Supreme Court Weekly Round Up- November 22 To November 28, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK

1. Arbitrator Cannot Modify Award On An Application Under Section 33 Arbitration Act: Supreme Court

Case name: Gyan Prakash Arya vs Titan Industries Limited

Citation: LL 2021 SC 669

The Supreme Court observed that an Arbitrator cannot modify an Arbitration award on an application filed under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Only in a case of arithmetical and/or clerical error, the award can be modified and such errors only can be corrected, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said.

In this case, the arbitrator passed an award directing a party to return to the claimant 3648.80 grams of pure gold along with interest @ 18% per annum calculating the value of gold at Rs.740 per gram from 24.07.2004 and up to the date of delivery of the quantity of gold. In the alternative, the appellant was directed to pay the market value of 3648.80 grams of pure gold along with interest @ 18% per annum calculating the value of the gold at Rs. 740 per gram from 24.07.2004 till the date of payment. Thereafter, on an application under Section 33 of the Act, the Arbitrator made certain corrections in the award.

Therefore corresponding changes was made in the alternate relief which read thus: In the alternative, the respondent shall pay to the claimant within the said period of three months the market value of 3,648.80 grams of 3 pure gold at [Rs.20,747.00 per 10 grams … value substituted] along with interest thereon at 18% per annum from 24.07.2004 and up to the date of payment.

2. Sale Deed Executed Without Payment Of Price Is Void; Has No Legal Effect: Supreme Court

Case name: Kewal Krishan vs Rajesh Kumar

Citation: LL 2021 SC 670

The Supreme Court observed that the payment of price is an essential part of a sale.

If a sale deed in respect of an immovable property is executed without payment of price and if it does not provide for the payment of price at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law, the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka said.

The court also observed that a document which is void need not be challenged by claiming a declaration as the said plea can be set up and proved even in collateral proceedings.

Referring to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the bench observed:

"Hence, a sale of an immovable property has to be for a price. The price may be payable in future. It may be partly paid and the remaining part can be made payable in future. The payment of price is an essential part of a sale covered by section 54 of the TP Act. If a sale deed in respect of an immovable property is executed without payment of price and if it does not provide for the payment of price at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law. It is of no legal effect. Therefore, such a sale will be void. It will not effect the transfer of the immovable property."

The court noted that no evidence was adduced by Sudarshan Kumar about the payment of the price mentioned in the sale deeds as well as the earning capacity at the relevant time of his wife and minor sons. Hence, the sale deeds will have to be held as void being executed without consideration, the court added.

3. Civil Court Cannot Declare Orders Passed Under Urban Land Ceiling Act As Illegal Or Non Est: Supreme Court

Case name: State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ghisilal

Citation LL 2021 SC 671

The Supreme Court held that the civil courts has no jurisdiction to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

Civil court cannot declare, orders passed by the authorities under the ULC Act, as illegal or non est, the court said.

"In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit against a notification under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 on the ground that the possession was not taken, before the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 came into force. This suit was decreed by the Trial Court. The appeal and thereafter the second appeal was dismissed against this Trial Court judgment."

In appeal before the Apex Court, the defendant contended that the plaintiff has not questioned the orders passed by the competent authority declaring the land as surplus land and that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of ULC Act.

The court noted that the land in question is in the Urban Agglomeration and covered by the ULC Act, 1976.The court also found that the possession of the land was not only taken but same is utilised for a public purpose. In this context, the bench comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy said.

4. Writ Of Mandamus Cannot Be Issued Directing Competent Authority To Grant Relaxation In Qualifying Service For Promotion: Supreme Court

Case name: State of U.P. vs Vikash Kumar Singh

Citation: LL 2021 SC 672

No writ of mandamus can be issued directing the competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying service for promotion, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment today (22 November 2021).

In this case, the Allahabad High Court directed the competent authority to prepare the eligibility list of the Superintending Engineer (Civil) including the names of the writ petitioners for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) Level – II by granting them relaxation in minimum length of service in accordance with the U.P. Government Servants Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006.

