justice under Article 229. (Para 25) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 229 (2) - The High Court did not have the power to direct the State Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice pertaining to post-retiral benefits for former Judges of the High Court. The Chief Justice did not have the competence to frame the rules under Article 229 of the Constitution. Further, the High Court, acting on the judicial side, does not have the power to direct the Government to frame rules proposed by it on the administrative side. (Para 24 – 30) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - 'Civil Contempt' and 'Criminal Contempt' - The Act makes a clear distinction between two types of contempt. 'Wilful disobedience' of a judgement, decree, direction, order, writ, or process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court amounts to 'civil contempt'. On the other hand, the threshold for 'criminal contempt' is higher and more stringent. It involves 'scandalising' or 'lowering' the authority of any court; prejudicing or interfering with judicial proceedings; or interfering with or obstructing the administration of justice. (Para 32) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Criminal Contempt cannot be initiated against a party for availing legal remedies and raising a legal challenge to an order. (Para 31 – 37) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The power of the High Courts to initiate contempt proceedings cannot be used to obstruct parties or their counsel from availing legal remedies. (Para 34) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on personal appearance of government officials in court proceedings framed by this Court in Para 45 of this Judgement must be followed by all courts across the country. All High Courts shall consider framing rules to regulate the appearance of Government officials in court, after taking into account the SOP. (Para 45) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Section 14 - Summoning of Government Officials before Courts - The use of the power to summon the presence of government officials must not be used as a tool to pressurize the government, particularly, under the threat of contempt. (Para 38) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Section 14 - Summoning of Government Officials before Courts - Law officers act as the primary point of contact between the courts and the government. Courts must refrain from summoning officials as the first resort. While the actions and decisions of public officials are subject to judicial review, summoning officials frequently without just cause is not permissible. Exercising restraint, avoiding unwarranted remarks against public officials, and recognizing the functions of law officers contribute to a fair and balanced judicial system. Courts across the country must foster an environment of respect and professionalism, duly considering the constitutional or professional mandate of law officers, who represent the government and its officials before the courts. Constantly summoning officials of the government instead of relying on the law officers representing the government, runs contrary to the scheme envisaged by the Constitution. (Para 41 & 44) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Criminal Trial

Injured Witness - The importance of an injured witness in a criminal trial cannot be overstated. Unless there are compelling circumstances or evidence placed by the defence to doubt such a witness, this has to be accepted as extremely valuable evidence in a criminal Trial. (Para 11) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 7

Doctrine of Merger

The doctrine of merger is a common law doctrine that is rooted in the idea of maintenance of the decorum of hierarchy of courts and tribunals. The doctrine is based on the simple reasoning that there cannot be, at the same time, more than one operative order governing the same subject matter. (Para 17) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 12

Evidence Act, 1872 

Evidence Act, 1872 - As soon as an accused or suspected person comes into the hands of a police officer, he is no longer at liberty and is under a check, and is, therefore, in “custody” within the meaning of Sections 25 to 27 of the Evidence Act. (Para 28) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 8

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Four conditions to invoke Section 27 - First condition imposed and necessary for bringing the section into operation is the discovery of a fact which should be a relevant fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offence. The second is that the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. A fact already known to the police will fall foul and not meet this condition. The third is that at the time of receipt of the information, the accused must be in police custody. Lastly, it is only so much of information which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered resulting in recovery of a physical object which is admissible. Rest of the information is to be excluded. The word 'distinctly' is used to limit and define the scope of the information and means 'directly', 'indubitably', 'strictly' or 'unmistakably'. Only that part of the information which is clear, immediate and a proximate cause of discovery is admissible. (Para 22) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 8

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - The expression “custody” under Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not mean formal custody. It includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even surveillance by the police. Even if the accused was not formally arrested at the time of giving information, the accused ought to be deemed, for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police. (Para 25) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 8

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 of the Evidence Act is frequently used by the police, and the courts must be vigilant about its application to ensure credibility of evidence, as the provision is vulnerable to abuse. However, this does not mean that in every case invocation of Section 27 of the Evidence Act must be seen with suspicion and is to be discarded as perfunctory and unworthy of credence. (Para 24) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 8

