STPL
The Law Website
Latest Reportable Judgment of Supreme Court of India Home
 
Latest Judgements, Updated On : Sunday, September 21, 2014
Latest news updated here ....... .....
12345...>>
Date Case Detail
September 18,2014
Evidence - Admission of electronic records (Election Petition dismissed)
2014 STPL(Web) 618 SC
Civil Appeal No. 4226 of 2012-Decided on 18-9-2014.
Genuineness, veracity or reliability of the evidence is seen by the court only after the stage of relevancy and admissibility. These are some of the first principles of evidence. What is the nature and manner of admission of electronic records, is one of the principal issues arising for consideration in this appeal. …. Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, the question would arise as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45A – opinion of examiner of electronic evidence. …. The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India. …. The appellant admittedly has not produced any certificate in terms of Section 65B in respect of the CDs, Exhibits-P4, P8, P9, P10, P12, P13, P15, P20 and P22. Therefore, the same cannot be admitted in evidence. Thus, the whole case set up regarding the corrupt practice using songs, announcements and speeches fall to the ground….. Having regard to the admissible evidence available on record, though for different reasons, we find it extremely difficult to hold that the appellant has founded and proved corrupt practice under Section 100(1)(b) read with Section 123(4) of the RP Act against the first respondent. In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
September 18,2014
Domestic Violence – Interim maintenance
2014 STPL(Web) 617 SC
Criminal Appeal No.2070 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6220 of 2014)-Decided on 18-9-2014.
By the said order, the Magistrate granted an amount of Rs.2.5 lacs towards monthly maintenance of the appellant which included rental charges for alternative accommodation….. the application of the appellant was dismissed as “not pressed” on representation made by the counsel appearing for the appellant. The appellant appeared in person before us and made a statement that such instructions not to press the application were never given to the counsel who appeared in the High Court and hence the present appeal.
September 18,2014
Dealership – Cancelation of allotment
2014 STPL(Web) 616 SC
Civil Appeal No. 8980 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 313 of 2012) with S.L.P. (Civil) No. 31006 of 2012-Decided on 18-9-2014.
whether, on the cancellation of the allotment of a dealership or distributorship for petroleum products in favour of the first ranked or first empanelled candidate, there is an automatic allotment in favour of the second ranked or second empanelled candidate, subject to fulfillment of the conditions of allotment. In our opinion, in view of the decisions of this Court, if the allotment is tainted due to political connections or patronage or other extraneous considerations, the entire selection process is vitiated and, therefore the second ranked or second empanelled candidate is not entitled to an automatic allotment of a dealership or distributorship in his or her favour. …. Accordingly we hold, following that decision that when the allotment of the dealership or distributorship in favour of the first empanelled candidate is cancelled as a result of the Report of the Committee appointed in Onkar Lal Bajaj, which Report has been accepted by this Court, the selection process itself is vitiated. In such an event, there is no question of the second empanelled candidate being automatically granted the dealership or distributorship in place of the first empanelled candidate. The entire panel of selected candidates must stand cancelled and a fresh selection process must be initiated.
September 17,2014
Debt Recovery Tribunal – Jurisdiction to hear counter claim of borrower
2014 STPL(Web) 615 SC
Civil Appeal Nos.8973-8973 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 975-976 of 2012)-Decided on 17-9-2014.
whether having regard to the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [hereinafter referred to as ‘RDB Act’], a suit containing a “counter-claim” or claiming a “set-off” filed by a debtor can be heard and tried before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRT’) under the RDB Act or must be tried by a Civil Court alone….. It is not possible to accede to the submissions made on behalf of the respondent as pointed out above. There is a difference of opinion between several Benches of this Court on the issue. This is likely to create a doubt as to the true position in law, hence we consider it appropriate to refer the following questions of law to a larger Bench
September 17,2014
Dishonour of Cheque – Complaint by Power of attorney holder
2014 STPL(Web) 614 SC
Criminal Appeal Nos.2065-2066 of 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.4682-4683 of 2012]-Decided on 17-9-2014.
Karnataka High Court overturned the concurrent judgments of the courts below and acquitted the respondents only on the ground that the complaint had been presented by the appellant’s husband as her power of attorney holder but the power of attorney was not produced and that in strict compliance with Section 200 of the Code, the appellant must be examined before cognizance can be taken of the complaint, which was not done. …. Hence, while holding in favour of the appellant that the complaint can be filed by a power of attorney holder and on that ground complaint cannot be held not maintainable and that the power of attorney was very much on record, we remand the matter to the High Court with a request that the High Court should hear both sides and decide whether the cheques in question were issued as a security or for the purpose of repayment of legally recoverable debt.
September 16,2014
Civil Procedure – Amendment in decree (Section 152)
2014 STPL(Web) 613 SC
Civil Appeal Nos.2352-2354 of 2008-Decided on 16-9-2014.
From the language of Section 152 of the Code, as quoted above, and also from the interpretation of the section given in the case of State of Punjab vs. Darshan Singh (supra), the section is meant for correcting the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. …. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152….. But in the present case since there is a clear finding of shares of the parties in the judgment and order dated 25.1.1996, as such by clarifying the decree by the impugned order, in our opinion the High Court has committed no mistake of law. In this connection, we would like to re-produce sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 of Order XX of the Code, which reads as under
September 16,2014
Quashing of Complaint – Dowry – Distant relation – Quashed
2014 STPL(Web) 612 SC
Criminal Appeal No. 2055 of 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.4656 of 2011]-Decided on 16-9-2014.
