Judgment of the Day
💡
This day [7 December] in 2007, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P[2007] 12 S.C.R. 1100. The Court held that there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and /or to direct the officer in charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same. The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police, the Court observed.
💡
This day [6 December] in 1984, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. vs Union of India [1985] 2 S.C.R. 287. The expression 'freedom of press' has not been used in Article 19 of the Constitution , but it is included in Article 19 (1) (a) which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, the Court observed.
💡
This day [4 December] in 2009, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan [2009] 16 S.C.R. 190. The Court observed that even if a Muslim woman has been divorced, she would be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 CrPC after the expiry of period of iddat also, as long as she does not remarry.
🗓️
This day [3 December] in 2019, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd.v. State Of Karnataka [2019] 17 S.C.R. 559. Though NCLT and NCLAT would have jurisdiction to enquire into questions of fraud, they would not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputes such as those arising under MMDR Act, 1957 and the rules issued thereunder, especially when the disputes revolve around decisions of statutory or quasi judicial authorities, which can be corrected only by way of judicial review of administrative action, it was held.
🗓️
This day [2 December] in 2010, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [2010] 15 S.C.R. 201. The Court laid down factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail. The judgment also discusses the doctrine of per incuriam.
🗓️
This day [1 December] in 1982, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi [1983] 1 S.C.R. 884. The Court observed that the scope, ambit and range of Section 482 CrPC is quite different from the powers under the provisions of Section 397 CrPC.
🗓️
This day [30 November] in 1984, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Assistant Collector Of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal Vs. Dunlop India Ltd. [1985] 2 S.C.R. 190. The Court deprecated the practice of granting interim order which practically give the principal relief sought in the writ petition for no better reason than that a prima facie case has been made out, without being concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of other relevant considerations. .
🗓️
This day [29 November] in 2004, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [2004] Supp. (6) S.C.R. 460. The Court held that Section 91 CrPC does not confer any right on the accused to produce document in his possession to prove his defence. It was also held that the Trial Court, at the time of framing of charges, cannot consider material filed by the accused.
🗓️
This day [28 November] in 2019, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Deep Industries Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited [2019] 17 S.C.R. 995]. The Court held that the constitutional provision of Article 227 remains untouched by the non-obstante clause in Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned that, while interfering under Article 227, the High Court should be extremely circumspect, taking into account the statutory policy of the Act and that interference shall be restricted to orders which patently lacks inherent jurisdiction.
🗓️
This day [27 November] in 2012, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Laxmi Dyechem Vs. State of Gujarat [2012] 11 S.C.R. 466. It was held that the dishonour of cheque on the ground that, the signatures of drawer did not match the specimen signature available with the bank would attracts the penal provision of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
🗓️
This day [26 November] in 2013, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma [2013] 14 S.C.R. 1019. The Court issued guidelines for testing under what circumstances, a live-in relationship will fall within the expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” under Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act.
🗓️
This day [25 November] in 2014, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority [2014] 13 S.C.R. 895. The Court held that an arbitration award that is governed by part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, can be set aside only on the grounds mentioned under Section 34 of the Act and not otherwise.
🗓️
This day [24 November] in 1961, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in K.M Nanavathi vs. State of Maharashtra [1962] Supp. (1) S.C.R. 567. The court laid down the following principles regarding the Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC: (1) the deceased must have given provocation to the accused, (2) the provocation must be grave, (3) the provocation must be sudden, (4) the offender, by reason of the said provocation, shall have been deprived of his power of self-control, (5) he should have killed the deceased during the continuance of the deprivation of the power of self-control, and (6) the offender must have caused the death of the person who gave the provocation or that of any other person by mistake or accident.
🗓️
This day [23 November] in 2017, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union Of India [2017] 12 S.C.R. 358. The court declared that Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act insofar as it imposes two further conditions for release on bail, to be unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. However, this provision was amended by the Parliament later and the amended Section 45 was upheld by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India [2022] 6 S.C.R. 382.
🗓️
This day [22 November] in 2006, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Union Of India vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana [2006] Supp. (9) S.C.R. 257 . It was observed that Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet. "In some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.", it was observed.
💡
This day [21 November] in 1990, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in State Of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal [1990] Supp (3) S.C.R. 259. The judgment dealt with the extra-ordinary 'quashing' power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,.
💡
This day [20 November] in 1990, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Union of India Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan [1990] Supp. (3) S.C.R. 248 . The Supreme Court held that even though the second stage of the inquiry in Article 311(2) of the Constitution has been abolished by 42nd amendment, the delinquent is still entitled to represent against the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer holding that the charges or some of the charges are established and holding the delinquent guilty of such charges.
💡
This day [19 November] in 1962, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in A. L. V. R. S. T. Veerappa Chettiar vs S. Michael [1963] Supp. (2) S.C.R. 244 . This judgment discussed the difference between Asura and Brahma marriage.
💡
This day [18 November] in 2003, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal [2003] Supp. (5) S.C.R. 716 ::2003 INSC 645 ]. It was held that a third party stranger cannot be permitted to question the correctness of the conviction and sentence of an accused. Unless an aggrieved party is under some disability recognized by law, it would be unsafe and hazardous to allow any third party to question the decision against third parties, it was observed.
💡
This day [17 November] in 2011, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Ummu Sabeena vs State Of Kerala ! The Court held that in dealing with writs of Habeas Corpus, technical objections cannot be entertained.
💡
This day [16 November] in 1992, the Nine Judges Bench of the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India [1992] Supp. (2) S.C.R. 454. The Court inter alia held that reservation under Article 15(4) and 16(4) should not exceed the upper limit of 50 percent.
💡
This day [15 November] in 1995, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Kartik Malhar vs State Of Bihar [1995] Supp. (5) S.C.R. 239 :: 1995 INSC 735 . It was held that Courts can record a conviction on the basis of the statement of a single witness provided the evidence of that witness is reliable, unshaken and consistent with the case of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution cannot be discarded merely on the ground that it was sought to be proved by only one eye witness, nor can it be insisted that the corroboration of the statement of that witness was necessary by other eye-witnesses, it was held.
💡
This day [14 November], in 2011, the Supreme Court of India delivered the judgment in Shiji @ Pappu & Ors vs Radhika [2011] 13 S.C.R. 135 :: 2011 INSC 797. Simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC, it was held. This judgment is still referred to in many High Court judgments.
💡
"Children are not only the future citizens but also the future of the earth. The world shall be a better or worse place to live according to how we treat the children today. " - Rohit Singhal vs Principal, Jawahar N. Vidyalay AIR 2003 SC 2088 :: [2002] Supp. (5) S.C.R. 515 :: 2002 INSC 557
💡
This day [13 November] in 1995, the Supreme Court of India delivered the judgment in Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha [1995] Supp. (5) S.C.R. 110 :: 1995 INSC 720 It was held that service rendered to a patient by a medical practitioner (except where the doctor renders service free of charge to every patient or under a contract of personal service), by way of consultation, diagnosis and treatment, both medicinal and surgical, would fall within the ambit of 'service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. This year, the correctness of this view was doubted by the Supreme Court in Bar Of Indian Lawyers vs D.K.Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases 2024 INSC 410 !