Supreme Court Weekly Roundup [July 1-9]

Case title- Teesta Atul Setalvad vs State of Gujarat

Citation-SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 25725/2023

The Supreme Court at a special sitting on Saturday night granted interim relief to social activist Teesta Setalvad in connection with an FIR lodged against her by Gujarat police for allegedly fabricating documents to implicate high government functionaries in relation to the 2002 Gujarat riots. While staying the Gujarat High Court's order which dismissed her bail application and directed Setalvad to immediately surrender, the 3-judge bench took note of the earlier order passed by the Supreme Court in September 2022 which granted her interim bail.

The bench noted that “while passing the September 2022 order, the earlier bench led by the then CJI UU Lalit had taken into account the fact that the petitioner was a lady who was entitled to special protection under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

Taking this factor into consideration, the bench opined, “the single bench of the High Court ought to have granted some protection to the petitioner so that she can challenge the order before the Supreme Court.”

Supreme Court Issues Notice In Appeal By AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan Against Delhi Police’s History Sheet Declaring Him A 'Bad Character'

Case Title: Amanatullah Khan Versus The Commissioner Of Police, Delhi And Ors.

Citation: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).5719/2023

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Delhi Commissioner of Police in an appeal by Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan challenging the opening of a history sheet against him by Delhi Police in March last year declaring him as a 'bad character'.

In the petition, Khan pointed out that he is neither a convict nor a proclaimed offender. However, as an elected representative and a mass leader who takes up the causes of the down-trodden, the petitioner has had run-ins with the Delhi police, the petition adds.

Plea On 'Increasing Suicides Among Husbands' : Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking 'National Commission For Men'

Case title: Mahesh Kumar Tiwari V. Union Of India

Citation: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 10740/2023

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation filed seeking guidelines to deal with increasing suicide rates among married men subjected to domestic violence and the setting up of a ‘National Commission for Men’ for dealing with such grievances.

“If you expect us to hold that these husbands have committed suicide because of harassment by the wife, you are sadly mistaken",the Court told the Petitioner.

The Court also stated “In cases where somebody is actually harassed by the wife, or it leads to committing suicide, whosoever are the victims of the crime, his family members can file a case, they can prosecute the person. The law takes care of this, there are adequate provisions for this.”

After Allowing Workmen To Work For 2 Decades, Management Cannot Challenge Award' : Supreme Court Allows Appeal Of FCI Workers

Case title : FCI Executive Staff Union v. Employer, Management of FCI,

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 491

The bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Kumar held that having allowed the workmen to render services for 2 decades to their own benefit, the management now cannot claim a right to challenge the award. The workmen altered their position and remained with FCI due to their absorption in services. Now, having put them in such a position, the management cannot turn back the clock.

“Having allowed the workmen to put in regular service to its own benefit for over two decades, the management can no longer claim an indefeasible right to continue with and canvass its challenge to the Award, merely because it made its compliance with the Award conditional long ago. In light of their absorption in regular service, these workmen, who may have otherwise opted for employment opportunities elsewhere, altered their position and remained with the FCI. Having placed them in that position, it is no longer open to the management of FCI to seek to turn back the clock", the Court observed.

'Downright Bizarre': Supreme Court On High Court Judgment Resulting In Different Jail Terms For Convicts In Same Offence

Case Title: Uggarsain v. The State of Haryana & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 492

The Court reminded that the principle of proportionality should guide the sentencing process. Various precedents, which hold that the Court has the duty to impose the "appropriate sentence" which is proportionate to the crime, were cited in the judgment.

“The sentencing in this case, to put it mildly, is inexplicable (if not downright bizarre). On the one hand, Krishan underwent sentence for 9 years 4 months- at the other end of the spectrum, Sunder s/o Rajpal underwent only 11 months. No rationale appears from the reasoning of the High Court for this wide disparity. It is not as though the court took note of the role ascribed to the accused (such a course was not possible, given the nature of the evidence)", the Supreme Court Court observed.

Order 41 Rule 22 CPC - Cross Objections Have All Trappings Of Regular Appeal ; Must Be Considered In Full : Supreme Court

Case title: Dheeraj Singh vs Greater Noida Industrial Develpment Authority

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 493

The Apex Court bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Bela M. Trivedi observed that the High Court was under an obligation to consider the cross objections filed by the appellants

“In cases where the decree passed by the court of first instance is in favor of the respondent in whole, in such circumstance, no remedy exists in favour of the respondent to appeal such decree, since no right to appeal can be vested onto a party, which is successful. 14. However, in cases where the decree given by the court of first instance, is partly in favour of the respondent, but is also partly against the respondent, two remedies within Order 41 Rule 22 remain with the respondent, which are (i) To file their cross objections and, (ii) To support the decree in whole. A third remedy in law also exists, which is the right to file a cross appeal, which will also be discussed in brief.”

