Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index (June 6 - June 14, 2022)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XX Rule 18 - Partition Suits - 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 courts should not adjourn the matter sine die. (Para 32-34) Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 549

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XX Rule 18 - Partition Suits - The distinction between preliminary and final decree - A preliminary decree merely declares the rights and shares of the parties and leaves room for some further inquiry to be held and conducted pursuant to the directions made in preliminary decree and after the inquiry having been conducted and rights of the parties being finally determined, a final decree incorporating such determination needs to be drawn up. (Para 29-30) Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 549

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XX Rule 18 - Partition Suits - Final decree proceedings can be initiated at any point of time. There is no limitation for initiating final decree proceedings. Either of the parties to the suit can move an application for preparation of a final decree and, any of the defendants can also move application for the purpose. By mere passing of a preliminary decree the suit is not disposed of. Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 549

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 482 - While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court should not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry into whether there is reliable evidence or not. The jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only when such exercise is justified by the specific provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. itself. Jagmohan Singh v. Vimlesh Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 546

Constitution of India; Article 226 - When a remedy under the statute is available filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to be discouraged by the High Court. Kotak Mahindra Bank v Dilip Bhosale, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 545

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Appeal against NCDRC order refusing to condone delay of 67 days in filing the revision- Allowed and delay condoned- Delay in filing the revision was not huge, that should not have been condoned- The question of limitation is not to be examined with a view to decline the condonation, but to do substantial justice. Manager, Indusind Bank v. Sanjay Ghosh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 550

Criminal Trial - Motive - Only because the motive is established, the conviction cannot be sustained. (Para 23) Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 543

Criminal Trial - The same treatment is required to be given to the defence witness(es) as is to be given to the prosecution witness(es). (Para 20) Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 543

Criminal Trial - Witnesses are of three types, viz., (a) wholly reliable; (b) wholly unreliable; and (c) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. When the witness is "wholly reliable", the Court should not have any difficulty inasmuch as conviction or acquittal could be based on the testimony of such single witness. Equally, if the Court finds that the witness is "wholly unreliable", neither conviction nor acquittal can be based on the testimony of such a witness. It is only in the third category of witnesses that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 543

Environmental Law - Sustainable Development - Need to strike a balance between the development and the environmental issues - Though development is necessary for economical progress of the nation, it is equally necessary to safeguard the environment so as to preserve pollution free environment and ecology for the future generations to come. (Para 16) State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raghu Rama Krishna Raju Kanumuru (MP), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 544

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 114 - If a man and a woman live together for long years as husband and wife, there would be a presumption in favour of wedlock. Although, the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seek to deprive the relationship of legal origin to prove that no marriage took place. (Para 15 -20) Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 549

NEET-PG 2021 - The decision of the Union Government and the Medical Counselling Committee not to have Special Stray Round of counselling is in the interest of Medical Education and Public Health. There cannot be any compromise with the merits and/or quality of Medical Education, which may ultimately affect the Public Health. (Para 10.4) Astha Goel v. Medical Counselling Committee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 548

Penal Code, 1860; Section 96-106 - Right of Private Defence - Accused need not prove the existence of private self-defence beyond reasonable doubt and that it would suffice if he could show that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea, just as in a civil case. (Para 12) Ex.Ct. Mahadev v. Director General, Border Security Force, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 551

Penal Code, 1860; Section 96-106 - Right of Private Defence - The right of private defence is necessarily a defensive right which is available only when the circumstances so justify it. The circumstances are those that have been elaborated in the IPC. Such a right would be available to the accused when he or his property is faced with a danger and there is little scope of the State machinery coming to his aid. At the same time, the courts must keep in mind that the extent of the violence used by the accused for defending himself or his property should be in proportion to the injury apprehended. This is not to say that a step to step analysis of the injury that was apprehended and the violence used is required to be undertaken by the Court; nor is it feasible to prescribe specific parameters for determining whether the steps taken by the accused to invoke private self-defence and the extent of force used by him was proper or not. The Court's assessment would be guided by several circumstances including the position on the spot at the relevant point in time, the nature of apprehension in the mind of the accused, the kind of situation that the accused was seeking to ward off, the confusion created by the situation that had suddenly cropped up resulting the in knee jerk reaction of the accused, the nature of the overt acts of the party who had threatened the accused resulting in his resorting to immediate action, etc. The underlying factor should be that such an act of private defence should have been done in good faith and without malice. Ex.Ct. Mahadev v. Director General, Border Security Force, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 551

Tribunals - National Green Tribunal - Tribunals would be subordinate to the High Court insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned- The conflicting orders passed by the NGT and the High Court would lead to an anomalous situation, where the authorities would be faced with a difficulty as to which order they are required to follow. There can be no manner of doubt that in such a situation, it is the orders passed by the constitutional courts, which would be prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals. (Para 11) State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raghu Rama Krishna Raju Kanumuru (MP), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 544

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Astha Goel v. Medical Counselling Committee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 548
2. Ex.Ct. Mahadev v. Director General, Border Security Force, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 551
3. Jagmohan Singh v. Vimlesh Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 546
4. Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 549
5. Kotak Mahindra Bank v Dilip Bhosale, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 545
6. Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 543
7. Manager, Indusind Bank v. Sanjay Ghosh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 550
8. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raghu Rama Krishna Raju Kanumuru (MP), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 544
9. Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 547