Major Legal Judgements (2023-2024) - 1 | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

December 2023

Mohit Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand

Date of Judgement/Order: 01.12.2023

• Bench Strength: Judges
• Composition of Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal

Case Background:

• The widow of the deceased borrowed money from Sandeep Bansal, with allegations of threats and assault from Sandeep's son regarding repayment.
• Sandeep allegedly took cheques from the widow, one of which was dishonored, leading to legal notice and stress for the deceased.
• The deceased, under distress, committed suicide, and a note was found, prompting legal proceedings against the accused.
• The High Court allowed the case to proceed, but the accused appealed, arguing lack of close instigation before the suicide.

Supreme Court Ruling:

• The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that for abetment under IPC Section 107, there must be clear instigation by the accused with the intent to push the deceased to suicide.
• The court found no close temporal link between the accused's actions and the suicide, leading to the appeal’s approval.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Section 107: Abetment of a thing. Involves instigating, conspiring, or aiding the commission of an act.
• Section 306: Abetment of suicide. Punishes those who abet suicide with imprisonment and fines.

In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India

Date of Judgement/Order: 11.12.2023

• Bench Strength: Judges
• Composition of Bench: Chief Justice of India (CJI) D. Y. Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B. R. Gavai, and Surya Kant

Case Background: Article 370 of the Constitution of India provided special governance arrangements for Jammu and Kashmir. In 2019, the President issued Constitutional Orders 272 and 273, applying the entire Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir and abrogating Article 370 during a Proclamation under Article 356. Simultaneously, Parliament enacted the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019, splitting the state into two Union territories. Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of these actions, leading to a Supreme Court review.

Supreme Court Verdict: The Constitution Bench upheld the abrogation of Article 370, clarifying that it represented asymmetric federalism, not sovereignty. The court emphasized that Article 370 was a transitional provision without permanent status. Its abrogation did not disrupt the federal structure, ensuring citizens in Jammu and Kashmir have the same rights as those in other parts of India. The court also noted that Article 370(3) facilitated the end of the temporary arrangement, reinforcing the Constitution's applicability and the state's integration into India.

Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019: On August 5, 2019, Parliament passed the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Bill, leading to the bifurcation of the state into Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh and effectively abrogating Article 370, which granted the region special status. The Act, effective from October 31, 2019, consists of 103 clauses, extends 106 central laws to the Union Territories, repeals 153 state laws, and abolishes the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Council. It also grants the Central government powers to issue various executive orders concerning both Union Territories.

Cox and Kings Ltd v. SAP India Pvt Ltd

Date of Judgement/Order - 06.12.2023

• Bench Strength - Judges

• Composition of Bench - Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justices Hrishikesh Roy, P S Narasimha, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra

Case In Brief

• On 14th December 2010, Cox and Kings Ltd. (C&K) entered into a software licensing agreement with SAP India Pvt. Ltd.
• In October 2015, C&K decided to incorporate SAP's suggested software, leading to additional agreements.
• SAP claimed 90% compatibility, requiring 10 more months for customization.
• The agreement included an arbitration clause for dispute resolution in Mumbai.
• C&K faced project challenges and sought help from SAP SE, but the project failed.
• In November 2016, C&K terminated the contract and sought a refund.
• SAP India initiated arbitration, alleging wrongful termination.
• C&K resumed arbitration in November 2019 and invoked Section 11 of the A&C Act in the Supreme Court.
• C&K argued for SAP SE's inclusion based on implied consent and the 'Group of Companies Doctrine.'
• On 6th May 2023, a three-judge bench referred the matter to a larger bench regarding the Group of Companies doctrine.

Verdict

• The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter for disposal to a regular bench.
• The court addressed the legal question regarding the Doctrine of Group of Companies, affirming its relevance in Indian arbitration jurisprudence.
• The doctrine helps determine the parties' intention in complex transactions involving multiple parties and agreements.
• At the referral stage, it should be left to the arbitral tribunal to decide if a non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement.

Relevant Provision

• Doctrine of Group of Companies: This doctrine treats multiple entities within a corporate group as a single economic entity for arbitration purposes. It allows parties to an arbitration agreement with one group entity to seek arbitration against another group entity, even if the latter is not a signatory to the agreement.

Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society v. Ameena begum & Anr.

• Date of Judgement/Order: 01.12.2023
• Bench Strength: Judges
• Composition of Bench: Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Case Overview:

• The appellant sought specific performance of a sale agreement from the Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
• An ex-parte decree was granted in favor of the appellant.
• The respondents then filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to set aside this ex-parte decree, along with a request to condone a delay of 5767 days in filing their application.

