“The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the two organs of the State, i.e., the Legislature and the Executive function within the constitutional limits. Judicial review is a powerful weapon to restrain unconstitutional exercise of power by the legislature and executive. The role of this Court is limited to examine as to whether the Legislature or the Executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the Constitution. However, while doing so, the court must remain within its self-imposed limits.”
~Justice B.R Gavai
Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 813
Trending Supreme Court News in July 2023
-
SC issues guidelines for designation of Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court of India
-
Free Wi-Fi facility at Supreme Court of India starts from July 3
-
A National Commission for Men? Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea
-
Supreme Court grants interim relief to makers of the film ‘Adipurush'; Stays proceedings in all HCs
-
SC issues Notice in Modi Surname Defamation Case; to hear Rahul Gandhi's plea on August 4
-
Lakhimpur Kheri Violence: Supreme Court extends Interim Bail granted to Ashish Mishra
Important Updates from Supreme Court in July 2023
Manipur Ethnic Conflict
Godhra Riots 2002 | Teesta Setalvad
Saturday Night Hearing in Teesta Setalvad case: Supreme Court stays Gujarat HC order for 7 days
The 3-judge bench of BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ stayed the Gujarat High Court order rejecting Activist Teesta Setalvad’s plea for regular bail in the case relating to alleged fabrication of evidence in relation to the 2002 Gujarat riots. The Gujarat High Court had directed her to surrender immediately.
Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 759
Bhima Koregaon Violence
While hearing a set of two criminal appeal against the two judgments and orders of Bombay High Court, wherein bail plea of activists Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira (‘appellants') was denied, who were accused of conspiring the Bhima Koregaon violence and were charged with offences under Sections 121, 121-A, 124-A, 153-A, 505(1)(b), 117, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC') and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18-B, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘1967 Act'), the Division Bench of Aniruddha Bose* and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ., allowed the appeal and directed the release of petitioners on bail on such terms and conditions the Special Court may consider fit and proper.
Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 885
Enforcement Directorate
The Bench of B.R. Gavai*, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol JJ. held the extension of the tenure of SK Mishra illegal and in violation of the Supreme Court's judgment in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 687. However, the Court allowed him to continue with the post of ED Director till 31-07-2023 while considering the Union Government's concern regarding peer review of international body Financial Action Task Force (‘FATF') and smooth transfer of power.
[Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 813]
Conviction Cases
In a challenge against conviction affirmed and sentence imposed by Madras High Court rejecting the appellant's plea through order dated 14-12-2016 acquitting him for offence under Section 366 of Penal Code, 1860, but convicting under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act'), S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ. held that school transfer certificate was not equivalent to date of birth certificate as specified under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (‘JJ Act'), and found the absence of any ‘penetrative sexual assault' resulting in acquittal of the appellant.
[P. Yuvaprakash v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 846]
In an appeal filed by the accused against the order of the Delhi High Court, wherein the Court upheld his conviction order passed by the Sessions Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code (‘IPC'), the division bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Rajesh Bindal,JJ. has set aside the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC and held him guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Further, after noting that the accused has undergone the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence, it said that his detention in prison is no longer required.
[Arvind Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 845]
“Prosecution had failed to establish charge”; SC acquits murder convict after 15 years in prison
In an appeal against the judgment and order of Chhattisgarh High Court, whereby the conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC') and the sentence to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- passed by the Additional Sessions Judge has been affirmed. the division bench of Vikram Nath* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. while acquitting the convict, said that it is possible that the deceased was heavily drunk and had fallen on a sharp-edged object because of which he had received the injury. Thus, the prosecution had failed to establish the charge.
[Shatrughan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 858]
In a case where the bench of BR Gavai and JB Pardiwala, JJ had to alter the conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC, it lucidly summed up the principles to be considered by the Courts while doing so and held that the first part of Section 304 IPC would apply when there is ‘guilty intention,' whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is ‘guilty knowledge'.
[Anbazhagan v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 857]
In an appeal assailing judgment and order passed by Uttarakhand High Court on 26-07-2012 rejecting application seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC') against judgment and order passed by Trial Court on 13-12-2011, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra*, JJ. dismissed the same while upholding the findings of Trial Court with evidence favouring benefit of doubt for the accused persons.
