Major Legal Judgements (2023-2024) - 2 | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

July 2023

Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors

Case Summary: Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute

Background

• The Uttar Pradesh State Government issued a notification to acquire land for the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
• The appellants' land was among those acquired, with possession taken between August 1993 and May 1994. 

Market Value Determination

• The Special Land Acquisition Officer set the market value at different rates per square yard. 
• Aggrieved, the appellants sought higher compensation based on nearby land values. 

Legal Proceedings

• The District Judge awarded a market value of Rs. 400 per square yard with deductions. 
• The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority appealed, with the appellants cross-appealing for higher compensation. 
• The High Court upheld the District Judge's decision. 
• The appellants' review for better consideration of their cross-objections was dismissed, leading to the current appeal. 

Supreme Court Verdict

• The Supreme Court, led by Justices Krishna Murari and Bela M. Trivedi, ruled in favor of the appellants. 
• It emphasized the High Court's duty to consider the appellants' cross-objections. 
• The case was remanded for fresh evaluation of the cross-objections, referencing a similar past case. 

Legal Provision Involved

• The relevant legal provision is from the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, specifically Order 41 Rule 22, which allows respondents to raise cross-objections in appeals. This rule enables respondents to challenge findings against them in the lower court as if they had filed a separate appeal, provided they do so within a specified timeframe. 

Gagan Baba v. Samit Mandal

Overview

• The Supreme Court, on July 4, 2023, addressed the concerning trend of misusing criminal law to target financial institutions and lenders in civil disputes. The Court emphasized the need to protect the integrity of economic health in the country. 

Background of the Case

• The petitioner highlighted a growing trend where malafide criminal proceedings are initiated against financial institutions and lenders. 
• It was argued that officers, representatives, and managers of such institutions are being coerced into halting recovery proceedings of enforceable debts or are being forced into settlement agreements. 
• The petitioner pointed out that FIRs are being filed to bypass the statutory regime of SARFAESI, misrepresenting civil financial disputes as criminal matters to intimidate and abuse the criminal process. 

Supreme Court's Observations

• The Supreme Court found the trend of misrepresenting civil financial disputes as criminal issues to be highly disturbing. 
• Citing the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015), the Court noted that using criminal law to bypass statutory remedies against financial institutions poses a threat to the economic health of the nation. 

Relevant Legal Provision

• The Supreme Court referred to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers High Courts to quash FIRs in certain circumstances. This section allows High Courts to prevent abuse of the court process and secure the ends of justice. 
• Section 482 - Saving of inherent powers of HC — This section ensures that the inherent powers of the High Court are not limited by the Code, allowing the Court to make necessary orders to give effect to the Code, prevent abuse of the process, or secure justice. 

Gurbachan Singh (D) v. Gurcharan Singh(D)

Overview of the Case

• Background: The case involves a property dispute between two brothers, Faqir Singh and Gurbachan Singh, over land inherited from their father, Suchet Singh, who passed away in 1942 without a will. 
• Initial Sale and Possession: Faqir Singh sold a portion of the inherited land to Gurcharan Singh, who was then put in possession of the land. However, Gurbachan Singh forcibly took the land from Gurcharan Singh. 
• Legal Proceedings: Gurcharan Singh filed a lawsuit for possession of the disputed property before the Sub Judge 1st Class in Jullundur (now Jalandhar). The court ruled in favor of Gurbachan Singh. 
• Appeals: Gurcharan Singh appealed the decision, but the Additional District Judge upheld the subordinate court's ruling. The judge noted the lack of evidence proving that the disputed property was given to Faqir Singh in a family partition. 
• High Court Intervention: The Punjab and Haryana High Court later allowed a second appeal, setting aside the lower court's findings without establishing a substantial question of law. 
• Supreme Court Involvement: The case reached the Supreme Court, which addressed the issue of substantial questions of law in appeals from Punjab and Haryana. 
• Supreme Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court clarified that the requirement for framing substantial questions of law, as per Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), does not apply in cases from Punjab and Haryana. The court cited a previous Constitution Bench judgment to support this view. 
• Legal Provision Involved: The relevant legal provision is Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with second appeals to the High Court involving substantial questions of law. 
• Key Points of Section 100: Appeals to the High Court from decrees passed by subordinate courts are allowed if the case involves a substantial question of law. The memorandum of appeal must state the substantial question of law involved. The High Court has the authority to formulate the substantial question of law involved in the case. 

Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana

Supreme Court on Section 180 of IPC

• Keywords: Criminal Law, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(CrPC), Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC), Supreme Court 
• Date of Judgement/Order: 04.07.2023 
• Bench Strength: 2 Judges 

Composition of Bench. Justices S. Ravindra Bhat, Dipankar Datta 

Case In Brief:

• The appeal in the Supreme Court (SC) challenges the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision to dismiss a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 
• The High Court found sufficient evidence against the accused during the investigation, leading to the conclusion that the FIR could not be quashed. 
• The accused faced charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust, theft, and was also implicated under Section 180 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• During the proceedings, the Deputy Superintendent of Police stated in a reply affidavit that the accused was charged under Section 180 IPC because she refused to sign her statement. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the petition under Section 482 CrPC. 
• The court clarified that according to Section 162 of the CrPC, a statement made to a police officer during an investigation does not require the person's signature, and Section 180 of the IPC is applicable only if a statement is refused to be signed. 
• Therefore, the court concluded that Section 180 of IPC is not applicable when a person refuses to sign a statement made to a police officer during an investigation. 

Relevant Provision

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
Section 162 - Statements to Police not to be Signed: Use of Statements in Evidence.
(1) No statement made by any person to a police officer during an investigation under this Chapter shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it. Such statements or records, whether in a police diary or otherwise, cannot be used for any purpose at an inquiry or trial regarding the offence under investigation at the time of making the statement. 

(2) This section does not apply to statements covered under clause (1) of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or affect the provisions of section 27 of that Act. 

Explanation:
An omission of a fact in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may be considered a contradiction if it is significant and relevant in the given context. Whether an omission constitutes a contradiction is a factual question. 

Section 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court

• Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 180 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court

• Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 

June 2023

Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi

Supreme Court on Eviction and Mesne Profits under Transfer of Property Act

Key Details:

• Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Pankaj Mithal
• Date of Judgment: June 2, 2023

Case Background:

• Mr. Ghanshyam (appellant) owned a property in Delhi and agreed to sell it to Mr. Yogendra Rathi (respondent)
• The entire consideration was received, and a Will bequeathing the property to the respondent was made on the same day, along with a General Power of Attorney
• Possession was handed over to the respondent, but no formal sale deed was executed
• The respondent allowed the appellant to occupy part of the property for 3 months as a licensee, but after this period, the appellant did not vacate
• The respondent filed a suit seeking eviction and mesne profits

Court Proceedings:

• The Trial Court ruled in favor of the respondent, stating there was no manipulation of documents
• The appellant’s appeals were rejected by higher courts, leading to the Supreme Court appeal

Supreme Court Ruling:

• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, agreeing with the respondent’s entitlement to eviction and mesne profits
• The court referenced the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr. to support its findings

Relevant Legal Provision:

• Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:. sale involves transferring ownership in exchange for a price, either paid, promised, or a combination of both.

Coal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India

Case Analysis:

• Coal India Limited v. Competition Commission of India

Court: 

• Supreme Court of India Date of Judgment: June 15, 2023 

Bench: 

• Justices K.M. Joseph, B.V. Nagarathna, and Ahsanuddin Amanullah 

Relevant Acts: 

• Constitution of India, 1950; Competition Act, 2002 

Background: 

• The case revolves around an appeal against the Competition Appellate Tribunal's decision regarding the applicability of the Competition Act, 2002 to Coal India Limited (CIL) and its subsidiary, Western Coalfields Limited. The appellants argued that CIL, being a statutory monopoly, and Western Coalfields, as its subsidiary, should not be bound by the Competition Act. The Competition Commission of India contested this plea. 

Key Legal Provisions:

• Constitution of India, Article 39: This article directs the State to ensure that the ownership and control of material resources are distributed to subserve the common good.
• Competition Act, 2002, Section 4: Prohibits the abuse of dominant position by enterprises, including imposing unfair or discriminatory conditions or prices in the purchase or sale of goods or services.
• Section 27: Empowers the Commission to pass orders against enterprises found in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4, including directing them to discontinue abusive practices. 