One of the contentions raised against this judgment by the State of Uttar Pradesh in appeal before Apex Court was that the grant of relaxation under the Relaxation Rules, 2006 is discretionary and no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the competent authority to grant the relaxation. It was submitted that word used in Rule 4 of Relaxation Rules, 2006 is 'MAY' and only in a case where the required number of eligible persons are not available in the field of eligibility. It was further submitted that no employee can claim the relaxation as a matter of right.

The court noted that the writ petitioners did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as they did not have the qualifying service of having completed 25 years of service and thus the eligibility lists were prepared by the department absolutely as per Service Rules.

The bench observed that the High Court committed a grave error in issuing the writ of mandamus commanding the competent authority to grant relaxation in the qualifying service.

5. Scheme Not Constitutionally Suspect Merely Because It Was Based On Electoral Promise: Supreme Court Upholds TN Loan Waiver Scheme To Small/Marginal Farmers

Case name: State of Tamil Nadu vs National South Indian River Interlinking Agriculturist Association

Citation: LL 2021 SC 673

The Supreme Court upheld a Tamil Nadu Government scheme which granted loan waiver to small and marginal farmers.

A scheme cannot be held to be constitutionally suspect merely because it was based on an electoral promise, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Justices AS Bopanna said. The court observed that it justifiable that the benefit of the scheme is only provided to a specified class as small and marginal farmers constitute a class in themselves.

The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O Ms. No. 50 dated 13 May 2016 granting a waiver of outstanding crop loans, medium term (agriculture) loans and long term (farm sector) loans issued to small and marginal farmers. This scheme was challenged on the ground that it violates equality clause of the Constitution. Allowing the writ petitions, the Madras High Court held that the exclusion of 'other farmers' – those who hold land exceeding 5 acres – from the land waiver scheme is discriminatory and violative of Article 14. The court also directed that the scheme be extended to all farmers including farmers whose landholding exceeds 5 acres.

The court noted that the purpose of providing a waiver of agricultural loans for farmers is to uplift the distressed farmers, who have been facing the brunt of the erratic weather conditions, low produce, and fall in the prices because of the market condition.

6. NEET- National Testing Agency Bound To Scrupulously Enforce Specific Relaxations For Persons With Disability: Supreme Court

Case Title : Avni Prakash versus National Testing Agency and others

Citation : LL 2021 SC 674

"The NTA must remember that all authority under the law is subject to responsibility and above all to a sense of accountability. It is governed by the rule of law and the necessity of observing fairness. As an examining body, the NTA was bound to scrupulously enforce the guidelines for the examination which provide for specific relaxations for persons with disability", ruled the Supreme Court.

The bench headed by Justice D. Y. Chandrachud was pronouncing its decision on the plea by a female NEET-2021 candidate suffering from dysgraphia whose grievance was that she was refused an additional one hour's time for attempting the paper by the examination centre. Her prayers were that either she may be allowed a re-examination, or be appropriately compensated by way of grace marks or no negative marking or otherwise.

"The NTA has submitted that in an examination of such a large proportion where over 16, 00,000 students registered and over 15,00, 000 students appeared, it would not be possible to undo the injustice which has been done to a single candidate. The first respondent must remember that all authority under the law is subject to responsibility and above all to a sense of accountability. The first respondent is governed by the rule of law and observing fairness; behind the abstract number of 15 lakh lie human lives which can be altered due to the inadvertent yet significant errors. As an examining body, the NTA was bound to scrupulously enforce the guidelines for the examination which provide for specific relaxations for persons with disability. The appellant has suffered injustice from wrongful denial, and lack of remedy from this court would result in irreparable injustice to the life of the student. The RPWD Act which provides beneficial provisions for persons with disabilities would have no meaning unless scrupulously enforced. The First respondent cannot simply get away when confronted with the situation where injustice has been caused to a student at a large competitive examination, and the same cannot be sent into oblivion on the submission that it is the necessary consequence of a competitive examination", it said.

7. IBC: NCLT Cannot Adjudicate Contractual Dispute If Termination Of Contract Is Based On Grounds Unrelated To Corporate Debtor's Insolvency: Supreme Court

Case name: TATA Consultancy Services Limited vs Vishal Ghisulal Jain, Resolution Professional, SK Wheels Private Limited

Citation: LL 2021 SC 675

The Supreme Court observed that the residuary jurisdiction of the NCLT cannot be invoked to adjudicate contractual dispute if the termination of a contract is based on grounds unrelated to the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor.