The court also observed “While cross objections, unlike a regular appeal, are filed within an already existing appeal, however, as per Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC, cross objections have all the trappings of a regular appeal, and therefore, must be considered in full by the court adjudicating upon the same.”

Supreme Court Affirms Delhi HC's Order Dismissing Judicial Officer For Accepting Favour Of 'Sponsored' Foreign Travel From 'Stranger

Case Title: Naveen Arora V. High Court Of Delhi And Anr

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the order of the Delhi High Court that upheld a judicial officer's dismissal from service for allegedly accepting a "favour" from a "stranger". The allegation against the judicial officer was that a “stranger” had “sponsored” his family's foreign travel in 2016.

“The post of a Judicial Officer is a coveted one with responsibilities attached to it. A Judicial Officer is expected to be unceremonious and not take things in an easy manner. A Judicial Officer is expected to be more prudent. At the end of the day 'A Judge is a Judge who is always open to be judged',” the High Court had said.

Sec 180 IPC Can't Be Applied Against A Person For Refusing To Sign Statement Given To Police : Supreme Court Castigates DySP

Case title: Supriya Jain vs State of Haryana

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 494

The Supreme Court has held that Section 180 of Indian Penal Code is not attracted if a person refuses to sign the statement made to a police officer in course of an investigation.

"In terms of section 162, Cr. PC, no statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr. PC, which is reduced to writing, is required to be signed by the person making the statement and that section 180 of the IPC gets attracted only if a statement is refused to be signed which a public servant is legally competent to require the person making the statement to sign.", the bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta observed.

Don't Grant Bail In Private Cheating Cases Merely Because Accused Undertook To Deposit Money: Supreme Court Reminds Courts

Case Title- Ramesh Kumar v State NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496

The Supreme Court has disapproved of the practise followed by the Courts to direct deposit of amount as a condition for granting anticipatory bail for the offense of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

“It is considered appropriate to remind the high courts and the sessions courts not to be unduly swayed by submissions advanced by counsel on behalf of the accused in the nature of undertakings to keep in deposit/repay any amount while seeking bail under section 438 of the Cr. PC. and incorporating a condition in that behalf for deposit/payment as a pre-requisite for grant of bail", the Court observed.

The court noted “In the context of grant of bail, all such conditions that would facilitate the appearance of the accused before the investigating officer/court, unhindered completion of investigation/trial and safety of the community assume relevance. However, inclusion of a condition for payment of money by the applicant for bail tends to create an impression that bail could be secured by depositing money alleged to have been cheated. That is really not the purpose and intent of the provisions for grant of bail".

Condition Of Right To Repurchase In Sale Deed Not Personal Unless Expressly Stated; Can Be Assigned: Supreme Court

Case title: Indira Devi vs Veena Gupta

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 495

The Supreme Court held that the condition of right to repurchase in sale deed will not be personal to the vendor unless the terms in the documents specifically state so.

“Such a right can always be assigned and the contract containing such condition shall be enforceable, the bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal observed.

The court observed: "The condition of right to repurchase in sale deed will not be personal to the vendor unless the terms in the documents specifically state so. Such a right can always be assigned and the contract containing such condition shall be enforceable. The only exception being that such a right should not be personal in nature. The assignment of obligations in a document is not possible without the consent of the other party. No implied prohibition of transfer or assignment can be inferred in a document. The benefit of contract is assignable in cases where it does not make any difference to the person on whom the obligations lies, to which of two persons he is to discharge."

CTO For Enhanced Production Capacity Issued After SC’s Order Fixing Total Import Limit; Importer Not Entitled To Proportionate Increase In Import Quota: Supreme Court

Case Title: M/s Sanvira Industries vs Rain CII Carbon (Vizag) Ltd. & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 497

The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court who had set aside the increased quota allocated for import of raw pet-coke (RPC) based on the “Consent to Operate” (CTO) issued to the importer recording an enhanced production capacity, after the top court’s order dated 09.10.2018.

The bench remarked that the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) had issued the CTO for the additional quantity after the Supreme Court’s order dated 09.10.2018, where it had fixed the outer limit for import of RPC based on the total production capacity of the entities existing on the said date. The court said that since the appellant/ importer’s additional capacity was created after the Supreme Court’s order dated 09.10.2018, the same could not have been considered by the court.