Developments in Lower Court:

• The respondents' application for condoning the delay was dismissed.
• The petition under Order IX Rule 13 seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree was also dismissed by the Civil Court.

High Court Intervention:

• One of the respondents challenged the Civil Court's dismissal in the Telangana High Court under Section 115 of the CPC.
• The High Court set aside the lower court's decision.

Supreme Court Appeal:

• The appellant filed an appeal against the High Court's decision in the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Verdict:

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order.
• The Court noted that the order was made in a Civil Revision Petition that was not maintainable under Section 115 of the CPC.

Relevant Provision - Section 115 of CPC: Revision

• Outlines the High Court's authority to review cases decided by subordinate courts where no appeal lies.
• Allows the High Court to intervene if a subordinate court exercised jurisdiction improperly, failed to exercise it, or acted illegally or with irregularity.
• Prohibits the High Court from varying or reversing orders in the course of a suit or proceeding, except under specific conditions.
• Clarifies that revisions do not stay proceedings unless ordered by the High Court.
• Expands the definition of "decided case" to include any order made in the course of a suit or proceeding.

November 2023

Pawan Kumar v. State of UP

• Date of Judgement/Order: 21.11.2023
• Bench Strength: Judges
• Composition of Bench: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

Case Overview:

• There were four accused in the case: Accused 1 (A1), A2, A3, and A4.
• A4 passed away during the trial, leading to the abatement of his case, while the remaining three were convicted.
• The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court upheld the judgment.
• A1 and A2, the father and brother of the present appellant (A3), were released prematurely after serving over 19 years in jail under the state's remission policy.
• A3 claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the alleged crime, but his plea was dismissed by the Trial Court and the High Court.
• A bone ossification test conducted under the supervision of the Chief Medical Officer in Barabanki indicated A3 was approximately 19 years old at the time.
• A3 also presented his school certificate to support his claim of juvenility under Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act, 2015 (JJ Act).
• The present appeal was filed in the Supreme Court.

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court accepted A3's juvenility based on his school certificate, stating that the medical opinion from the bone ossification test was not entirely accurate.
• The Court partly allowed the appeal on the issue of juvenility, suggesting a reduction of one year if juvenility could not be definitively determined.

Relevant Provision:

• Section 2 (k) of the JJ Act defines a juvenile or child as a person who has not completed their eighteenth year of age. 

Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain

• Date of Judgement/Order - 01.11.2023
• Bench Strength - Judges
• Composition of Bench - Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal

Case In Brief

• The appellant is the one who was originally defendant in a lawsuit about owning and mesne profits from a property. 
• The respondent instituted the original suit claiming the right to the property based on a Power of Attorney, an agreement to sell, an affidavit, and a will in their favor.
• The person who is now appealing (the appellant) had been on the property because he received it as a gift from their brother.
• They contested the lawsuit on various grounds, but the court ruled in favor of the person who started the original lawsuit (the respondent), granting them possession of the property and any profits made from it.
• The appellant disagreed with this decision and took the case to the High Court of Delhi, but the High Court upheld the earlier ruling.
• The appellant brought an appeal to the Supreme Court, against the order of the HC. 

Verdict

• SC observed no title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney.

• The Court further states that even if these documents were registered, it could not be said that the respondent would have acquired title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA).

• The Court, while allowing the appeal, noted that the law is well settled that no right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document.

Relevant Provision

• Section 54 of TPA - Sale
• Sale Defined - Sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.
• Sale How Made- Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument.
• In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.
• Contract for Sale—. contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.

Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad

• Date of Judgement/Order: 20.11.2023 
• Bench Strength: 2 Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justice C T Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar 