Even if the contractual dispute arises in relation to the insolvency, a party can be restrained from terminating the contract only if it is central to the success of the CIRP, the court added.

In this case, the Corporate Debtor instituted a miscellaneous application before the NCLT under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC for quashing of a contract termination notice. The NCLT, while granting an ad-interim stay observed that prima facie it appeared that the contract was terminated without serving the requisite notice of thirty days. NCLAT dismissed the appeal filed against this order.

The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna noted that Section 60(5)(c) grants residuary jurisdiction to the NCLT to adjudicate any question of law or fact, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution of the Corporate Debt.

8. Land Acquisition Act 1894 -Section 17(4) Notification Liable To Be Quashed If State Fails To Show Exceptional Circumstances Justifying Urgency : Supreme Court

Coram : Justice KM Joseph, Justice S Ravindra Bhat

Citation : LL 2021 SC 676

The Supreme Court has held that the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 can be invoked only in exceptional circumstances.

Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 gives power to the land acquisition authorities to take immediate possession of the land before the proceedings related to award of compensation are over. As per Section 17(4), the authority can dispense with the requirement under Section 5A of hearing the objections of the land owners to the acquisition notification in case of urgent acquisition.

A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and S Ravindra Bhat observed in the judgment :

"Section 5A of the Act guarantees a right to the person interested in the property which was the only statutory safeguard to stave off of a compulsory acquisition of his property. The power under Section 17 (4) is discretionary. Being a discretion it must be exercised with due care. It is true that if there is relevant material however meagre it may be and the authority has without being guided by extraneous considerations applied his mind and taken a decision, then the court would adopt a hands-off approach. In the ultimate analysis as with any other decision a balancing of conflicting interests is inevitable. The authorities must remain alive and alert to the precious right created in favour of the citizens which is not meant to be a mere empty ritual"

The judgment authored by Justice KM Joseph also held that the State must lay before the court the special facts which are within its exclusive knowledge on the basis of principle under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to justify the invocation of urgency clause.

The Court also noted during the pendency of the case, the 1894 Act was repealed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. So, there was no question of an inquiry being held under Section 5A.

9. Witness Testimony Inconsistent With Medical Evidence : Supreme Court Alters Conviction For Murder

Case Name: Viram @ Virma v The State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: LL 2021 SC 677

The Supreme Court has converted the conviction of appellants from Murder (S.302/149) to Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons (326/149) under the Indian Penal Code on the basis of inconsistencies between oral testimony of witnesses and medical evidence on record.

A Bench of Justices L.Nageswara Rao and B.V.Nagarathna relied on Amar Singh v State of Punjab, wherein the Supreme Court had examined the point relating to inconsistencies between oral evidence and medical opinion. In that case, it was held that the inconsistency between the medical evidence on record and the oral evidence of the witnesses was found to be sufficient to discredit the entire prosecution case.

In the present case, there were inconsistencies between the oral evidence of the eye witnesses and the medical report. The Trial Court had observed that the inconsistencies in the testimonies and evidence "were trivial" and that evidence could not be rejected on that ground itself. The High Court in its impugned judgement concurred that the discrepancies in the statements made by the witnesses in Court were held to be minor in nature on the basis of which the Appellants cannot be said to be not guilty.

"In Amar Singh v.State of Punjab (supra), this Court examined the point relating to inconsistencies between the oral evidence and the medical opinion. The medical report submitted therein established that there were only contusions, abrasions and fractures, but there was no incised wound on the left knee of the deceased as alleged by a witness. Therefore, the evidence of the witness was found to be totally inconsistent with the medical evidence and that would be sufficient to discredit the entire prosecution case", the judgment noted.

10. Employee Won't Lose Entitlement To Gratuity By Merely Opting To Extend Retirement Age To 60 Years: Supreme Court

Case Title: G.B. Pant University Of Agriculture And Technology V. Sri Damodar Mathpal

Citation : LL 2021 SC 678

The Supreme Court has held that mere exercise of option by an employee, to avail the benefit of extension of age of retirement to 60 years, could not operate against his entitlement to gratuity.

The bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath in the present matter was hearing a special leave petition assailing Uttarakhand High Court's order dated November 1, 2017 filed by G.B. Pant University Of Agriculture And Technology ("University").

While dismissing the special leave petition and opining that no case for interference was made out, the bench further observed that,

"...we are at one with the view taken by the High Court that mere exercise of option by an employee, to avail the benefit of extension of age of retirement to 60 years, could not have operated against his entitlement to gratuity; and exercising of such an option will not deprive the private respondents to gratuity unless and until the establishment i.e., the petitioner-University, was exempted in strict compliance of Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, after prior approval of the State Government."

11. Delay In Filing Appeal Before DRT Against Recovery Officer Order Cannot Be Condoned U/Sec 5 Limitation Act: Supreme Court

Case name: Avneesh Chandan Gadgil vs Oriental Bank of Commerce

Citation: LL 2021 SC 679

The Supreme Court observed that the delay in filing appeal before Debt Recovery Tribunal against the order passed by the Recovery Officer cannot be condoned by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable to the appeal against the order of Recovery Officer as provided under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the court observed.

In this case, there was a delay of 31 days in the appeal preferred against the order of Recovery Officer. The Debts Recovery Tribunal condoned the delay by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The DRAT set aside this order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The High Court restored the order passed by DRT relying on A.R. Venugopal Alias R. Venugopal Vs. Jotheeswaran and Ors., (2016) 16 SCC 588.

In appeal, the Apex court bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna noted that the judgment in A.R. Venugopal Alias R. Venugopal (supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court has been expressly overruled by this Court in the decision in the case of International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Limited Vs. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Limited (2017) 16 SCC 137. The court referred to following observations made therein:

"The RDB Act is a special law. The proceedings are before a statutory Tribunal. The scheme of the Act manifestly provides that the legislature has provided for application of the Limitation Act to original proceedings before the Tribunal under Section 19 only. The Appellate Tribunal has been conferred the power to condone delay beyond 45 days under Section 20(3) of the Act. The proceedings before the Recovery Officer are not before a Tribunal. Section 24 is limited in its application to proceedings before the Tribunal originating under Section 19 only. The exclusion of any provision for extension of time by the Tribunal in preferring an appeal under Section 30 of the Act makes it manifest that the legislative intent 3 for exclusion was express. The application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act by resort to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 therefore does not arise. The prescribed period of 30 days under Section 30(1) of the RDB Act for preferring an appeal against the order of the Recovery Officer therefore cannot be condoned by application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act."

12. Power Of Judicial Review Cannot Be Invoked To Decide Equivalence Of Prescribed Qualifications With Any Other Qualification: Supreme Court

Case name: Devender Bhaskar vs State of Haryana

Citation: LL 2021 SC 680

The Supreme Court observed that equivalence of prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification cannot be decided by the courts invoking its power of judicial review.

Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari set aside a High Court judgment which held that the diploma/degree in Art and Craft given by the Kurukshetra University is equivalent to two-year Diploma in Art and Craft examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or diploma in Art and Craft conducted by Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana.

In appeal, the court noticed that the experts in the Education Department have held the diploma in Art and Craft by the Kurukshetra University is not equivalent to the two-year diploma in Art and Craft awarded by the Haryana Industrial Training Department.

13. Death Penalty - Court Duty Bound To Consider Possibility Of Reformation Even If Accused Remains Silent : Supreme Court

Case Title : Mofil Khan and another versus The State of Jharkhand

Citation : LL 2021 SC 681

The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the review petitions filed by two death-row convicts to convert the death sentence imposed on them to life imprisonment for a term of 30 years.

A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna noted in the order that the Court is duty bound to elicit all relevant information regarding the possibility of the reformation of the convicts before imposing the harshest punishment of death sentence, even if the accused is remaining silent. Also, the State is under a duty to procure evidence to establish that there is no possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused.

In the instant case, the bench noted that the death sentence was awarded without reference to the possibility of reformation of the convicts.

