2020 SCC Vol. 10 Part 1

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 47 to 49 r/w S. 43 — Foreign award — Limitation period for filing application for its enforcement: Applicability of Art. 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is restricted to decrees of a civil court in India. Deeming fiction under S. 49 i.e. for consideration of arbitration award as a deemed decree of the court is not applicable in determining the limitation period governing enforcement of foreign awards. [Union of India v. Vedanta Ltd., (2020) 10 SCC 1]

Constitution of India — Art. 21: Investigation by an officer who himself is informant/complainant in the case is not barred under NDPS Act or CrPC. Hence, in a case where informant officer himself is investigator, by that itself it cannot be said that investigation is vitiated on ground of bias or the like factor. Question of bias or prejudice would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. [Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi),(2020) 10 SCC 120]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 177 — Jurisdiction of criminal courts: Principles and factors that need to be kept in mind while determining jurisdiction (particularly territorial jurisdiction) of criminal courts in inquiries and trials, explained in detail. [Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana, (2020) 10 SCC 92]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 438 — Anticipatory bail: In this case, blanket direction by the High Court restraining the IO from taking coercive measures against respondent-accused, directed to be stayed, because the respondents found protected by an interim stay of arrest by the Sessions Court. [Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 10 SCC 118]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 437(3), 438(2) and 439(1)(a) — Bail — Imposition of conditions — Relevant considerations for: Human right to dignity and the protection of constitutional safeguards should not become illusory by the imposition of conditions which are disproportionate to the need to secure the presence of the accused, the proper course of investigation and eventually to ensure a fair trial. The conditions which are imposed by the court must bear a proportional relationship to the purpose of imposing the conditions. The nature of the risk which is posed by the grant of permission as sought in this case must be carefully evaluated in each case. [Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 10 SCC 77]

Election — Election Petition/Trial — Exercise of Power — Relief — Declaration of election petitioner as returned candidate, on succeeding in election petition: Rule for exclusion of votes secured by corrupt practices by returned candidate in computation of total votes and consequential declaration of candidate who secured the next highest number of votes, as duly elected can be applied only when there are just two candidates at an election. If there are more than two candidates like in instant case, the aforesaid rule cannot be made applicable. [Muniraju Gowda P.M. v. Munirathna, (2020) 10 SCC 192]

Penal Code, 1860 — S. 306 — Ingredients: Principles summarised regarding what are the necessary ingredients for the offence under this section. [Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200]

Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302, 392, 420, 201 and 34 — Murder trial — Circumstantial evidence: In this case, prosecution failed to establish and prove complete chain of events. Contradictions and lacunae in prosecution case noted by trial court, held, were not minor in nature, hence, acquittal was restored. [Anwar Ali v. State of H.P.,(2020) 10 SCC 166]

 Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 90, 375, 376, 323 and 341 — Consent of prosecutrix to physical relationship: Consent given under misconception of fact is no consent in eyes of law but, misconception of fact, has to be in proximity of time to occurrence, and cannot be spread over period of 4 yrs, as in this case. Furthermore, appellant did not make any false promise or intentional misrepresentation of marriage, which led to establishment of physical relationship between parties. Prosecutrix was herself aware of obstacles in their relationship because of different religious beliefs. In this case, consent to physical relationship by prosecutrix was conscious, and informed choice was made by her, after due deliberation, it being spread over long period of time, coupled with conscious positive action not to protest. Conviction of accused under Ss. 376, 323 and 341, reversed. [Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108]

2 comments

  • Avatar

    Any reason why Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana, (2020) 10 SCC 92 has been reported as a three-judge Bench judgment? It was heard and decided by a Single Judge.

    • Avatar

      Please see the editorial note in SCC and the information on the SC Website.

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.