[CBI v. Shyam Bihari, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 844]
In a Criminal Appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court on 12-01-2009 dismissing appeal by against conviction order passed by the Trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 302, 449 and 324 read with Section 34 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC'), the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. set aside both the judgments of Trial and High Court and acquitted the appellant while holding the conviction solely based on the testimony of child witness which did not inspire confidence to be unsafe.
[Pradeep v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 777]
Important Legal Demonstrations
In a case where the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the suspension of license to practice medicine can be handed down under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the bench of BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ has answered in negative and has held that awarding such punishment will be a complete disregard for the statutory text of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
[Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 889]
The Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ., dismissed the appeal and held that both the Acts, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provide for the remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court only with respect to the orders which are passed by the NCDRC in its original jurisdiction or as the Court of first instance (original orders) and no further appeal lies against the orders which are passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction
[Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 877]
In an appeal filed against an order of Orissa High Court wherein a record was rights which was finalised in 1958 was unsettled and directions were issued to consider the representation of the legal representatives of the deceased (‘respondents') herein to allot a suitable plot of land in exchange of their stitiban land, the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ., set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal as there was huge delay on the part of the respondents in availing their appropriate remedy and there was concealment of material facts regarding filing and withdrawal of the civil suit claiming the same relief.
[State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 825]
In a case centring round Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (PVVNL)'s claim for unpaid electricity dues and the priority of claims under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), the bench of S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ has held that Section 238 of the IBC overrides the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 despite the latter containing two specific provisions which open with non-obstante clauses (i.e., Section 173 and 174).
[Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 842]
In the case where a tenant had been occupying a premises for over 38 years, and the landlord sought to evict him on the ground that the suit had been defectively instituted within five years of the tenancy as per Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ has held that the objective of Section 14(3) of the Act, being the safeguarding of the tenant for five years, was subserved by the proceedings going on for the requisite period of time and beyond it within which the tenant could not have been evicted.
[Ravi Khandelwal v. Taluka Stores, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 812]
Adherence to Article 14 by State must even while acting in Contractual Realm: Supreme Court
In a batch of civil appeals against the Judgment and Order of the Madras High Court, the three Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol* and Aravind Kumar, JJ., said that the State must abide by Article 14 of the Constitution of India even if its action was in the contractual realm.
[Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. T.N. Electricity Board, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 783]
In two appeals filed by Executive Staff Union of Food Corporation of India (‘FCI') aggrieved by the denial of regularization of their services; and by the management of FCI against the direction of reinstatement and payment of 75% of the back wages to workmen passed by the division bench of Jharkhand High Court, the division bench of Krishna Murari and Sanjay Kumar*, JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment, said that having allowed the workmen to put in regular service to its own benefit for over two decades, the management can no longer claim an indefeasible right to continue with and canvass its challenge to the Award, merely because it made its compliance with the Award conditions long ago.
[Food Corpn. of India Executive Staff Union v. Employer in Relation to the Management of the Food Corpn. of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 757]
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act: Supreme Court upholds 4% tax on maize starch
In twin appeals challenging the orders passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing a writ petition in Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2008 SCC OnLine Mad 1285 and a review application by the appellant dealing in maize starch since 1975 and was registered under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (‘1959 Act'), the Division Bench of S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta*, JJ. Concurred with the High Court to uphold the validity of clarification circular dated 8-10-1998 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
[Santhosh Maize & Industries Ltd. v. State of T.N., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 764]
In an appeal filed by the Bank of Baroda (‘Bank') against judgment and decree passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein the Court has set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and has restored the judgment of the Trial Court, granting the respondent declaration and mandatory injunction vis-a-vis his appointment in the Bank on a compassionate basis, the division bench of BV Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment, reiterated that the appointment of a candidate on compassionate basis does not create any vested right and that it is only when a candidate is covered under all clauses of the Scheme applicable at the relevant point of time that he/she could be considered for compassionate appointment.
[Bank of Baroda v. Baljit Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 745]
Condition of Right to Repurchase in Sale Deed not Personal unless specifically stated: Supreme Court
While hearing a civil appeal against the Judgment of the Patna High Court, the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal*, JJ., decided on the issue that whether the vendor can assign the right contained in a sale deed to get the property registered back or the right being personal cannot be assigned? The Court held that the condition of right to repurchase in sale deed will not be personal to the vendor unless the terms in the documents specifically state the same.