Court's Analysis:

• The Supreme Court examined whether CIL, a government-owned company established under the Coal Mines Nationalization (Amendment) Act, 1976, was engaged in any sovereign functions.
• The appellants clarified that they were not involved in sovereign functions, and the Court referred to a previous case (Tara Prasad Singh v. Union of India) to highlight the purpose of the Coal Mines Nationalization Act.
• The Court emphasized that the Act aimed to distribute resources for the common good.

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court ruled that Coal India Limited falls under the purview of the Competition Act, 2002, despite being a Public Sector Undertaking.
• This decision reinforces the applicability of competition laws to government-owned entities engaged in economic activities.

M/s Trinity Infraventures Ltd. & Ors. v. M.S. Murthy & Ors.

Supreme Court Judgement on Paigah Lands in Hydernagar, Telangana

• Date of Judgement/Order:15.06.2023 
• Bench Strength: 2 Judges
• Composition of Bench:Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal

Background:

• Hyderabad was a Princely State until its annexation to the Union of India on 18.09.1948.
• The Nizam of Hyderabad had the practice of granting certain lands known as “Paigah Estate” for the purpose of supply and maintenance of Armed Forces.
• The dispute in this case relates to a Paigah granted to a person named Khurshid Jah, leading to the establishment of the Khurshid Jah Paigah.
• In 2019, the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court ruled that the appellants failed to prove that the land in Hydernagar village was the Mathruka property of Khurshid Jah Paigah.
• The Division Bench determined that the title to the land had passed to the cultivating Ryots before 1948, who validly conveyed title to their successors, the respondents.
• The judgment of the Division Bench was challenged by the appellants before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Verdict:

• The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Telangana High Court. 
• The Court affirmed the title of successors of Ryot Cultivators over the “Paigah lands” in Hydernagar, Telangana. 
• The claims raised by rival claimants/appellants, including M/s Trinity Infraventures Ltd, were dismissed. 
• The Court clarified that in a simple suit for partition, parties cannot assert title against strangers, even by impleading them as proforma respondents. 

Relevant Legal Provisions

Order VI Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)

• This rule pertains to providing particulars in pleadings when relying on misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default, or undue influence.
• It emphasizes the need for specific details with dates and items, if necessary, in the pleading.

Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of CPC

• Rule 97. Deals with resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property by the holder of a decree or purchaser.
• Rule 98. Concerns orders after adjudication, allowing applications and directing possession or dismissing applications.
• Rule 99. Addresses dispossession complaints by decree-holders or purchasers.
• Rule 100. Involves orders on applications complaining of dispossession.
• Rule 101. Pertains to questions of right, title, or interest in property arising between parties in applications under Rules 97 or 99, to be determined by the Court dealing with the application.

A. Srinivasulu v. State of Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Supreme Court: Previous Sanction Required for Prosecution of Public Servant under IPC Date of 
Date of Judgment: 15.06.2023 
Bench: Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal

Case Overview:

• Criminal appeals from a common Judgment by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
• HC upheld the conviction of appellants for offences under IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
• Prosecution alleged a criminal conspiracy to cheat BHEL in awarding contracts for desalination plants.
• Involved public servants colluding with a private firm to rig the tender process.
• During trial, some accused passed away, and others were found guilty under various provisions.
• Key issue: Whether previous sanction under Section 197 of CrPC was needed for prosecuting a public servant.

Verdict:

• Sanction under Section 197 CrPC is necessary not only for acts done in official capacity but also for acts purported to be in official capacity.
• Even if a public servant exceeds their duty, as long as there is a reasonable connection to their official role, they are entitled to protection under Section 197.
• In this case, previous sanction was required for prosecuting the public servant under IPC.

Relevant Legal Provision:

Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Prosecution of Judges and Public Servants

• Section 197(1) prohibits courts from taking cognizance of offences against Judges, Magistrates, or public servants acting in their official capacity without prior sanction from the appropriate government.
• Clause (a) applies to offences committed by individuals employed in connection with Union affairs.
• Clause (b) applies to those employed in connection with State affairs, with a provision for cases under President’s Rule.

May 2023

Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. v M/s. Green Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

In this case, the Supreme Court examined the role of courts in determining the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement before referring a dispute to arbitration. 