Case In Brief

• Adoption Claim: Nalini Kanth, the appellant, claimed he was adopted by Venkubayamma, a 70-year-old woman, when he was under one year old. 
• Adoption Deed: He alleged that the adoption was formalized through a registered Adoption Deed on April 20, 1982. 
• Will Deed: Nalini asserted that Venkubayamma bequeathed all her property to him through a registered Will Deed dated May 3, 1982. 
• Revocation of Earlier Will: He contended that Venkubayamma revoked her previous Will dated May 26, 1981, which had favored her grandson, Kaliprasad. 
• Lawsuit: To claim Venkubayamma's properties, Nalini filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory and consequential reliefs and presented a witness under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to prove the Will. 
• Contestation: Kaliprasad contested the suit, challenging the validity of the Adoption Deed and Will Deed. He argued that Venkubayamma was not in a sound mind to make such decisions and that the adoption was invalid. 
• Court Rulings: The Principal Subordinate Judge initially ruled in favor of Nalini, but the High Court of Andhra Pradesh overturned this decision on appeal. 
• Supreme Court Appeal: Following the High Court’s decision, Nalini appealed to the Supreme Court. 
• Supreme Court Verdict: The Supreme Court upheld the principle that under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is insufficient to have a random witness testify that they saw the attesting witness sign the Will. 
• Attesting Witness Requirement: The Court emphasized the importance of examining at least one attesting witness to the Will, rather than relying on a stray witness. 
• Appeal Dismissal: The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed Nalini’s appeal. 
• Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act. This section pertains to the proof of documents when no attesting witness is available, emphasizing the need for proper attestation and signatures. 

Johnson v. S. Selvaraj

• Date of Judgement/Order: 10.11.2023 
• Bench Strength: 2 Judges 

Composition of Bench: Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal 

• Case Overview: The Supreme Court was reviewing an appeal involving documents and witness cross-examinations in Tamil. 
• Translation Issue: The Disciplinary Committee members, unfamiliar with Tamil, relied on Google Lens for translation. 
• Rule Requirement: As per the Bar Council of India’s rules, translations of such documents into English are necessary. 
• Responsibility for Translation: The Supreme Court noted that while the Disciplinary Committee is responsible for procuring translations, parties involved can also get documents translated using available software and AI tools. 
• Reducing Delays: Encouraging parties to provide English translations can help expedite disciplinary proceedings. 
• Disciplinary Proceedings Context: The SC emphasized that disciplinary proceedings are against a member of the Bar, who is keen on a swift resolution. 
• Committee's Suggestion: The Disciplinary Committee can advise Bar members to submit English translations of relevant documents to avoid delays. 

October 2023

State Bank of India & Ors v. P Zandenga

Supreme Court Ruling on Concurrent Disciplinary and Criminal Proceedings

• Background: P. Zadenga, an employee of the State Bank of India in Aizawl, faced disciplinary action following complaints of financial misconduct involving unrecorded challan deposits and a fake challan. 
• Criminal Charges: Three FIRs were filed against him, leading to his arrest and subsequent bail. 
• Disciplinary Proceedings: Initiated in 1999, alleging misappropriation of funds. 
• Legal Contention: The employee argued that disciplinary action should cease due to the ongoing criminal cases. 
• High Court Ruling: The HC initially agreed, stating that disciplinary proceedings should be halted when criminal charges of the same nature are pending. 
• Supreme Court Appeal: The case was taken to the Supreme Court, which examined the relationship between disciplinary and criminal proceedings. 
• Supreme Court Decision: The SC determined that the mere existence of pending criminal cases does not automatically suspend disciplinary actions. It emphasized that both proceedings serve different purposes and can coexist. 
• Legal Provisions: The court referenced Section 300 of the CrPC, which deals with the prohibition of trying a person for the same offence twice, and Article 20 of the Constitution, ensuring protection against double jeopardy. 
• Conclusion: The Supreme Court's ruling clarified that disciplinary proceedings can continue independently of criminal trials, provided they are initiated within the appropriate timeframe and serve their distinct objectives. 

Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh

• Keywords: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Supreme Court
• Date of Judgement/Order – 06.10.2023
• Bench Strength –2 Judges
• Composition of Bench –Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice J.B. Pardiwala

Case In Brief:

• ASI Lal Singh and his team received secret information about a person named Ranjan Kumar Chadha carrying contraband (charas) at the Sarwari bus stand. 
• The police officers identified and approached Chadha, who consented to a search. 
• The search of Chadha and his bag led to the discovery of 1 kg 250 gms of charas, resulting in his arrest under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. 
• The Trial Court acquitted Chadha, but the High Court convicted him, leading to an appeal in the Supreme Court. 
• The Supreme Court examined the compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act during the search. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court referenced previous cases to clarify the application of Section 50. 
• It reaffirmed that Section 50 pertains only to the search of an individual's physical person and does not extend to bags or containers they carry. 
• The bench acknowledged the potential implications of restricting Section 50's scope, emphasizing the need for careful interpretation to uphold the law's objectives. 
• The Court ultimately upheld Chadha's conviction under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. 

Relevant Provision:
Section 20 of NDPS Act. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis.