"It is well-settled law that the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the convict is an important factor which has to be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance before sentencing him to death. There is a bounden duty cast on the Courts to elicit information of all the relevant factors and consider those regarding the possibility of reformation, even if the accused remains silent", the judgment added.

14. Mere Allegation Of Fraud Without Particulars Not Sufficient To Get Over Bar On Civil Suit Under Section 34 SARFAESI : Supreme Court

Case name: Electrosteel Castings Limited vs UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Citation: LL 2021 SC 682

The Supreme Court observed that bar under Section 34 SARFAESI Act on filing civil suit is attracted if allegations of 'fraud' are made without any particulars.

In this case, the High Court had rejected a plaint and dismissed a suit on the ground that the suit is barred in view of the bar under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act. Challenging this, the appellant-plaintiff's contention was that in the suit plaintiff had pleaded the fraud. That the relief was sought to declare the assignment agreement null and void which cannot be granted by the DRT under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The other side contended that the allegations of 'fraud' are nothing but a clever drafting only with a view to bring the suit maintainable before the civil court despite the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.

Perusing the plaint, the bench noted that except the words used 'fraud'/'fraudulent' there are no specific particulars pleaded with respect to the 'fraud'.

"It appears that by a clever drafting and using the words 'fraud'/'fraudulent' without any specific particulars with respect to the 'fraud', the plaintiff – appellant herein intends to get out of the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act and wants the suit to be maintainable. As per the settled preposition of law mere mentioning and using the word 'fraud'/'fraudulent' is not sufficient to satisfy the test of 'fraud'. As per the settled preposition of law such a pleading/using the word 'fraud'/ 'fraudulent' without any material particulars would not tantamount to pleading of 'fraud'," the Court said.

15. Section 362 CrPC Does Not Empower Court To Suo Motu Recall Orders Passed By It: Supreme Court

Case name: XXX vs State of Kerala 

Citation: LL 2021 SC 684

The Supreme Court observed that Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not empower a court to suo moto recall the earlier order passed by it.

The court said that Section 362 CrPC only provides for correction of any clerical or arithmetical error.

The bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose set aside a Kerala High court order recalling its earlier judgment quashing rape and child sexual assault charges against various accused.The High Court bench presided by Justice K. Haripal had initially quashed the proceedings against on the grounds of the marriage of the accused to the victims. Later, the judge recalled these orders taking note of the Supreme Court judgment in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab held heinous and serious offence offences like murder, rape, and other such offences cannot "be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute". The accused had therefore approached the Apex Court.

The court observed that in view of Section 362 Cr.P.C. the Court does not have the power to alter the judgment and order once passed, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error.

"In the present case, by a judgment and order dated 20.04.2021, FIR had been quashed by the High Court by a detailed reasoned order, which has been recalled by the impugned order dated 28.04.2021. There is no power, except under Section 362 Cr.P.C., which only provides for correction of any clerical or arithmetical error. The same does not empower the court to recall the earlier order passed after contest and that too suo moto.", the court observed.

16. Fundamental Right Of Witnesses To Testify In Courts Without Pressure & Threat Under Serious Attack Today: Supreme Court Highlights Importance Of Witness Protection Scheme

Case name: Hari vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: LL 2021 SC 685

The Supreme Court observed that the right of witnesses to testify in Courts in a free and fair manner without any pressure and threat whatsoever is under serious attack today.

Right to life guaranteed to the people of this country also includes in its fold the right to live in a society which is free from crime and fear and the right of witnesses to testify in Courts without fear or pressure, the court observed.

The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai added that if a witness is unable to testify in Courts due to threats or other pressures, then it is a clear violation of Article 19 (1) (a) and Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court was considering a case of honour killing. The Trial Court had sentenced some of the accused to death. The High Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. In this case, the evidence of one of the eye witnesses was initially recorded on 09.04.1992. She has narrated the sequence of events and the involvement of the accused in the crime. Thereafter, due to an interim order passed by the High Court, the trial was stayed for a period of six years. When she was recalled to depose in Trial Court on 21.02.1998, she turned hostile. She was later declared hostile along with 11 other prosecution witnesses.