Background

Shareholding Agreements and MoUs:

• The parties involved had entered into Shareholding Agreements and two Memorandums of Understanding (MoU). 
• The Shareholding Agreement included an arbitration clause, while MoU-2 did not. 

Legal Proceedings:

• A petition was filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (A&C Act) before the Delhi High Court. 
• The petition sought the appointment of an arbitrator for a dispute related to MoU-2. 
• The argument put forth was that MoU-2, the Shareholding Agreements, and MoU-1 were interconnected, and since the other documents had arbitration clauses, the dispute should be referred to arbitration. 

Delhi High Court Ruling:

• The Delhi High Court agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration and appointed an arbitrator. 

Jurisdictional Question:

• The key question that arose was about the jurisdiction of the referral court at the pre-referral stage. 
• Specifically, it dealt with the issue of whether the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement could be decided by the court or left for the arbitral tribunal to determine. 

Supreme Court Verdict:

• The Supreme Court, comprising Justices M R Shah and C T Ravikumar, ruled that the referral court must decisively determine the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement when such an issue is raised at the pre-referral stage. 
• This determination cannot be postponed for the arbitral tribunal to decide. 
• The rationale behind this decision is to safeguard the parties' right to resolve their dispute through arbitration, especially in cases where there is no valid arbitration agreement or clause in place. 

Relevant Legal Provision:

The relevant provision cited in this context is Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which outlines the circumstances under which a party can request the Supreme Court or High Court to take necessary measures regarding the appointment of an arbitrator. 

Conclusion:

• The Supreme Court's decision emphasizes the importance of clarifying the existence and validity of arbitration agreements at the outset to ensure that parties are bound by the terms of such agreements before proceeding to arbitration. 

Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India and Ors.

Overview

• Judgment Date: 10th May 2023 
• Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal 

Background

• On December 31, 1977, the President of India declared the entire Sundargarh district in Odisha as a Scheduled Area under the Constitution. 
• A society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, approached the High Court, arguing that non-Tribals living in Scheduled Areas are unlawful occupants and should not have the right to vote there. 
• The society also claimed that all constituencies in Scheduled Areas should be reserved for Scheduled Tribes (STs) and that only ST candidates should be allowed to contest elections in these areas. 

Court's Decision

The court made several key rulings: 

• Non-Tribals have the right to settle in Scheduled Areas. 
• Not all constituencies in Scheduled Areas need to be reserved for STs. Reservations should be made according to Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution, which do not mandate that all constituencies in Scheduled Areas be reserved for STs. 

Relevant Constitutional Provisions:

• Article 19 (1) (e): Grants all citizens the right to reside and settle in any part of India. 
• Article 330: Provides for the reservation of seats in the House of the People for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). 
• Article 332: Allows for the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Legislative Assemblies of States. 
• Fifth Schedule, Clause 6: Pertains to the declaration and management of Scheduled Areas by the President. 

Dr. V R Sanal Kumar v. Union of India

Supreme Court Judgement on Inquiry Proceedings in Civil Services

• Date of Judgment: 12th May 2023 
• Bench: Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar 

Case Overview: The appellant, a Scientist/Engineer in Group-A at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC) under the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), faced disciplinary action following his leaves to South Korea. 

• Appointment and Promotion: The appellant was appointed on 15th January 1992 and promoted to Scientist/Engineer ‘SD’ on 1st July 1999. 
• Leaves to South Korea: The appellant took leave to South Korea three times. The first leave was not fully sanctioned, and the subsequent leaves were allegedly taken without proper notification or permission from the organization. 
• Disciplinary Actions: Due to the unauthorized leaves, the appellant was first suspended and later dismissed from service. 

Supreme Court's Verdict: The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Tribunal and the High Court regarding the disciplinary actions taken against the appellant. 

• Inquiry Proceedings: The Court clarified that inquiry proceedings for individuals employed in civil capacities under the Union or State Governments could be waived if the President or Governor is satisfied with the reasons. 
• Article 311: The Court referred to Article 311 of the Constitution of India, which outlines the procedure for dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank of civil servants. 
• Provisions of Article 311: The relevant provisions include: 
• Inquiry Requirement: No civil servant shall be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank without an inquiry, except in certain circumstances. 
• Exceptions: The exceptions include cases of criminal conviction, impracticality of holding an inquiry, and security of the State. 