Motor Accident Claim | Physical Disability Must Be Assessed With Reference To Victim's Nature Of Work: Supreme Court

Case Title: Sarnam Singh V. Shriram General Insurance

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498

The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that in cases of motor accident claims, the physical disability caused due to an accident must be judged with reference to the nature of the work being done by the injured for assessing award of compensation.

A division bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed that “..any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of the work being performed by the person who suffered disability. The same injury suffered by two different persons may affect them in different ways. Loss of leg by a farmer or a rickshaw puller may be end of the road as far as his earning capacity is concerned. Whereas, in case of the persons engaged in some kind of desk work in office, loss of leg may have lesser effect.”

Pension Is Service Matter, Approach Armed Forces Tribunal': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Revised Pension For Ex-Servicemen

Case title- Voice of Ex servicemen society v. Union of India, 2023

The Supreme court bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M. Trivedi dismissed a petition by the an organisation of ex- servicemen society seeking a direction for payment of revised pension for those who retired before 1.1.2016. The court held that since pension is covered within Service matters, they should approach the Armed Forces Tribunal which must decide the issue expeditiously.

The court ordered that retired officers would be permitted to file the matter in a representative capacity but no federations would be allowed.

Taxation Classification | Specific Provision Will Prevail Over General Provision In A Statute : Supreme Court In ‘Maize Starch’ Case

Case Title: Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited vs The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 499

The Supreme Court has ruled that if in any statutory rule or statutory notification, two expressions are used - one in general words and the other in special terms – then, as per the rules of interpretation, the special terms are not meant to be included in the general expression. Alternatively, the court said that where a statute contains both a general provision as well as a specific provision, the latter must prevail.

The bench made the observation while dealing with the issue regarding the classification and taxability of ‘maize starch’ under the TNGST Act for the assessment year, i.e., 1998-99.

Continuing Trend Of Projecting Purely Civil Financial Dispute As Criminal Matter 'Extremely Disturbing': Supreme Court

Case title: Gagan Baba vs Samit Mandal

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 500

The Supreme Court observed that the continuing trend of projecting a purely civil financial dispute as a criminal matter is extremely disturbing.

In this context, the court observed: "In “Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.”, (2015) 6 SCC 287, this Court had noticed that taking recourse to criminal law by bypassing statutory remedies to bring the financial institutions on their knees, has the inherent potentiality to affect the marrows of economic health of the nation. Further, in “Vijay Kumar Ghai & Anr. Vs. State of W.B. & Ors.” (2022) 7 SCC 124, this Court quashed the criminal proceedings being abuse of law in a purely civil financial dispute and being a case of forum shopping. Despite these judgments, continuation of such trend appears extremely disturbing."

Collegium Recommends Telangana, Kerala HC Chief Justices Ujjal Bhuyan & SV Bhatti For Supreme Court Judgeship

The Supreme Court collegium has recommended the names of Telangana High Court Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Kerala High Court Chief Justice S Venkatanarayana Bhatti as judges of the top court, in order to fill two of three vacancies left behind by now retired Judges - Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi and V Ramasubramanian.

Trial Courts Should Make Proper Preliminary Examination Of Child Witnesses Before Recording Their Evidence: Supreme Court

Case title: Pradeep vs State of Haryana

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 501

The Supreme Court observed that the trial courts have to make proper preliminary examination of minor witnesses before recording their evidence.

This is to ascertain whether the minor is capable of understanding the questions put to him and is able to give rational answers.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal observed that as per the requirement of Section 118 of the Evidence Act, the Trial Judge was under a duty to record his opinion that the child is able to understand the questions put to him and that he is able to give rational answers to the questions put to him. The Trial Judge must also record his opinion that the child witness understands the duty of speaking the truth and state why he is of the opinion that the child understands the duty of speaking the truth, the court added.

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Appointment Of Justice Devendra Upadhyaya As Chief Justice Of Bombay High Court

Supreme Court Collegium comprising of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna has recommended the appointment of Justice Devendra Upadhyaya of the Allahabad High Court as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.

The collegium noted that Justice Upadhyaya has acquired eleven years of experience in dispensing justice, and his appointment will provide representation of the Allahabad HC among the Chief Justices.

