Home / 2023
Consolidation of Judgments
November 2023
« »26-Dec-2023
Pawan Kumar v. State of UP
Date of Judgement/Order – 21.11.2023
Bench Strength – 2 Judges
Composition of Bench – Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Case In Brief
- There were four accused in the case namely Accused 1 (A1), A2, A3, & A4.
- A4 passed away during the trial anlivd his case stood abated and the remaining three were convicted.
- Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court upheld the judgment.
- Meanwhile, as far as A1 and A2 are concerned, who are the father and brother of the present appellant (A3) respectively, they were released prematurely after remaining in jail for more than 19 years, under the remission policy of the State.
- The A3 has raised a claim of being a juvenile at the time of the alleged commission of the crime before the SC, his plea was dismissed by the Trial Court and the HC as a bone ossification test was conducted under the supervision of the Chief Medical Officer of District Hospital, Barabanki where the age of the appellant was recorded as approximately 19 years.
- Other than bone ossification test, A3 also placed his school certificate to claim his juvenility under Section 2(k) of Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act, 2015 (JJ Act).
- The present appeal was thus filed in the Supreme Court.
Verdict
- The SC accepted the juvenility of the accused based on his school certificate and said that medical opinion based on Bone Ossification Test, is not entirely accurate.
- Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal on the question of juvenility by stating that if the juvenility is not able to be determined, a reduction of 1 year can be given.
Relevant Provision
- Section 2 (k) of JJ Act - Juvenile. –
- “juvenile” or “child” means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age”.
Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain
Date of Judgement/Order – 01.11.2023
Bench Strength – 2 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—A 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
- Nalini Kanth, who is the appellant, asserted that he was adopted by Venkubayamma, a 70-year-old woman, when he was less than one year old.
- According to the appellant, this adoption was formalized through a registered Adoption Deed dated 20th April 1982.
- Additionally, he claimed that Venkubayamma, through a registered Will Deed dated 3rd May1982, bequeathed all her property to him.
- Nalini further contended that Venkubayamma had revoked her earlier Will Deed dated 26th May 1981, which had favored Kaliprasad, her grandson.
- In order to assert his rights to Venkubayamma's properties, the appellant filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory and consequential reliefs. And, presented a witness under Section 69 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) to prove the will.
- The suit was contested by Kaliprasad, grandson of Venkubayamma.
- He challenged the Adoption Deed as well as the Will Deed, under which Nalini Kanth claimed rights.
- According to him, Venkubayamma was senile and was not in a position to exercise free will and consciousness. He asserted that the adoption was not true, valid or binding on him.
- The Principal Subordinate Judge ruled in favor of the appellant, granting the decree for the suit.
- Nevertheless, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, upon appeal, ruled against the appellant.
- The present appeal was thus filed in the Supreme Court.
Verdict
- The SC ruled that “For the purposes of Section 69 of IEA, it is not enough to merely examine a random witness who asserts that he saw the attesting witness affix his signature in the Will”.
- The very purpose and objective of insisting upon examination of at least one attesting witness to the Will would be entirely lost if such requirement is whittled down to just having a stray witness depose that he saw the attesting witness sign the Will.
- The SC dismissed the appeal.
Relevant Provision
- Section 69 of IEA - Proof where no attesting witness found. –
- If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person.
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 In Brief
- The Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal, in which certain documents on the record, including the cross-examination of the witnesses was in Tamil Language.
- The members of the Disciplinary Committee were not conversant with Tamil and used Google Lens for translation.
- According to the Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 17 read with sub-Rule 2 of Rule 9 of the Rules regarding Disciplinary Proceedings framed by the Bar Council of India require the Bar Council to obtain translation of such documents in English.
- SC noted that though under the rules, it is the responsibility of the Disciplinary Committee to procure translations of such documents, even parties can get the documents translated since various translation software and Artificial Intelligence tools are available now.
- This could help reduce the delay in the disciplinary proceedings.
Verdict
- The SC ruled that the disciplinary proceedings are always against a member of the Bar. The concerned member of the Bar will be always anxious to ensure that the proceedings are terminated at the earliest.
- Therefore, it will be always open for the Disciplinary Committee to suggest to the members of the Bar to produce English translation of the relevant documents which are not in English. This will obviate the delay in disposal of the disciplinary proceedings”
Balaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Judgement/Order – 08.11.2023
Bench Strength –3 Judges
Composition of Bench – Justice B.R. Gavai, P.S. Narasimha, Aravind Kumar
Case In Brief
- The Supreme Court while dealing with an appeal filed against the order of Madhya Pradesh High Court where HC confirmed the conviction to accused persons namely Rameshwar(deceased) and Balaram under several provisions of Indian Penal Code,1860(IPC) including Section 302 (Punishment for murder).
- The Prosecution Witness (PW)5-Ramkali, PW.6-Mulchand along with their son (Ashok) were travelling on a bullock cart and were attacked by the accused persons, resulted in the death of Ashok.
- Amongst six persons who were tried, the trial court convicted the aforementioned two accused persons, and their conviction was affirmed by the order of the High Court.
- It was submitted for the appellant ‘that previous enmity is a double-edged weapon, and as such the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out’ and the counsel urged for an acquittal of the appellant.