Conclusion: The Supreme Court's decision reinforces the authority of the President and Governor in waiving inquiry proceedings in specific situations, aligning with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. 

Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another

Keywords: Constitutional Law, Supreme Court

• Date of Judgment: 11.05.2023 
• Bench Strength:. Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justices Sanjay Dubey and Asanuddin Amanullah 

Case Background:

• An FIR was lodged at Sleemanabad Police Station, involving Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC against an Inspector. 
• The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Report from a medical test was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Katni, on 25.10.2021, indicating the need for DNA examination as per guidelines. 
• The appellant, however, failed to carry out the necessary DNA examination. 
• This failure prompted the High Court to summon the Superintendent of Police, Katni, and the In-charge of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jabalpur. 
• The State's Counsel accused the appellant of insubordination, incompetence, and dereliction of duty, justifying departmental action against him. 
• The High Court ordered departmental proceedings against the appellant for neglecting his responsibilities in a case involving the rape of a minor girl. 

Supreme Court's Verdict:

• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's authority to issue directions in the interest of justice, even while considering a bail application, under Article 226 of the Constitution. 

Relevant Constitutional Provision: Article 226

1. Power of High Courts: High Courts have the power to issue directions, orders, or writs to any person or authority, including the government, for the enforcement of rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and for other purposes. 
2. Jurisdiction: High Courts can exercise this power even if the government or authority is not located within their territorial jurisdiction, as long as the cause of action arises within their jurisdiction. 
3. Interim Orders: If an interim order is made without providing copies of the petition and supporting documents to the affected party and without giving them a chance to be heard, the High Court must dispose of the application for vacation of such order within two weeks. If not disposed of, the interim order stands vacated. 
4. Supremacy of Supreme Court: The power of High Courts under this article does not diminish the power of the Supreme Court under Article 32(2). 

April 2023

Gaddipati Divija and Anr. v. Pathuri Samrajyam and Ors.

Case Summary: G. Venugopala Rao vs. Pathuri Samrajyam

• Background: On August 14, 2002, Mr. G. Venugopala Rao entered into an agreement to sell his immovable property to Ms. Pathuri Samrajyam. Ms. Samrajyam made a partial advance payment to Mr. Rao. 
• Discovery of Legal Issues: Ms. Samrajyam later discovered that the property was under attachment by a Civil Court due to recovery proceedings against Mr. Rao. Mr. Rao had passed away in 2003, leaving behind his wife and two minor children. 
• Legal Proceedings: Ms. Samrajyam filed a suit in the Civil Court seeking specific performance of the agreement, requesting the legal heirs of Mr. Rao to complete the sale. The Trial Court ruled against Ms. Samrajyam, stating she did not prove her entitlement to specific performance and ordered a refund of the advance payment. 
• Appeal and High Court Ruling: The High Court overturned the Trial Court’s decision, stating that Ms. Samrajyam met the criteria under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and was thus entitled to specific relief. 
• Supreme Court Decision: The Appellants, Mr. Rao's legal heirs, appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, supporting the High Court’s findings. The Court clarified that under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, a plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract to seek specific performance. However, the 2018 amendment to this section, which removed the need to state willingness, was not applicable in this case as it pertained to an earlier agreement. 

Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963: This section outlines the personal bars to relief in specific performance cases. It states that specific performance cannot be enforced in favor of a person who is not entitled to recover compensation for breach, who is incapable of performing the contract, or who fails to prove readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract. 

State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt and Ors.

Supreme Court Verdict on Pay Equality for Doctors

On April 26, 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment regarding the pay parity between doctors holding different medical degrees. The case involved civil appeals stemming from a decision by the Gujarat High Court, which had ruled in favor of doctors with a Bachelor of Ayurved in Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) degree, equating their qualifications to those of Allopathy doctors with a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) degree. 

Background of the Case

• The Gujarat High Court had initially upheld the view that BAMS graduates were entitled to the same benefits and pay as MBBS doctors, based on the recommendations of the Tikku Pay Commission. 
• The core issue escalated to the Supreme Court was whether the work performed by Allopathy doctors and those practicing indigenous medicine, such as Ayurveda, was comparable enough to warrant equal pay. 