POCSO Act | Penetrative Sexual Assault Against Child Below 12 Years Punishable As 'Aggravated Sexual Assault' : Supreme Court

Case title: State of U P vs Sonu Kushwaha

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 502

The Supreme Court observed that "The POCSO Act was enacted to provide more stringent punishments for the offences of child abuse of various kinds and that is why minimum punishments have been prescribed in Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act for various categories of sexual assaults on children. Hence, Section 6, on its plain language, leaves no discretion to the Court and there is no option but to impose the minimum sentence as done by the Trial Court. When a penal provision uses the phraseology “shall not be less than….”, the Courts cannot do offence to the Section and impose a lesser sentence. The Courts are powerless to do that unless there is a specific statutory provision enabling the Court to impose a lesser. However, we find no such provision in the POCSO Act.

1996 Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case: Supreme Court Sentences Four Convicts To Life Imprisonment Without Remission

Case title: Mohd Naushad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1269 of 2013

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday upheld the conviction of two accused in the 1996 Lajpat Nagar bomb blast case and sentenced them to life imprisonment without remission. The convictions of two other former death row convicts who were discharged by the Delhi High Court were also restored and they were awarded life sentences extending to the rest of their natural life

The bench observed: “Even though it is the rarest of the rare case, nonetheless considering several factors, we impose a sentence of imprisonment without remission extending to natural life. The accused, if on bail, are directed to immediately surrender. A5 (Mirza Nissar Hussain) and A6 (Mohammed Ali Bhatt) are directed to surrender.”

To Claim Backwages, Initial Burden Is On Employee To Establish That He Was Not Gainfully Employed During Period Of Dismissal : Supreme Court

Case Title: Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 503

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) to pay Rs. 3 lakhs in lieu of back wages to a conductor who was terminated from service and later on reinstated by the order of the Labour Court on the ground that the appellant (conductor) discharged the burden by establishing that he was unemployed for thirteen months after termination.

The division bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed:

“It is not possible to accept that for the entire period of thirteen years, the appellant had no source of income. However, the respondent has not come out with the case that from the date of his removal from service, the appellant had another source of income. Thus, the appellant discharged the burden on him by establishing that he was unemployed at least till August 1997.”

After Withdrawing SLP With Liberty To File Review In HC, Is Subsequent SLP Against HC Order Maintainable? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Case title: S. Narahari And Ors. v. S.R. Kumar And Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 504

The Apex Court opined that ‘Order XLVII Rule 7 of the CPC makes it amply clear that no Special Leave Petition can be filed against an order passed in review, and as such, does not require our further consideration’. It noted that the petitioner has filed the SLP impugning the order in review as well as the original order passed by the High Court.

The Court culled out the following issue for its consideration - “whether liberty granted by this Court to approach the High Court in review, automatically places the said matter in the escalation matrix, and makes the remedy of Special Leave Petition available again

Inter-Faith Couple: Supreme Court Grants Bail To Man In Rape & Kidnapping Case After Taking Note Of Live-In Relationship

Case title: Imamudin v. State of Rajasthan, Citation:Criminal Appeal No. 1745 of 2023,

The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted bail to a man in an inter-faith relationship, who was in custody for over nine months in a case filed by the woman's parents alleging rape and kidnapping.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia decided to grant bail after noting that the couple had been in a live-in relationship since August 2022. They had also filed a joint petition for police protection and the petitioner had already been in custody for 9 months.

State Action Even In Contractual Realm Must Abide By Article 14 : Supreme Court

Case title: Madras Aluminum Co. Ltd. vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 505

The Supreme Court observed that the State action irrespective of being in the contractual realm must abide by Article 14 of the Constitution.

The fact that a dispute falls into the contractual realm does not relieve the State of its obligation to comply with the requirements of Article 14, the bench of Justices B R Gavai, Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar said.

Right Of Forest Inhabitants For Claims Against Eviction To Be Heard By Forest Officer Not Limited To Recogonized Forest Communities : Supreme Court

Case title: Hari Prakash Shukla vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 507

The Supreme Court observed that the right of forest inhabitants for claims to be heard by Forest Officer is not limited only to certain recognized forest communities.

"This right to be heard, in our opinion, must be granted to all claiming possession of the subject land, and the substantial right of possession can be granted or denied during the said hearing, by the competent authority, that is to say, the right to be heard must be enjoyed by all, and the right to possess, must be enjoyed by those who have a legitimate claim.", the bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed.

Error Which Has To Be Detected By Long Drawn Process Of Reasoning Is Not An 'Error Apparent On The Face Of Record' For Review : Supreme Court

Case title: Arun Dev Upadhyaya vs Integrated Sales Service Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 506

The Supreme Court observed that an error that is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.