Evidence Law

illiterate witness - Appreciation of evidence led by such a witness has to be treated differently from other kinds of witnesses. It cannot be subjected to a hyper-technical inquiry and much emphasis ought not to be given to imprecise details that may have been brought out in the evidence. The evidence of a rustic/illiterate witness must not be disregarded if there were to be certain minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the deposition. (Para 27) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 13

illiterate witness - However, the testimony of an illiterate witness suffers not merely from technical imperfections, there are glaring omissions and improvements that have been brought out in the cross-examination, which cannot be attributed to the illiteracy of the individual deposition. If there were minor contradictions and inconsistencies, that could have been ignored since the recollection of exact details as to location and time can be attributed to the lack of literacy. (Para 28) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 13

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 - Statutory set off or insolvency set off is not applicable to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings. Regulation 29 of the Liquidation Regulations which provides for mutual dealing and set off, does not apply to Part II of the IBC which deals with CIRP. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 11

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 - The principle of Set-off recognizes the right of a debtor to adjust the smaller claim owed to him against the larger claim payable to his creditor. There are two exceptions to the application of statutory or insolvency set off to CIRP proceedings. First being, when a party is entitled to contractual set-off, on the date which is effective before or on the date of commencement of CIRP. Secondly, in cases of 'equitable set-off' when the claim and counter claim in the form of set-off are linked and connected on account of one or more transactions that can be treated as one. (Para 3 – 10) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 11

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 30(2)(b) does not support the plea of insolvency set-off, since the provision deals with the amounts to be paid to creditors and not amount payable by creditors to Corporate Debtor. Further, the specific legislative mandate given in Chapter II Part II of IBC, the provisions of IBC relating to CIRP do not recognize the principle of insolvency set-off. The Court would not extend it by implication, when the legislature has not accepted applicability of mutual set-off at the initial stage, that is, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process stage. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 11

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 53(1) is referred to in Section 30(2)(b)(ii) with the purpose and objective that the dissenting financial creditor is not denied the amount which is payable to it being equal to the amount of value of the security interest. The entire Section 53 is not made applicable. (Para 43) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 6

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The IBC is an Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner for maximisation of value of assets of such persons, to promote entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balance the interest of stakeholders, etc. The IBC codifies the law of insolvency and bankruptcy. The IBC is a complete code in itself, except where it refers and permits application of the provisions of other enactments. (Para 27) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 11

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 30(2)(b)(ii) - Whether a dissenting financial creditor is to be paid the minimum value of its security interest? – The issue referred to a Larger Bench. (Para 49) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 6

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 53 - The dissenting financial creditor cannot object to the resolution plan, but can object to the distribution of the proceeds under the resolution plan, when the proceeds are less than what the dissenting financial creditor would be entitled to in terms of Section 53(1) if the corporate debtor had gone into liquidation. This is the statutory option or choice given by law to the dissenting financial creditor. The option/choice should be respected. (Para 45) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 6

Insurance Policy

Date of issuance of the policy would be the relevant date for all the purposes and not the date of proposal or the date of issuance of the receipt. (Para 15) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 19

The date of proposal cannot be treated to be the date of policy until and unless on the date of proposal, initial deposit as also the issuance of policy happens on the same date where, for example, the premium is paid in cash then, immediately, the policy could be issued. Merely, tendering a cheque may not be enough as till such time the cheque is encashed, the contract would not become effective. The drawer of the cheque may, at any time, after issuing, stop its payment or there may not be enough funds in the account of which the cheque is issued and there could be many other reasons for which the cheque could be returned without being encashed. (Para 11) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 19

Investigation

The power to transfer an investigation is exercised in extraordinary situations. (Para 32) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Judicial Discipline

In the current case, the High Court's judgment from the initial round dated 30.03.1990, noted that the disputed property included 8 cents of land, not just the building structure on it. As per the Doctrine of Merger, the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court from the first round of litigation are absorbed into the High Court's judgment dated 30.03.1990. This 1990 judgment should be regarded as the conclusive and binding order from the initial litigation. Following the principles of judicial discipline, lower or subordinate Courts do not have the authority to contradict the decisions of higher Courts. In the current case, the Trial Court and the High Court, in the second round of litigation, violated this judicial discipline by adopting a position contrary to the High Court's final judgment dated 30.03.1990, from the first round of litigation. (Para 20) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 12

The rule of 'Judicial Discipline and Propriety' and the Doctrine of precedents has a merit of promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions providing assurance to individuals as to the consequences of their actions. The Constitution benches of this court have time and again reiterated the rules emerging from Judicial Discipline. Accordingly, when a decision of a coordinate Bench of same High court is brought to the notice of the bench, it is to be respected and is binding subject to right of the bench of such co-equal quorum to take a different view and refer the question to a larger bench. It is the only course of action open to a bench of co-equal strength, when faced with the previous decision taken by a bench with same strength. (Para 1) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 12