Supreme Court's Findings

• The Supreme Court, comprising Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal, overturned the Gujarat High Court's decision. 
• The bench concluded that the nature of work performed by Allopathy doctors and doctors of indigenous medicine is not equivalent. Therefore, they cannot be entitled to the same remuneration. 

Legal Provisions Considered

• The judgment referenced Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which ensures equality before the law and prohibits discrimination on various grounds. 
• Article 19, which protects certain rights of citizens, was also considered, although the focus was primarily on the equality and nature of work provisions.  

Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Circumstantial Evidence Case

• Date of Judgement: April 17, 2023 
• Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and Surya Kant 

Case Overview:

• The accused, while working as a labourer at the farmhouse of the deceased, allegedly struck him with an iron rod, resulting in his death. 
• The accused is also suspected of stealing items from the farmhouse and selling them for personal gain. 
• Proceedings against the accused were initiated after a complaint was filed by the son of the deceased. 
• The Trial Court acquitted the accused, stating that the prosecution did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 
• However, the High Court overturned this decision, citing incorrect evaluation of evidence, and convicted the accused. 
• This led to an appeal being filed in the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court Findings:

• The Supreme Court found the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution to be sound and upheld the conviction of the accused. 
• It also ruled that a confessional statement, admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, is not invalid simply because it was recorded in a language other than the accused's mother tongue. 

Relevant Legal Provision:

• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the admissibility of information received from an accused in police custody, particularly regarding facts discovered as a result of such information. 

M/s. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. And Ors.

Supreme Court on Arbitration Agreement and Stamp Duty

• Date: 25.04.2023
• Bench: Justices K.M. Joseph, Aniruddha Bose, C.T. Ravikumar, Ajay Rastogi, and Hrishikesh Roy

Background:

• A sub-contract between the petitioner and respondent included an arbitration clause. 
• Disputes led the respondent to invoke a Bank Guarantee from the petitioner. 
• The Commercial Court was approached regarding the invocation, and the respondent sought to refer disputes to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 
• The Commercial Court's rejection of the application prompted a revision petition to the Bombay High Court, which upheld the application’s maintainability. 
• The matter escalated to the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court Ruling

Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Aniruddha Bose, and Justice C.T. Ravikumar:

• An arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is subject to stamp duty. 
• If the agreement is not stamped or insufficiently stamped, it cannot be acted upon as per Section 35 of the Stamp Act, unless it is impounded and the requisite duty is paid. 

Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Hrishikesh Roy:

• The non-stamping or insufficient stamping of the substantive instrument does not render the arbitration agreement unenforceable. 
• Stamp deficiency is a curable defect and does not make the arbitration agreement void. 

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Defines an arbitration agreement and its forms, emphasizing that it must be in writing. 
• Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Grants judicial authority the power to refer parties to arbitration when an arbitration agreement exists. 

March 2023

Premchand v. State of Maharashtra

Supreme Court Ruling on Section 313 of CrPC in Criminal Case

• Date of Judgment: March 3, 2023 
• Bench: Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta 

Background:

• A murder occurred in 2013, with three others sustaining stab injuries. 
• The mother of the deceased filed a report, leading to charges under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC. 
• The post-mortem indicated a stab injury to the neck as the cause of death. 
• After investigation, charges were framed against the accused. 
• The Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of murder and attempted murder. 
• This decision was upheld by the High Court, prompting the current appeal to the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court's Observations:

• The Court emphasized the importance of the accused's written statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. 
• It noted that the written statement should be considered in light of the prosecution evidence. 
• The Court referenced previous cases to highlight the relevance of the accused's statements in determining the truth. 
• The statements made by the accused under Section 313, although not under oath, are important for assessing the prosecution's case. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court found the accused guilty under Section 304 of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). 
• Considering the time already served (9 years) and the accused's age (late sixties), the Court ordered his release. 

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Section 313 of the CrPC: Empowers the court to examine the accused during trials to explain circumstances appearing in evidence against them. 
• Section 302 of the IPC: Pertains to punishment for murder. 
• Section 307 of the IPC: Deals with attempt to murder. 