The court said that the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat them as hostile and cross- examined them. The reasons for her turning hostile are understandable as she comes from a lower-strata of the society, living in a village dominated by the caste to which the accused persons belong, the court noted.

17. Murder Trial - Injured Witness's Evidence Not At A Higher Pedestal In A Case Of Private Defence Where The Accused Also Injured: Supreme Court

Case Title: ARVIND KUMAR @ NEMICHAND & ORS. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation : LL 2021 SC 686

The Supreme Court has held that the principle that the evidence of an injured witness has to be placed at a higher pedestal may not apply to a case of private defence when the accused is also injured.

A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh allowed a batch of appeals filed by the accused assailing the charges framed in the first chargesheet, while it dismissed the set of appeals filed by the de facto complainant over a trial started pursuant to the second chargesheet filed after further investigation.

The first issue that the Court dealt with was the nature of investigation. It observed that an investigating officer is supposed to cover all aspects of the matter while conducting investigation and is also to bear in mind that it is their duty to first satisfy that the offence would fall under culpable homicide not amounting to murder and then murder. Availability of adequate evidence should not automatically encourage them to prepare a case punishable under Section 302 IPC. The Court made a distinction between a defective investigation and colourable one. A defective investigation would not affect the culpability of the offence, unless the defect goes to the root of the prosecution. Referring to Kumar v. State (2018) 7 SCC 536, the Court noted that, on the other hand, an investigation which involved deliberate suppression would result in the prosecution falling flat unless there is unimpeachable evidence to come to a conclusion for awarding a punishment on a different charge.

The Court expressed its concern that the investigation was not conducted in a fair manner. The complaint which was written down by an unknown person did not inspire confidence. The missing reference of the FIR on the injury report was opined to have weakened the case of the prosecution. The recovery also suffered suspicion. The preparation of plan and other documents at the time of investigation indicated the involvement of the injured prosecution witnesses. There was deliberate omission on the part of the investigation officer to look into the plea of private defence. Further, there were contradictions in maps that located the place of occurrence.

18. Mechanical Compliance Of Stipulations U/Sec 63 Indian Succession Act Does Not Prove Execution Of Will: Supreme Court

Case name : State of Haryana vs Harnam Singh (D)

Citation: LL 2021 SC 683

The Supreme Court observed that mechanical compliance of stipulations under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, does not prove the execution of a Will.

Evidence of meeting the requirement of the said provision must be reliable, the bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose said.

In this case, the person claiming to be scribe of the Will as well as the two attesting witnesses deposed to support the case of the original plaintiff, but both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court disbelieved their testimony. It was further found that thumb impression of the propounder was not matched and that there was contradiction in the evidences of attesting witnesses as regards the place of execution. However, the High Court allowed the appeal on the basis that the Will was proved in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

"The requirement of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 cannot be said to have been fulfilled by mechanical compliance of the stipulations therein. Evidence of meeting the requirement of the said provision must be reliable.", the Apex Court bench observed while disagreeing with the High Court view.

IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES

1. Supreme Court Grants Protection From Arrest To Ex-Mumbai Police Chief Param Bir Singh, Asks Him To Join Investigation

Supreme Court this week granted protection from arrest to former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh in various cases registered against him by the Mumbai Police.

The Bench headed by Justice SK Kaul has asked Param Bir Singh to join the investigation.

Senior Advocate Puneet Bali appearing for the Petitioner apprised the Court that his client was very much in the country and apprehended threat to his life from the Bombay Police if he touched Maharashtra at the moment. He added that the FIR lodged against him were by bookies, extortionists and other people against whom Mr. Param Bir had taken action earlier. Expressing his dismay over the order of the Bombay High Court he argued that the matter was of not such a nature which could be pursued before Central Administrative Tribunal as suggested by the High Court.

The Bench concerned about the conversation that transpired between Mr. Param Bir and Mr. Sanjay Pandey remarked that if the Commission of police is apprehending such coercive actions against him, then what would happen to the common man. 

2. 'Your Chief Minister Does Not Know Anything?': Supreme Court Raps Gujarat Govt Over COVID Compensation Process

The Supreme Court this week lashed out at the Gujarat Government for constituting a scrutiny committee for the disbursal of ex-gratia compensation for COVID deaths, in deviation from the Court-approved process.