Judicial Review

Courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitability, and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to expert regulatory agencies on matters of policy which they are entitled to formulate. (Para 17 (a)) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 2

The scope of judicial review, when examining a policy framed by a specialized regulator, is to scrutinize whether it (i) violates the fundamental rights of the citizens; (ii) is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution; (iii) is opposed to a statutory provision; or (iv) is manifestly arbitrary. The legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review, (Para 17 (b)) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 2

When technical questions arise – particularly in the domain of economic or financial matters – and experts in the field have expressed their views and such views are duly considered by the statutory regulator, the resultant policies or subordinate legislative framework ought not to be interfered with. (Para 17 (c)) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Limitation

The bar of limitation cannot be obviated or circumvented by taking recourse of proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution when a statutory appeal is available. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 5

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Accused persons filed an undertaking based on a settlement. Since the amount agreed was not paid, the interim protection, granted via suspension of sentence and bail, was withdrawn. Appeal dismissed with cost of Rs 5 lakhs and directed to surrender within a period of four weeks. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 16

Penal Code, 1860

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w 34 – Murder - Benefit of Doubt - 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. (Para 17) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 20

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w. 34 – Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - 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. (Para 29 & 30) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 21

Penal Code, 1860; Section 364A - Kidnapping for Ransom - The necessary ingredients which the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, before the Court are not only an act of kidnapping or abduction but thereafter the demand of ransom, coupled with the threat to life of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted, must be there. (Para 14) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 7

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 376 and 506 – Rape - False promise of marriage - The relationship between the accused and the victim was a consensual relationship which culminated in the marriage. In the legal notice issued on behalf of the victim, the factum of marriage was admitted and the victim has been described as the wife of the accused. Therefore, on the face of it, the allegation that the physical relationship was maintained due to false promise of marriage is without basis, as their relationship led to the solemnization of marriage. Therefore, this is a case where the allegations made in the FIR were such that on the basis of the statements, no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Hence, a case was made out for quashing the FIR. (Para 9) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 18

Preventive Detention

In a case where a detenue receives the ground of detention in the language known to him which contains a clear statement over his right to make a representation, there is no need for informing verbally once again. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 15

Public Service

Selection Process - Whether the error committed in the application form, which was uploaded is a material error or a trivial error and was the State justified in declaring the candidate as having failed on account of the same? Held, the candidate has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully. The error in the application is trivial which did not play any part in the selection process. The State was not justified in making a mountain out of this molehill. (Para 19) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Registration Act, 1908

Registration Act, 1908; Section 47 - A registered sale deed operates from the date of execution when the entire consideration is paid. Changes made in a sale deed by one party unilaterally, after the registration of the deed and without the knowledge of the other party, have to be ignored. (Para 11) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 4

SEBI

SEBI's wide powers, coupled with its expertise and robust information gathering mechanism, lend a high level of credibility to its decisions as a regulatory, adjudicatory and prosecuting agency. (Para 17 (d)) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 2

The Court must be mindful of the public interest that guides the functioning of SEBI and refrain from substituting its own wisdom in place of the actions of SEBI. (Para 17 (e)) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 2

The power of the Court to enter the regulatory domain of SEBI in framing delegated legislation is limited. The court must refrain from substituting its own wisdom over the regulatory policies of SEBI. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy framed by a specialized regulator is to scrutinise whether it violates fundamental rights, any provision of the Constitution, any statutory provision or is manifestly arbitrary. (Para 67 (a)) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Service Law

Stoppage of Salary - While the State sanctioned two vacancies, the school went ahead and recruited three. The State has no proof of commission of any malpractice by the teachers. The State approved their appointments, and the approval order till date has not been cancelled. The appointments have not been terminated. No action has been taken against the school and the school continues to receive the aid. Held, the teachers were not at fault and the State could not have abruptly stopped their salaries. (Para 22 & 34) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 9

Suit for Possession

Identification of Property - Suit for possession has to describe the property in question with accuracy and all details of measurement and boundaries. This was completely lacking. A suit for possession with respect to such a property would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of its identifiability. (Para 23) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 12

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 43D(2)(b) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2) - Default Bail - Terrorism cases should not to be taken lightly. (Para 13) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 10