Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: October 30 – November 3, 2023
1) Wholesale distributors have unlawfully benefitted at the expense of government & consumers- SC while denying bail to Manish Sisodia
The Court denied bail to former Delhi deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the Delhi excise policy scam case. The Court also directed that the trial be fast tracked.
In this case, the appellant was facing money laundering and corruption charges owning to alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of a liquor policy (now scrapped) in Delhi. Notably, he was taken into custody in February 2023 and is under investigation by the CBI and the ED.
Cause Title- Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Date of Judgment- October 30, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti
2) Section 47 CPC | Executing Court can never go behind the decree; can only decide questions regarding ‘execution of decree'
The Court observed that an Executing Court can only decide questions which are limited to the “execution of the decree” and that it can never go behind the decree.
The Court allowed a Civil Appeal in a case pertaining to the eviction of tenants which was decreed in favour of the landlord but execution of the decree had been long pending. The Court emphasized that the execution of a decree is a slow and long process and noted that such prolonged delays have been a matter of concern.
Cause Title- Pradeep Mehra v Harijivan J. Jethwa (Thr. LRs.) & Ors.
Date of Judgment- October 30, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
3) Armed Forces personals cannot be deemed ex-servicemen from prospective date if they were in actual service on relevant date of advertisement
Emphasizing that there is no concept of serving personnel being deemed Ex-Servicemen, the Court ruled that the appellants cannot be deemed Ex- Servicemen from a prospective date, when being in actual service on the relevant date.
The Supreme Court held so while considering a petition challenging the judgment of the Allahabad High Court whereby the appellants’ claims for recruitment on the posts of Village Development Officers stood rejected.
Cause Title- Sudhir Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P and Ors.
Date of Judgment- October 30, 2023
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
4) An ingenious accused will effectively stall proceedings- Supreme Court holds that second petition u/s. 482 CrPC is not maintainable on grounds that were available at time of first petition
The Court observed that permitting the filing of successive petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) would enable an ingenious accused to stall any proceedings against him per his interest and convenience. It held that a second petition maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. will not be maintainable on grounds that were available for challenge even at the time of filing of the first petition.
The Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition challenging the order of the High Court whereby the petitioner's application for a second petition was dismissed. It emphasized the importance of following the principle of not allowing successive petitions under Section 482 regardless of when the cause for such petitions arises.
Cause Title- Bhisham Lal Verma v State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Date of Judgment- October 30, 2023
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar
5) Secondary sex characteristics of prosecutrix were well developed, bone ossification test not done: SC holds prosecutrix to be major & sex consensual while acquitting man in rape case
In an appeal arising out of conviction in a rape case, the Court held based on evidence that the prosecutrix is not a minor as the secondary sex characteristics of the prosecutrix were well developed. The Court also held based on the conduct of the prosecutrix that the sex, if at all, was consensual and not forced.
The Court accordingly acquitted the convict, who was a relative of the prosecutrix. While emphasizing that evidence of a prosecutrix in a case of rape is of the same value as that of an injured witness, and conviction can be made based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the Court held that the only factor which could have made the consensual aspect immaterial and made it a case of ‘rape’ was the age of the prosecutrix.
Cause Title- Manak Chand v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment- October 30, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice C.T Ravikumar, and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
6) Neither Motor Vehicles Act nor insurance policy requires owner to verify license of driver with transport authorities: SC holds that owner is not liable for fake license of driver
The Court held that there is no condition mandating the owner of any vehicle to verify and check the driving license of any driver being employed with the concerned authorities under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act) or in the Insurance Policy and hence the owner/employer is not liable to pay compensation in case where the driver involved in the accident had a fake license.
The Court dismissed the Petition challenging the order of the High Court whereby it was held that the Insurance Company does not have the right to recover the compensation amount from the vehicle's owner. The Court noted that it would be an unrealistic and unnecessary condition to expect every person employing a driver to get their driving license verified and confirmed by the authorities.
Cause Title- IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd v Geeta Devi And Ors
Date of Judgment- October 30, 2023
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar
7) Contradictions between statements u/s. 161 CrPC and examination in chief may not always result in discrediting witness
Emphasizing that a statement given to police during investigation under Section 161 CrPC cannot be read as “evidence”, the Court ruled that mere contradictions in two statements under Section 161 CrPC and given in examination in chief are not enough to completely discredit the witness.