Their relationship with the husband of the complainant was remote as grand father of the appellant No.1 was brother of grand father of the husband of the complainant. In such remote relationship, the appellants will have no interest in raising any demand for dowry or causing any harassment to the complainant. Their implication was thus, clear abuse of the process of the Court. …. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that marriage took place in the year 2005 and a child was born on 15th January, 2009. Complaint was filed in the year 2010 after filing of divorce petition by the husband of the complainant on 24th April, 2010. In the FIR, initially filed, there was no allegation against the appellants but in the subsequent complaint, the appellants were also named as accused without any specific allegation against them. Thus, requiring the appellants to face criminal proceedings was nothing but abuse of the Court’s process. …. The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role….. the proceedings in the present case are clearly the abuse of the Court’s process. …. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and quash the proceedings against the appellants
September 16,2014
Murder – Conversion of offence u/s 304 Part I set aside
2014 STPL(Web) 611 SC
Criminal Appeal No. 2051 of 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1235 of 2012]-Decided on 16-9-2014.
It is clear from the case of the prosecution mentioned above that the accused first slapped the complainant which was followed by verbal abuses and thereafter the accused brought the licensed gun and fired at the deceased, who died. It was, thus, a voluntary and intentional act of the accused which caused the death. Intention is a matter of inference and when death is as a result of intentional firing, intention to cause death is patent unless the case falls under any of the exceptions. We are unable to hold that the case falls under Exception 4 of Section 300, IPC as submitted by learned counsel for the respondent. Exception 4 is attracted only when there is a fight or quarrel which requires mutual provocation and blows by both sides in which the offender does not take undue advantage. In the present case, there is no giving of any blow by the complainant side. The complainant side did not have any weapon. The accused went to his house and brought a gun. There is neither sudden fight nor a case where the accused has not taken undue advantage.
September 16,2014
Rape – Conviction set aside
2014 STPL(Web) 610 SC
Criminal Appeal No.2358 of 2010-Decided on 16-9-2014.
We think it proper, having regard to the increase in the number of sex violation cases in the recent past, particularly cases of molestation and rape in custody, to remove the notion, if it persists, that the testimony of a woman who is a victim of sexual violence must ordinarily be corroborated in material particulars except in the rarest of rare cases. To insist on corroboration except in the rarest of rare cases is to equate a woman who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her story of woe will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars as in the case of an accomplice to a crime….. Thus, while absence of injuries or absence of raising alarm or delay in FIR may not by itself be enough to disbelieve the version of prosecutrix in view of the statutory presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act but if such statement has inherent infirmities, creating doubt about its veracity, the same may not be acted upon. We are conscious of the sensitivity with which heinous offence under Section 376, IPC has to be treated but in the present case the circumstances taken as a whole create doubt about the correctness of the prosecution version. We are, thus, of the opinion that a case is made out for giving benefit of doubt to the accused.
September 16,2014
Murder/Rape – Conviction upheld
2014 STPL(Web) 609 SC
Criminal Appeal No.667 of 2011-Decided on 16-9-2014.
In the present case not only the evidence of the child witness is reliable and not tutored, it is corroborated by other testimony. The complainant and prosecutrix have no axe to grind against the accused persons. The accused had the motive to kidnap Parubai and they trespassed into her house armed with various weapons and caused death of one family member and caused injuries to other family members and abducted the prosecutrix who was recovered after 4-5 days. All the accused have thus been rightly convicted and sentenced.
September 16,2014
Land Acquisition - Infructuous
2014 STPL(Web) 608 SC
Civil Appeal Nos. 8791-8818 of 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.36425-36452 of 2009]-Decided on 16-9-2014.
High Court quashed the two notifications Dated 25th June, 2004 and 20th February, 2007 underSection 6 of the Act and partly quashed notifications under Section 4 of the Act dated 11th February, 2004 and 29th August, 2006 to the extent of invocation of urgency clause with liberty to the State to proceed with the hearing of objections under Section 5A of the Act and with further direction as to refund of compensation already received by the land owners….. But before pronouncement of the judgment, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Company seeking to surrender all rights in respect of the land covered by the above notifications dated 11th February, 2004 and 29th August, 2006, stating that on account of the difficulty in securing domestic natural gas to run the plant which was sought to be set up, it will not be feasible for the Company to utilise the land for the purpose for which the same was acquired.The State has not chosen to challenge the findings recorded by the High Court. On this ground itself, proceedings lapse…. In these circumstances no further question survives for consideration….. In view of the above, the appeals are disposed of as infructuous without prejudice to any other remedy for the Company to recover the amount, if any, paid and for tenure holders to claim damages, if any, from the Company in any other proceedings.
September 11,2014
MACT – Compensation enhanced
2014 STPL(Web) 607 SC
Civil Appeal No.8632 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21666 of 2013) -Decided on 11-9-2014.
we are of the view that the courts below have failed to follow the principles as laid down by this Court in the case of Subulaxmi (supra) in awarding compensation under a singular head towards permanent disability and loss of future earning to the appellant-minors and appellant-father. …. It is extremely essential for the courts to consider the two main components of damages i.e. both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as per the guidelines laid down by this Court in the above case so that the just and reasonable compensation is awarded to the injured. …. However, the only aspect of the case on hand that we can reasonably assume is that the appellant-father would have taken sufficient caution while riding the motorcycle since he was travelling with his two minor children (appellant-minors). Further, upon examining the evidence produced on record, there is no proof showing negligence on the part of the appellant-father. Thus in our view, the contributory negligence apportioned by the High Court at 25% on the appellant-father and 75% on the driver of the offending tractor is erroneous keeping in view the legal principles laid down by this Court on this aspect in the above referred case.
12345...>>
 
2010-2012 © STPL