[Indira Devi v. Veena Gupta, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 762]
In a criminal petition filed against the Judgment of the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the Division Bench of S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta*, J., noted that the petitioner was also charged with offence under Section 180 of the Penal Code, 1860, (‘IPC'). The Court reprimanded the Deputy Superintendent of Police (‘DSP') for not knowing that in terms of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr. PC'), no statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr.PC, which is reduced to writing, is required to be signed by the person making the statement.
[Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 765]
In an appeal filed by the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (‘appellant-University') against the Judgment and Order of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, wherein the appellant-University's appeal was dismissed and Judgment of the Single Judge was confirmed, whereby the appellant was directed to grant two advance increments to respondents 1 and 2, the Division Bench of K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna* JJ., while affirming the impugned Judgments, also said that if a statute is curative or merely clarificatory of the previous law, retrospective operation thereof may be permitted and that an explanation/clarification may not expand or alter the scope of the original provision.
[Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Manu, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 640]
In a challenge against the Executing Court's order finding the objections raised by the respondents maintainable during execution proceedings, the Division Bench of A.S. Bopanna and Dipankar Datta*, JJ. upheld the same considering the already settled law mandating the Executing Courts to determine all questions arising between parties related to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree, which may not be adjudicated in a separate suit.
[Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 643]
Other Important SC Cases of July 2023
Supreme Court grants bail to man facing cryptocurrency fraud cases in multiple States
In a petition seeking regular bail in an FIR registered under Sections 406 and 409 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC'), Sections 3 and 4 of Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (Financial Establishments) Act, 2003 and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, the Division Bench of Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, JJ. granted bail to the petitioner considering the fact that he had been in custody since 30-04-2022.
[Ganesh Shivkumar Sagar v. State of Maharashtra, Order dated 27-07-2023]
In a special leave petition filed by the State challenging an order of the Calcutta High Court, wherein the Court transferred the entire investigation relating to West Bengal Ram Navami Violence to the National Investigation Agency (‘NIA') with a direction to the Central Government to exercise their power under Section 6(5) of the National Investigating Agency Act 2008, the Full bench of Dr DY Chandrachud*, CJI., J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. has upheld the impugned order.
[State of W.B. v. Suvendu Adhikari, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 879]
In a batch of civil appeals against the Order of Rajasthan High Court wherein bail was granted to the accused persons for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC') and Section 3 read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., found that the High Court not right in granting bail to the accused persons and viewed that the High Court had lost sight of the vital aspects of the case.
[Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 870]
The division bench of S. Ravindra Bhat* and Aravind Kumar, JJ. while dismissing the appeal, said that the alleged non-compliance with statutory and Election Commission mandated regulations, and their legal effect, cannot be examined through a summary proceeding under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, or even under Order XII Rule 6, CPC.
[Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 871]
While hearing a writ petition made under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by a Congress Leader Jaya Thakur (‘petitioner'), seeking directions on the issue of sanitation and menstrual hygiene for females in schools, the three-Judge Bench comprising of Chief Justice of India, Dr. DY Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ., warned the States and Union Territories which were defaulting in submitting their responses to the Union Government for formulation of National Policy on Menstrual Hygiene, that the Court would be constrained to take recourse to the coercive arm of the law.
[Jaya Thakur v. Government of India1]
While hearing a petition filed by the Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, Varanasi (‘petitioners') against the Varanasi Court's Order for directing the Director of the Archaeological Survey of India (‘ASI') to conduct a scientific survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque premises, a three Judge Bench comprising of the Chief Justice of India, Dr. DY Chandrachud, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ., allowed the petition and directed that the Varanasi Court's order should not be enforced till 5 P.M. on 26-07-2023.
[Committee Of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh2]
In a special leave petition (‘SLP') under Section 136 of the Constitution of India filed against the Judgment and Order of the Rajasthan High Court, wherein an appeal against the order of the Special Judge, POCSO, denying bail to the minor/accused was dismissed for offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 368, 376 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC') and Section 3, 4, 16 and 17 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘JJ Act'), the Division Bench of A.S. Bopanna and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ., allowed the SLP and released the accused on bail.