The Court therefore held that grievous attack by the accused on the prosecution, which resulted in death of one of the victims, would come under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, the attack not being premeditated, but was, “in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”
Cause Title- Birbal Nath v. State of Rajasthan
Date of Judgment- October 30, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
8) Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958: SC dismisses appeal against order confirming seniority given retrospectively
The Court dismissed an appeal as per the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 against the order that confirmed the seniority given to the respondents from the back date. It said that the appellant undisputedly falls under the category of the Graduate Engineer.
In this case, a civil appeal was filed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court by which the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside. The challenge was to the order of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Administration, Thiruvananthapuram vide which the respondents were given seniority from back date.
Cause Title- C. Anil Chandran v. M.K. Raghavan and Others
Date of Judgment- October 30, 2023
Coram- Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rajesh Bindal
9) Plaint cannot be rejected partially under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC: Supreme Court reiterates
The Court reiterated that a plaint must be either accepted or rejected in its entirety and cannot be rejected in part in an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
The Court allowed the Civil Appeal challenging the order of the High Court whereby the plaint filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was partly rejected related to Schedule A property. It emphasized that the High Court’s approach, prejudging the legality and validity of the disputed sale deed under which the Respondents were claiming title, was incorrect and contrary to established principles.
Cause Title- Kum. Geetha v Nanjundaswamy & Ors.
Date of Judgment- October 31, 2023
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
10) Co-ordinate bench cannot comment upon discretion exercised or judgment rendered by another bench of same strength
The Court held that any passing reference of the impugned judgment made by the Bench of the equal strength could not be a ground for review. The judgment sought to be reviewed was adversely commented upon in a subsequent judgment delivered by a bench of the same bench strength. This was cited by the review petitioners as a ground to seek review of the judgment.
The Court held this in a batch of review petitions seeking to review the common judgment and order passed by the Apex Court in the appeals preferred by the State Tax Officer.
Cause Title- Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer & Anr.
Date of Judgment- October 31, 2023
Coram- Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
11) Benefit of exception 4 to Section 300 IPC cannot be extended to accused who had taken 'advantage of the situation'
The Court observed that the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code cannot be extended to a murder accused who had taken "advantage of the situation".
The Court dismissed the appeal filed by a man who was concurrently convicted under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC by the courts and was sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. He had allegedly killed his wife by lighting a matchstick and throwing upon her when she had already poured kerosene upon herself due to quarrel with him.
Cause Title- Anil Kumar v. The State of Kerala
Date of Judgment- November 1, 2023
Coram- Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
12) Section 389(1) CrPC | Bail granted to accused cannot be cancelled merely because his Advocate sought adjournment
The Court observed that a bail granted under Section 389(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be cancelled without giving the accused a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2002 (POCSO Act). He had approached the High Court, whereby the substantive sentence was suspended and he was enlarged on bail.
Cause Title- Purushothaman v State Of Tamil Nadu
Date of Judgment- October 30, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
13) Proceeding based on that the persons were substituted won’t determine locus to main petitions deriving their right from testamentary instrument
The Court observed that proceeding on the basis that the persons were substituted would not determine their locus to maintain the petitions deriving their right from the testamentary instrument.
The Court was deciding petitions filed by two nephews of a man who died in the year 2019 and had interest in two blocks of land adjacent to each other in the Tamil Nadu State. The said nephews (petitioners) brought an action in the capacity of legatees of the said man.
Cause Title- Mohideen Abdul Khadar (Dead) Through LRs. v. Rahmath Beevi (D) Thr. Her LRs. and Ors.
Date of Judgment- November 1, 2023
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
14) Process of court can’t be misused for partisan purposes in commercial disputes involving warring factions: SC closes contempt case against NCLAT members
The Court, while closing contempt case against NCLAT members, observed that the process of the court cannot be allowed to be misused for partisan purposes in commercial disputes involving warring factions.
In this case, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismissed the application filed by the first respondent for the grant of interim relief by an order. The first respondent was in appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and no interim relief operated in favour of the first respondent during the pendency of the appeal.
Cause Title- Orbit Electricals Private Limited v. Deepak Kishan Chhabria & Ors.
Date of Judgment- October 30, 2023
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
15) Not necessary that every person constituting unlawful assembly must play active role for conviction u/s. 149 IPC
The Court reiterated that it is not necessary that every person constituting unlawful assembly must play active role for conviction under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court was dealing with appeals against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby it had upheld the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellants and sentencing them to imprisonment for life for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.
Cause Title- Parshuram v. State of M.P.
Date of Judgment- November 3, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