• Section 50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted

Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case Overview:

• The deceased was married to the appellant, Balvir Singh, in 1997. 
• Soon after the marriage, Balvir Singh and his mother allegedly started harassing the deceased and demanding a dowry. 
• The deceased was found dead under suspicious circumstances with reddish marks around her neck. 
• Her father filed an application for the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) regarding her death. 
• The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) ordered the registration of the FIR, leading to an investigation. 
• The investigation resulted in the husband and mother-in-law facing charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Dowry Prohibition Act. 
• The trial court and High Court upheld the convictions, leading to an appeal in the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court's Consideration:

• The Supreme Court referenced previous cases to highlight the principle of reasonable doubt and the importance of practical inferences from evidence. 
• In particular, the court noted that the term "especially" in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA) pertains to facts that are uniquely within the accused's knowledge. 
• The court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the accused's failure to provide a reasonable explanation, as required by Section 106, could be a significant factor. 

Application of Section 106:

• The Supreme Court applied Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, shifting the burden to the accused husband to explain the circumstances of his wife's death. 
• The court stressed the need for a practical approach in evaluating evidence and ensuring sensitivity in such cases to uphold justice. 
• Section 106 was deemed applicable where the prosecution establishes facts allowing reasonable inferences about other facts within the accused's special knowledge. 
• If the accused fails to provide a proper explanation, the court can draw appropriate inferences. 

Affirmation of Convictions:

• After reviewing the evidence and facts, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of the appellant (husband) under sections 302 and 498-A of the IPC and the mother-in-law under section 498-A of the IPC. 

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act: Pertains to the burden of proving facts within a person's special knowledge. 
• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code: Addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman, outlining the definition of cruelty. 

Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of MP

• Supreme Court of India: Key Points from the Judgment
• Date of Judgment: October 9, 2023

Bench Composition:

• Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mittal

Case Background:

• The appellant was convicted by a trial court for the murder of three individuals. Prosecution witnesses testified seeing the appellant armed with firearms and other weapons such as a farsa, axe, and ballam near a temple. The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Appellant's Argument:

• The appellant argued that he was not represented by his lawyer during the hearing of the appeal in the High Court.

Supreme Court's Decision:

• The Supreme Court found that the High Court made an error by deciding the appeal against the appellant's conviction without hearing him or his lawyer. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should have appointed a lawyer to represent the appellant when his appointed lawyer was absent.

Section 302 of the IPC:

• This section deals with the punishment for murder, which can include death, life imprisonment, and fines.

Section 34 of the IPC:

• This section holds individuals liable for a criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention, as if each person committed the act alone.

September 2023

Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another

Case Summary: HPCL vs. BEEL

• HPCL awarded a contract to BEEL for engineering work, but there were delays. Extensions were granted, but BEEL eventually abandoned the project, claiming 80% was done. 
• BEEL accused HPCL of breach and sought arbitration after HPCL refused to meet their demands. An arbitrator was appointed, and the tribunal dismissed HPCL's counterclaim. 
• The High Court overturned the tribunal's decision, leading to an appeal in the Supreme Court. 
• The Supreme Court referenced a previous case (ONGC v. Saw Pipes) on setting aside awards for public policy reasons. 
• The Court differentiated between justice and morality in awards, finding the tribunal's decision lacking reasoning and thus patently illegal. 
• The High Court's decision to set aside the award was upheld by the Supreme Court. 

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Allows parties to apply for setting aside an arbitral award under specific conditions. 
• Section 37 of the Act: Outlines appealable orders, including setting aside arbitral awards. 

Rahimal Bathu v. Ashiyal Beevi

Keywords: Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Supreme Court 

• Date of Judgement/Order: 26.09.2023 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra 

Case In Brief:

• The respondent, Ashiyal Beevi, filed a suit claiming exclusive ownership of a property. 
• She requested that if not the exclusive owner, her share be declared as one-sixth and partitioned accordingly. 
• The property in question belonged to the plaintiff’s grandmother, Fathima Beevi, who sold it to the plaintiff in 1982. 
• The appellant, Fathima Beevi’s daughter-in-law, obtained a gift deed for the property in 1982 while staying there. 
• The trial court found the gift deed invalid, validating the sale deed instead. 
• A review of this judgment was dismissed on merits. 
• Following the review rejection, a revision petition was filed in the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC. 
• The High Court not only overturned the trial court’s decision but also granted the review application. 
• This led to an appeal in the Supreme Court. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court determined that it cannot entertain a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the rejection of a review application for an appealable decree by a subordinate court based on its merits. 

