Supreme Court Says Its Judgments Must Clarify Their Binding Nature So That HCs & Trial Courts Don't Get Confused

The Supreme Court recently highlighted the need to clearly state the intent behind a judgment within the judgment itself. The Court clarified that not every judgment is meant to be a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. Therefore, the judgment needs to specify whether the decision is intended to resolve a specific dispute between the parties or to establish a precedent under Article 141.The Court added that apart from the regular disposal of the cases by exercising powers...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: January 6, 2025 To January 12, 2025

Nominal IndexCitationM/S Naresh Potteries v. M/S Aarti Industries and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 8659-2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Ors v. Government of Karnataka and Ors 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 2Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and others 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 3BN John v. State of UP & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 2184 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 4Municipal Corporation of Delhi v....

No Strict Rule That Money Claim Can't Be Decided Under Writ Jurisdiction; Non-Payment Of Admitted Dues Arbitrary : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (on January 08) reiterated that it is not a stringent rule that the High Court cannot decide a money claim under its writ jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that non-payment of admitted dues by the State authorities may be considered an arbitrary action and thus a writ petition may lie against the same. The Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan, inter-alia, placed reliance on the recent judgment of M/S Surya Constructions v. State of UP., and opined: “Moreover,...

PC Act | Whether Sanction Granted By Competent Authority Matter Of Evidence : Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Which Invoked S.482 CrPC To Quash Trial

The question whether sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) was granted by a competent authority is a matter of evidence, observed the Supreme Court, while setting aside an order of the High Court which quashed the proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.The Court also reiterated that a sanction order cannot be quashed on the ground of incompetence of the authority to grant sanction unless it is found that failure of justice has occurred...

Maintenance Proceedings Under S.125 CrPC Are Civil Proceedings Though Breach May Result In Penal Consequences: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are essentially civil in nature and should not be equated with criminal proceedings merely because they involve a penal consequence.“even if non-compliance with an order for payment of maintenance entails penal consequences, as may other decrees of a Civil Court, such proceedings would not qualify as or become criminal proceedings. Nomenclature of maintenance proceedings initiated under the Code of Criminal...

Specific Relief Act | Relinquishment Of Claims Under S.12(3) For Part Performance Can Be Made At Any Stage Of Litigation : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that while seeking a part performance of the contract under Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plea regarding the relinquishment of claims regarding the remaining part of the contract and all rights to compensation can be made at any stage of litigation,including the Appellate Stage. “we may only say that the relinquishment of claim to further performance of the remaining part of the contract and all rights to compensation can be made at any stage of...

Principles To Evaluate Circumstantial Evidence In Criminal Cases : Supreme Court Explains

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court enunciated the principles that courts must adhere to while appreciating and evaluating evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence.While dismissing the appeal against the conviction in a rape-murder case, a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Sandeep Mehta summarised the principles as follows :(i)The testimony of each prosecution and defence witness must be meticulously discussed and analysed. Each witness's...

'Prosecutrix's Testimony Doesn't Inspire Confidence' : Supreme Court Affirms Acquittal In Rape Case

The Supreme Court (on January 07), observed that in rape cases if a conviction is based on the sole evidence of a single witness, even that of the victim herself, such evidence should inspire confidence in the Court. The Court agreed that while the victim's statement is given a very high value, the Court must carefully examine the same. “Although it is absolutely true that in the case of rape, conviction can be made on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix as her evidence is in the...

Know The Law | When Can Part Performance Of Contract Be Allowed As Per Section 12(3) Specific Relief Act?

The Supreme Court ruled that part performance of the contract under Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“SRA”) cannot be claimed when the unperformed portion is substantial and non-segregable, and the plaintiff neither relinquishes claims for the unperformed part or damages nor shows readiness to perform the contract. As per Section 12(3) of the SRA, for claiming a...

Motor Accident Claim | Third Party Insurance Policy Effective From Date & Time Specified In Policy Document : Supreme Court

While dismissing an insurance company's appeal against a motor accident compensation award, the Supreme Court recently reiterated that merely alleging fraud as regards obtaining of an insurance policy is not enough. Rather, it has to be proved by the insurance company by adducing evidence. The Court further observed that policy coverage commences from the time and date specified in the policy document."The Insurance Company has not been able to prove that it had not received the money/premium...

'Right To Access Justice Not Absolute' : Supreme Court Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Litigant For Multiple Frivolous Cases

The Supreme Court recently imposed a heavy cost of Rs.1,00,000 on the petitioner, who over the span of more than 11 years filed frivolous litigants and indulged in forum shopping more than 10 times including before the High Court of Bombay and the Supreme Court.A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal while upholding the right of the litigants to access the courts as the...

Propounder Taking Prominent Part In Will's Execution & Getting Substantial Benefit Raises Suspicions, Must Be Dispelled: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that a propounder who substantially benefits from a Will and participates in its execution raises suspicion, which must be dispelled with clear evidence. The propounder is expected to testify about the proper execution, the presence of attesting witnesses, and other key details. The Court further held that under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, presenting...