- The trial court, while disbelieving the version of two witnesses, had acquitted one accused person and convicted the other two.
- The SC found that the trial court has applied a separate standard while not accepting the testimonies of eyewitnesses with regard to one accused however, it convicted the other two accused person on the basis of same evidence.
- The SC that the testimonies based on which accused persons were convicted were wholly unreliable and can be discarded in toto.
- The SC set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused.
Verdict
- The SC ruled that when the Trial Court has disbelieved the testimony of PW.5-Ramkali and PW.6-Mulchand insofar as accused Uma Charan was concerned, it could not have applied a separate standard while considering the case of the present appellant-Balaram and Rameshwar (since deceased) and are of the considered view that the testimony of PW.5-Ramkali and PW.6-Mulchand would come in the category of wholly unreliable witnesses.
Relevant Provision
- Section 302 of IPC-Punishment for Murder.
- Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Munishamappa v. N. Rama Reddy and others
Date of Judgement/Order – 02.11.2023
Bench Strength –2 Judges
Composition of Bench – Justice Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal.
Case In Brief
- The civil appeal, filed in 2011 in the Supreme Court, pertained to an agreement to sell executed in the year 1990. It was executed in the anticipation that the Fragmentation Act will be repealed, which eventually happened in 1991.
- When there was refusal to execute the sale, the defendants filed a suit for specific performance of contract.
- The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court allowed it.
- In second appeal, the High Court reversed the first appellate court's judgment, and dismissed the suit, holding that the agreement was barred under the Fragmentation Act.
- The SC noted that the bar under Section 5 of the Fragmentation Act was the lease/sale/conveyance or transfer of rights.
- The court held that since the agreement to sell is not creating any rights on the land, it cannot be held to be barred by the act and the suit was filed after the repeal of the Fragmentation act.
- So, the court allowed the appeal.
- It may also be noted that Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882(TPA) expressly states that a ‘Contract’ for ‘Sale’, does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.
Verdict
- The SC held that the agreement to sell is not a conveyance; it does not transfer ownership rights or confers any title.
Relevant Provision
- Section 54 of TPA,1882-
- ‘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. —A 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.
Amandeep Singh Sran v. State of Delhi
Date of Judgement/Order – 06.11.2023
Bench Strength – 2 Judges
Composition of Bench – Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Case In Brief
- The petitioner has filed the writ petition before the Supreme Court for clubbing of the First Information Report (FIRs) filed against the petitioner in various states throughout the country and be brought together before any appropriate Investigating Agency/Court in the State of Delhi by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
- There are 10 FIRs lodged against the petitioner in the State of Chhattisgarh, 4 FIRs in the State of Tamil Nadu, 8 FIRs filed in the State of Rajasthan, 2 FIRs each filed in the State of Maharashtra and Delhi and 3 FIRs filed in the State of Madhya Pradesh and 1 FIR filed in the State of Haryana totally 30 number of FIRs.
- The Court declined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the COI, but liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach each of the jurisdictional High Courts to seek clubbing of the FIRs.
Verdict
- The FIRs have been filed against the petitioner not only provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) but also invoked various state enactments designed to protect investors.
- Each State had designated special courts for these offenses, making clubbing of FIRs challenging, as it would undermine the jurisdiction of these specialized courts.
Relevant Provision
- Article 142 of the COI - Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to discovery, etc.
( 1 ) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.
Vishnu Kumar Shukla & Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Date of Judgement/Order – 28.11.2023
Bench Strength – 2 Judges
Composition of Bench – Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Case In Brief
- This appeal has been before the Supreme Court directing against the final judgment passed by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by which the order dated passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow rejecting the prayer for discharge of the appellants, has been upheld.
- The allegations are that the Respondent was a tenant of a shop situated in the house of one Hari Narayan Shukla.
- The appellants, along with others, locked the door of the shop from inside, broke the wall and looted the goods.
- The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court which refused to discharge the accused.
Verdict
- The Appellants are to be protected against vexatious and unwarranted criminal prosecution, and from unnecessarily being put through the rigorous of an eventual trial. The High Court should have intervened and discharged the appellants.
Vijay v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgement/Order – 29.11.2023
Bench Strength – 2 Judges
Composition of Bench – Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol
Case In Brief
- Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an agreement to sell on 4th February 1998.
- When Defendant denied the existence of such an agreement, Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract.
- Plaintiff moved an application to file a copy of the agreement to sell, among other documents, as secondary evidence.
- The District Court held that secondary evidence of an agreement to sell could not be allowed as it was not executed on a proper stamp, thus barred under section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
- Aggrieved by this, the Plaintiff filed a petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the Court upheld the order of the District Court.
- Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court which was later allowed by the court.
Verdict
- The Court observed that the principles relevant for examining the admissibility of secondary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) stated that if a document that is required to be stamped is not sufficiently stamped, then the position of law is well settled that a copy of such document as secondary evidence cannot be adduced.
Relevant Provision
- Section 63 of IEA - Secondary Evidence
- Secondary evidence means and includes -
(1) Certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained.
(2) Copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies.
(3) Copies made from or compared with the original.
(4) Counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them.
(5) Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it.