Ravi Dhingra v. State Haryana

Supreme Court Ruling on Kidnapping Case

• Date of Judgment: March 1, 2023 
• Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and B.V. Nagarathna 

Case Background:

• A 14-year-old boy was kidnapped while on his way to school. The Station House Officer registered a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 
• A prosecution witness testified that the boy was threatened by co-accused to ride as a pillion on a scooter. When he refused, he was forcibly taken in a car. 
• The kidnappers threatened the boy with a knife and a pistol to prevent him from screaming for help. 
• The boy's father received calls from the kidnappers, demanding ransom. After informing the police, he arranged money and followed the kidnappers' instructions. 
• The police traced the calls to a mobile phone registered in the name of Ravi Duhan, an engineering student. 
• The police apprehended four accused: Ravi Dhingra, Baljit Pahwa, Parvej Khan, and Raman Goswami. Laxmi Narain was arrested later. 
• The Trial Court sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 148 of IPC, life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2000/- each under Section 364A read with Section 149 of the IPC. 
• The appellants appealed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, but their plea was rejected. 
• The case was then taken to the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court Verdict:

• The Supreme Court ruled that the act of intimidating a kidnapped child to prevent him from shouting did not meet the criteria for a threat causing reasonable apprehension of harm or death necessary for a conviction under Section 364A of the IPC. 
• The Court convicted the appellants under Section 363 of IPC for kidnapping and sentenced them to seven years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2000/-. 

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Section 148 of IPC: Punishment for rioting armed with a deadly weapon. 
• Section 149 of IPC: Punishment for rioting armed with a deadly weapon. 
• Section 363 of IPC: Punishment for kidnapping, with a maximum term of seven years and liability to fine. 
• Section 364A of IPC: Punishment for kidnapping for ransom, with provisions for death or life imprisonment and fine. 

BLS Infrastructure Limited v. Rajwant Singh

Supreme Court Ruling on Non-Appearance of Complainant in Criminal Cases

• Keywords: Criminal Law, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Supreme Court 
• Date of Judgement/Order: 01.03.2023 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Manoj Misra 

Case Overview:

• Eight complaints were lodged against the respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). 
• Complaints were filed in different years: three in 2011, three in 2013, and two in 2017. 
• The appellant believed his presence was not required due to a misunderstanding with his counsel during the proceedings. 
• As a result, the appellant did not appear, leading to the dismissal of the complaints by the Magistrate. 
• The dismissal was challenged in the Delhi High Court but was upheld. 
• The appellant then filed a petition in the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court Observations:

• The Special Leave Petition(s) mentioned that the appellant had presented evidence and requested to summon further witnesses under Section 311 of the Code, which was not executed. 
• The Subordinate Court and the High Court did not consider the case facts in light of the proviso to Section 256(1) of CrPC, which allows the court to proceed without the complainant's attendance. 
• If the complainant did not press the application under Section 311, the Magistrate could reject it, but in this case, the Magistrate was wrong to dismiss the complaints outright. 
• The High Court also overlooked these important details. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court ruled that if the complainant had already testified in the case, the court should not acquit the accused solely based on the complainant's non-appearance. 
• The court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of the complainant's prior testimony. 

Relevant Legal Provisions

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
Section 256: Non-Appearance or Death of Complainant

• If a complainant does not appear on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, the Magistrate shall acquit the accused, unless he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing. 
• The Magistrate may dispense with the attendance of the complainant and proceed with the case if the complainant is represented by a pleader or if the Magistrate believes the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary. 

Section 311: Power to Summon Material Witness or Examine Person Present

• Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined. 
• The Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. 

Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India

Supreme Court Ruling on Appointment of Election Commissioners

• Date of Judgment: March 2, 2023 
• Bench: Five-judge Constitution bench, including Justices K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and C.T. Ravikumar. 

Relevant Articles: Article 32 and Article 324 of the Constitution of India 

Background: The Supreme Court was hearing petitions under Article 32 regarding the appointment process of Election Commissioners. Petitioners sought a transparent and independent system for these appointments, referencing various reports on electoral reforms. 

Key Observations: The Court emphasized the need for an independent Election Commission, stating that the means used to achieve political ends must be fair, especially in a democracy. 

Verdict: The Court ruled that Election Commissioners should be appointed by the President of India based on the advice of a committee consisting of: 

• The Prime Minister 
• The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha or the leader of the largest opposition party 
• The Chief Justice of India 

This practice will be followed until Parliament enacts legislation on the matter.