An error on the face of record must be such an error which, merely looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions, the bench of Justices B R Gavai and Vikram Nath observed.

Expeditious Trial Of Terror Attack Cases Necessary: Supreme Court Says Delay In 1996 Lajpat Nagar Blast Case Compromised National Security

Case title: Mohd Naushad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 508

Highlighting how crucial it was for such cases to be decided promptly, the court observed “Expeditious trial of such cases is the need of the hour, especially when it concerns national security and the common man. Regrettably, enough vigilance was not displayed by the investigating as well as the judicial authorities. A prominent market in the heart of the capital city is attacked and we may point out that it has not been dealt with the required degree of promptitude and attention. To our great dismay, we are forced to observe that this may be due to the involvement of influential persons which is evident from the fact that out of several accused persons, only few have been put to trial. In our considered view, the matter ought to have been handled with urgency and sensitivity at all levels.”

Medical Insurance | Once Insurer Accepts That Concealment Of Disease Was Not Material, Reimbursement & Renewal Can't Be Refused : Supreme Court

Case Title: Om Prakash Ahuja V. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 509

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that once there is a valid insurance policy in favour of a person, the claim for reimbursement of the expenses incurred must be paid. It also observed that once the insurance company has accepted that concealment of a disease at the time of purchasing the policy was not material as it was not related to the disease that caused death, it cannot later refuse further claims or renewal of insurance policy on the same ground.

Attempt To Culpable Homicide | Conviction Under Section 308 IPC Not Sustainable If Accused Had No Intention Or Knowledge To Cause Death: Supreme Court

Case Title: Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5l0

The Supreme Court on Wednesday modified the conviction under Section 308 (Attempt to commit culpable homicide) imposed on a bus conductor, for allegedly ringing the bell which was a signal to the driver to start the vehicle due to which the victim fell down and sustained injuries, to conviction under Section 338 (Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) of IPC on the ground that the conductor was negligent in not performing his duties and he did not have knowledge that his act is likely to cause the death of the victim.

National Highways Authority Act - Dispute On Apportionment Of Compensation Can Only Be Determined By 'Principal Civil Court Of Original Jurisdiction': Supreme Court

Case title: Vinod Kumar vs District Magistrate Mau

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 511

The Supreme Court observed that only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction can determine the dispute arising as to the apportionment of the amount of compensation under National Highways Authority Act, 1956.

There is a fine distinction between determining the amount to be paid towards compensation and the apportionment of the amount, the bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala said.

Self-Assessment Of Assessee Not Rendered Malafide Merely Because It Was Based On A CETSTAT View Which Was Later Overturned : Supreme Court

Case title: THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS v. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6033 OF 2009

The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Ahmedabad bench of the CESTAT by holding the demand for differential excise duty raised against the assessee, M/s Reliance Industries Ltd, as time-barred.

The bench held that during the relevant period in consideration, i.e., September 2000 to March 2004, Reliance was holding a bonafide belief that it was correctly discharging its duty liability by relying on the CESTAT’s decision dated 28.7.2000 in the case of M/s IFGL Refractories Ltd, even though the same was overturned by the Supreme Court on 9.8.2005.

Magistrate's Order Under Section 14 SARFAESI Act Cannot Be Quashed By High Court U/S 482 CrPC : Supreme Court

Case title: Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs V. Ganesh Murthy

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 513

The Supreme Court on Thursday held that a High Court cannot quash an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC.

Anticipatory Bail - Personal Liberty Important, But Courts Must Also Consider Gravity Of Offence & Impact On Society: Supreme Court

Case title: Pratibha Manchanda vs State of Haryana

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 514

The Supreme Court, this Friday observed that, while dealing with anticipatory bail applications, courts must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation.

While it is extremely important to protect the personal liberty of a person, it is equally incumbent to analyze the seriousness of the offence and determine if there is a need for custodial interrogation, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and C T Ravikumar said.

Manufacturing Defect In Car : Supreme Court Directs Ford India To Pay Rs 42 lakhs To Owner Of Ford Titanium Endeavour

Case title: Ford India Pvt Ltd v. M/s Medical Elaborate Concept Ltd.

Citation: Civil Appeal no.4192­4194/2023

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed Ford India Ltd. to pay Rs. 42 lakhs as compensation to a consumer who purchased a car which had manufacturing defects. The issue related to a Ford Titanium Endeavour 3.4L owned by the consumer.