A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna had on November 18 observed that the constitution of the scrutiny committee appeared to be "an attempt to overreach the directions" passed in the judgment in the case Gaurav Kumar Bansal versus Union of India.

Today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Gujarat Government, submitted at the outset that an amended resolution has been issued pursuant to the Court's direction. The SG however added that even the amended resolution needs some tweaking.

3. Central Vista : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Proposed Change In Land Use Of Plot For Residences Of Vice President, Prime Minister

The Supreme Court has dismissed a writ petition which challenged the proposal to change the land use of Plot 1 in the Central Vista area from "recreational" to "residential" to build the new official residences of Vice President and the Prime Minister.

A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar dismissed the writ petition filed by Rajeev Suri, who had earlier unsuccessfully challenged the notifications for the Central Vista Project.

In the latest petition, the petitioner submitted that he was confining his challenge only to the proposed change in land use of Plot 1, which, according to him, will result in loss of recreational area and open green area for the public.

4. 'What Is The Point Of Filing So Many Volumes? To Drag Hearing Or To Harass Judges?': CJI In Amazon- Future Case

The Chief Justice of India has expressed displeasure towards enormous volumes of documents filed by parties in the cases relating to the Amazon- Future dispute.

"Sorry to say this, what's the point of filing so many volumes? It is with purpose of dragging on or otherwise to harass judges?Is there any other purpose of filing these many documents? What is the point?" CJI Ramana remarked

A Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli directed the parties to file a convenience compilation with minimum number of documents which are properly indexed.

The Bench made the remarks after it faced difficulty in locating one of its earlier orders being referred to by the Counsel from the volumes of documents filed.

5. Don't Wait For Delhi Air Quality To Become Severe; Take Advance Measures Based On Scientific Model : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court this week observed that advance measures must be taken with respect to the Delhi's air quality crisis, on the basis of anticipation about wind pattern and scientific model based on the air pollution levels in different seasons, instead of waiting for taking emergency steps after the air quality has become severe.

A bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant was hearing a matter seeking emergency steps to control the worsening air quality situation in the national capital.

The bench said that "The Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas", a statutory body created last year to deal with the air pollution crisis in Delhi-NCR, must take advance measures in anticipation based on scientific data and statistical models.

6. Supreme Court Issues Notice On CPIL Challenge Against Rakesh Asthana's Appointment As Delhi Police Commissioner

The Supreme Court this week issued notice on the petitions filed by the NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation challenging the appointment of Rakesh Asthana as the Commissioner of Delhi Police.

A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna was considering two petitions filed by the CPIL - one a writ petition filed against the Central Government order appointing Asthana as the Delhi Police Commissioner, and the other a special leave petition filed against the Delhi High Court's judgment which rejected the challenge against Asthana's appointment.

7. Gujarat Riots| Issues In Zakia Jafri's Complaint At Best Related To Dereliction of Service, Not Criminality : Mukul Rohatgi For SIT Tells Supreme Court

Senior Advocate, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, appearing on behalf of the SIT in the petition filed by Zakia Jafri before the Supreme Court, continued with his arguments. Refuting the challenge of the Petitioner to the SIT Closure Report, which had absolved the highest State functionaries of the allegation of conspiracy in the Gujarat riots of 2002, Mr. Rohatgi argued that the SIT had shown utmost commitment to the process of investigation.

A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar took up the part-heard matter for further hearing. Mr. Rohatgi vehemently controverted the submissions of the Petitioner that the SIT was trying to shield someone or something. He argued that on the contrary, the details in the Closure Report demonstrate the extent to which the SIT went to in order to conduct investigation in the matter, keeping in view and often exceeding the mandate of the Supreme Court.

Also Read: Gujarat Riots- 'We Did Our Job, Somebody Might Agree With The Conclusion, Somebody Might Not Agree':Mukul Rohatgi For SIT Tells Supreme Court

Also Read: This Is A Case Where The Majesty Of Law Has Been Deeply Injured': Kapil Sibal Concludes His Arguments Before Supreme Court In Gujarat Riots-Zakia Jafri Matter