Relevant Provision:

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Section 115 – Revision:

(1) The High Court may review cases decided by subordinate courts where no appeal lies, if the court has: 

• Exercised jurisdiction not vested by law, 
• Failed to exercise jurisdiction, or 
• Acted illegally or with material irregularity. 

(2) The High Court cannot vary or reverse orders made during a suit or proceeding, except in specific cases. 
(3) revision does not stay proceedings unless ordered by the High Court. 

Explanation: The term “any case which has been decided” includes any order made or issue decided during a suit or proceeding. 

Shirdi Nagar Panchayat v. Kishor Sharad Borawake and Others

The Case Overview:

• In 2004, the Maharashtra government changed the land use for certain landowners from a 'No Development Zone' to a 'Residential Zone.' This change came with conditions, including the requirement for the Municipal Council to receive 10% of the land as 'open space' and another 10% as 'amenity space,' both free of charge. 
• The landowners obtained permission from the Town Planning Authority to develop the land, leading to its division and sale. They also entered into an agreement with the Municipal Council to provide specific land for 'open space' and 'amenity space' as per the 2004 notification. 
• The Municipal Council was officially recorded as the recipient of this land in the revenue documents. 

Legal Disputes:

• In 2012, the Municipal Council sought possession of the designated land, prompting the landowners to file a civil lawsuit for a permanent injunction and a temporary injunction against the Council. 
• The trial court rejected the temporary injunction, but the District Court upheld it on appeal. 
• The landowners then filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the 2004 government notification. 
• The High Court dismissed the writ petition due to delays and restricted the Municipal Council from altering the use of the 'open space' and 'amenity space' land, except for the benefit of residential plot holders. 

Supreme Court Verdict:

• The landowners appealed to the Supreme Court, which referenced a previous case (Narayanrao Jagobaji Gowande Public Trust v. State of Maharashtra and Ors, 2016). 
• In that case, the Supreme Court had ruled that a clause allowing the government to grant land development permissions for commercial purposes while requiring landowners to provide a portion of land for public utility without charge was not unlawful. 
• Based on this precedent, the Supreme Court dismissed the landowners' appeal. 

Phulel Singh v. State of Haryana

Keywords: Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Supreme Court 

• Date of Judgement/Order. 27.09.2023 
• Bench Strength. 3 Judges 
• Composition of Bench. Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra 

Facts of the Case:

• The appellant married the deceased in 1987. 
• The prosecution alleged that the appellant harassed the deceased due to insufficient dowry. 
• To meet the appellant's demands, the deceased's parents initially paid him in cash and later gave him a scooter and gold ornaments in 1990. 
• Despite these payments, the dowry demands continued. 
• The deceased eventually was burnt and taken to the hospital with 91% burns. 
• When she regained consciousness, she accused the appellant of burning her. 
• A First Information Report (FIR) was filed based on her statement, leading to charges against the appellant and his family. 
• The Sessions judge convicted the appellant under Section 304-B but acquitted him under Section 302 IPC. 
• The High Court upheld the conviction but the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court Verdict:

• The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, highlighting the importance of a trustworthy and reliable dying declaration for criminal convictions. 

Relevant Legal Provision:

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32: This section relates to the admissibility of statements made by a deceased person regarding the cause of their death or circumstances leading to it. Such statements are relevant regardless of whether the person was under the expectation of death at the time of making them. 

August 2023

Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi & Anr.

• In 2019, Rahul Gandhi, a Congress leader and former MP, made a controversial remark during a political rally in Kolar, Karnataka, suggesting a link between the Modi surname and corruption. 
• This led to a legal battle initiated by Purnesh Modi, a BJP MLA, under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

Legal Proceedings

• In March 2023, a trial court in Surat convicted Gandhi and sentenced him to two years in prison, the maximum penalty for defamation. 
• The Chief Judicial Magistrate later suspended the sentence but not the conviction, leading to Gandhi's disqualification from the Lok Sabha under Article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
• Gandhi appealed the conviction in the Sessions Court, which granted him bail but did not stay the conviction. 
• His subsequent petition to the Gujarat High Court was dismissed, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court's Decision

• On August 4, 2023, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court stayed Gandhi's conviction, temporarily halting his disqualification as a Member of Parliament. 
• The Court acknowledged that Gandhi's remarks were not in "good taste" and emphasized the need for public figures to exercise caution in their statements. 

Legal Context

The case involved key provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, particularly Sections 499 and 500, which deal with defamation and its penalties. 

• Section 499 outlines the criteria for defamation, including the intent to harm someone's reputation through false statements. 
• Section 500 prescribes the punishment for defamation, which can include simple imprisonment for up to two years, fines, or both. 
• The Representation of the People Act, 1950, specifically Section 8(3), was also relevant, as it pertains to the disqualification of individuals convicted of certain offenses from holding public office. 
• Article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution of India further supports this disqualification process. 

Ketan Kantilal Seth v. State of Gujarat

Case Overview 

• Accused Ketan Kantilal Seth filed a Transfer Petition in the Supreme Court. 
• Supreme Court issued notice and stayed further proceedings. 
• Omprakash Bhauraoji Kamdi intervened in the Transfer Petition, claiming dependency on Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank Limited (NDCCB Ltd.), allegedly defrauded by Seth. 
• Stay was modified as proceedings were at final argument stage. Trial Court was directed to complete hearings but not pronounce judgment. 
• Transfer of accused was allowed, intervenor's application was dismissed, and cases were transferred to Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court. 

Maharashtra State's Application 

• Maharashtra State filed an application to modify/recall transfer order, claiming lack of hearing opportunity on the final day to oppose Transfer Petition. 

Supreme Court's Verdict 

• Supreme Court's power under Order XL Rule 3 of Supreme Court Rules, 2013, is limited and should be used sparingly. 
• Alterations to a judgment can only correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips/omissions. 
• Court allowed Seth's petition and directed transfer of pending matters. 

Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra

Case Summary: Supreme Court Ruling on Defamation Case

• Legal Context: The case revolves around the Indian Penal Code, 1860, specifically Section 499 related to defamation and Exception 8 which pertains to making accusations in good faith to authorized persons. 
• Background: Kishore Balkrishna Nand (the appellant) filed a complaint with the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) against a shop owner, alleging encroachment and nuisance due to the presence of anti-social elements. While the SDM was reviewing the complaint, the shop owner (the complainant) initiated a defamation case against Nand. 
• Legal Proceedings: The Judicial Magistrate initially accepted the defamation case based on Nand's complaint to the SDM. However, Nand later requested the Magistrate to revoke the order, and when this was granted, the shop owner appealed to the Sessions Court, which upheld the defamation case. Nand's subsequent attempts to challenge the order in the High Court were unsuccessful due to delays. 
• Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court intervened, highlighting that the defamation case against Nand was unfounded. The Court emphasized that Nand's accusations were made in good faith to an authorized person (the SDM) and thus fell under Exception 8 of Section 499 IPC. 
• Outcome: The Supreme Court's ruling effectively quashed the defamation charges against Nand, reinforcing the principle that making a complaint in good faith to the appropriate authorities does not constitute defamation. 

Rana Kapoor v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.

Supreme Court Denies Bail to Yes Bank Founder in Money Laundering Case

• Background: In March 2020, Rana Kapoor, the founder of Yes Bank, was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. His arrest was linked to the Yes Bank - Dewan Housing Finance Limited (DHFL) scandal and alleged financial irregularities involving loans to prominent borrowers. 
• Allegations: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleged that Kapoor, as co-promoter of Yes Bank, approved loans exceeding Rs 30,000 crore to various corporate entities, including DHFL. A significant portion of these loans, around Rs 20,000 crore, became non-performing assets (NPAs). The ED claimed Kapoor received illegal benefits through accounts belonging to his family members in exchange for these loans. 
• Yes Bank - DHFL Scam: Yes Bank reportedly invested Rs 3,700 crore in DHFL's short-term debentures and sanctioned a loan of Rs 750 crore to a DHFL subsidiary. The scam involved 17 banks being defrauded of over Rs 34,000 crore by DHFL. 
• Subsequent Charges: Kapoor faced additional allegations of fraud, including a Rs 4,300 crore fraud at the Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative (PMC) Bank. He made multiple bail applications, all of which were rejected by the Bombay High Court. 
• Bombay High Court Rulings: The court rejected Kapoor's bail applications, citing the seriousness of the charges involving public money and the potential for evidence tampering. 
• Supreme Court Verdict: Kapoor's appeal to the Supreme Court was denied, with the court emphasizing the gravity of the case and its impact on the banking system, despite acknowledging the length of Kapoor's custody. 
• Legal Framework: The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, aims to combat money laundering and related financial crimes. It empowers authorities to investigate, seize, and prosecute cases of money laundering, establish procedures for reporting suspicious transactions, and facilitate international cooperation in addressing such offenses.