[V.K. (Juvenile) v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 841]
In an appeal against the judgment and order of Punjab & Haryana High Court, wherein the High Court has allowed the application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC') and granted anticipatory bail to the accused for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC'), the division bench of Surya Kant* and CT Ravikumar JJ. has set aside the impugned order of the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused. Further, directed the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, to constitute a Special Investigation Team (‘SIT') to be headed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police along with two Inspectors as its members.
[Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 785]
While hearing a batch of civil appeals against the Judgment and order of the National Green Tribunal (‘NGT'), wherein the NGT had directed remedial measures for flying ashes and public health issues in several Thermal Power Plants (‘TPPs'), the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order of the NGT for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice.
[Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 824]
173 Kg Ganja Recovery Case: Supreme Court grants interim bail on medical grounds
In a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India seeking interim relief against the order passed by Rajasthan High Court on 20-03-2023 refusing to grant interim bail for offences under Sections 8, 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 after recovery of illegal Ganja of 173.05 Kg, the Division Bench of A.S. Bopanna and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. allowed interim bail of 6 weeks on medical grounds since the petitioner needed specialized treatment to treat spinal disorder.
[Sanjay v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 840]
Supreme Court disposes of contempt case against Bharatpur Bar Association with warning
In a contempt petition filed by Advocates/petitioners against the office bearers of Bharatpur Bar Association, Rajasthan, accused of obstructing the work of lawyers who stayed away from strikes against ‘Legal Aid Defence Counsel Scheme', the division bench of Dr DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha, JJ. has closed the contempt of court proceedings against the Bar Association.
[Purnaprakash Sharma v. Yashwant Singh Faujdar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 839]
The 3-judge bench of BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol severely criticised the way the case was handled and observed, “A prominent market in the heart of the capital city is attacked and we may point out that it has not been dealt with the required degree of promptitude and attention. To our great dismay, we are forced to observe that this may be due to the involvement of influential persons which is evident from the fact that out of several accused persons, only few have been put to trial. In our considered view, the matter ought to have been handled with urgency and sensitivity at all levels.”
[Mohd. Naushad v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 784]
In a batch of criminal writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by Himanshu Kishan Mehra, producer of Amazon Prime Video's web-series Tandav; Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub, Actor and Aparna Purohit, Head of India, Amazon Prime Video, for issuance of a Writ of certiorari to quash the complaints and First Information Reports (‘FIR') filed against them at various police stations, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ., directed the respondents to file a status report pertaining to the present status of the various FIRs filed against the petitioners.
[Himanshu Kishan Mehra v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 781]
In an appeal challenging the decision of Rajasthan High Court dated 25-04-2023 rejecting bail application of the petitioner for offences under Sections 366, 376, 384, 323, 328, 120-B of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act'), the Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. granted bail to the accused considering three weighty factors favouring the petitioner, which also included a live-in relationship agreement with the prosecutrix.
[Imamudin v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 782]
In a review petition related to equivalence of Diploma in Art & Craft by Industrial Training and Vocational Education with the one offered by Kurukshetra University for the purpose of recruitment for the posts of Art & Craft Teachers by Haryana Staff Selection Commission (‘HSSC'), the Division Bench of Krishna Murari and Sanjay Kumar*, JJ. directed the appointing authority to strictly go by the merit ranking in the selection list of 2021 while making appointments without disturbing the appointments already made or the seniority of such appointees.
[Neeraj Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 756]
In a batch of civil appeals, the appellants were challenging the decision of the Delhi High Court, wherein the decision of the Central Government allocating the pet-coke was set aside and the allocation of quantities of Raw Pet-Coke (‘RPC'), a residue of the leftover from the refining of petroleum products and sand crude as well as other heavy oils was in issue in the present appeals, the Division Bench of S. Ravindra Bhat* and Dipankar Datta, JJ., dismissed the appeals and upheld the impugned decision of the division Bench of the High Court.
[Sanvira Industries v. Rain CII Carbon (Vizag) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 754]
The Court's opinion came after it noticed the disquieting trend that in multiple cases in the past several months that upon First Information Reports being lodged inter alia under section 420 IPC, judicial proceedings initiated by persons, accused of cheating, to obtain orders under Section 438 CrPC, 1973 are unwittingly being transformed into processes for recovery of the quantum of money allegedly cheated and the courts driven to impose conditions for deposit/payment as pre-requisite for grant of pre-arrest bail.
[Ramesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 766]
In an appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 1-05-2012 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court setting aside the Trial Court judgment sentencing the respondent under Section 302 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC') and thereby acquitting him, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. refused to interfere with the High Court's view and dismissed the State's appeal.
[State of Punjab v. Kewal Krishan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 746]
Never Reported Judgments
In a case wherein the suit was for recovery of damages for breach of contracts and the defendants-appellants alleged that the plaintiff-respondents were bound to pay price of remaining goods before delivery, the 3-Judges Bench of Fazl Ali, S.R. Das* and Chandrasekhara Aiyar, JJ., observed that none of the contracts were for delivery of the goods in instalments and the contracts did not in terms provide for payment of any portion of the price before delivery of the entire lot of goods covered by them.
[Firm of N. Peddanna Ogeti Balayya v. Katta v. Srinivasayya Setti Sons, 1951 SCC 267]
Can property acquired through invalid adoption be considered joint family property?
The original suit was for partition of movable and immovable properties. It was claimed that the properties were joint family properties and one of the respondents expressed his intention to separate himself from the family in 1928. The appellant got the same under his father's will as his separate properties in which his sons had no interest.
[Mangesh Janardan Pathakji v. Jaymangavri, 1951 SCC 557]
The 3-Judges Bench of Harilal Kania, C.J.,* and M.C. Mahajan and Chandrasekhara Aiyar, JJ., held on facts, that the description “Anne French Cleansing Milk 4, Old Bond St. London W1”, indirectly meant a description as to the place and country in which the goods were made or produced. Thus, it was falsely conveyed that the toilet preparation contained in bottles was made in London whereas in fact it was manufactured in India. It further held that the application of false trade description to goods by Appellant 1, need not necessarily be proved by positive affirmative evidence and could be proved by circumstantial evidence also.
[Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. v. State of Bombay, 1951 SCC 549]
The 3-Judges Bench of Harilal Kania, C.J., and M.C. Mahajan and Chandrasekhara Aiyar*, JJ., upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision wherein it was observed that “in Hindu law, the giving and the taking of the boy ‘in adoption’ was only required and nothing more and so long as it was made out that the mother of the boy gave him in adoption and the adoptive mother took him as her adopted child with the intention to adopt, no further or separate declaration of any kind was necessary”.
[Nayansingh Gangaramsingh v. Sumersingh Kewalsingh, 1951 SCC 1050]
The plaintiff had claimed the rusum in his suit filed on 18th Khurdad 1338 Fasli (22-4-1929) from the defendants and Sadar Adalat, in appeal, had decreed the plaintiff's claim for the rusum in full, that is, from 1315 to 1338 Fasli (From 1905-06 to 1928-29) at the rate of 5%. The Hyderabad High Court (‘High Court') on appeal had modified the decree and had held that the plaintiff was entitled to the rusum only from 1318-1338 Fasli. The Supreme Court observed that it was not clear from the judgment of the High Court why the claim for rusum from 1315 to 1318 Fasli was disallowed. This Court opined that it might be that this modification was made because the defendant had no right in the jagir till after the death of Moti Begum in 1317 Fasli (1907-08), and that the grant to the defendant, according to the Atiyat law, was deemed to be a fresh grant.
[Mohd. Khanjehan Khan v. Surbhi Venkat Jagannath Rao, 1950 SCC 1034]
Know Thy Supreme Court Judges
This July, the Harbinger of litigants' rights, bid adieu to the Supreme Court of India.
Justice Sundresh was elevated to the Madras High Court on 31-03-2009 and became permanent judge on 29-03- 2011. He was elevated as a Judge of Supreme Court of India on 26-08-2021.
Taking into account his seniority, merit, performance and integrity; the Supreme Court Collegium recommended Justice Aravind Kumar's elevation as Judge of Supreme Court of India, who took oath on 13-02-2023. He is due to retire on 13-07-2027.
Justice Bhuyan took oath as Supreme Court Judge on 14-07-2023. While considering recommending Justice Bhuyan's name for elevation to the Supreme Court of India, the Collegium gave particular emphasis to his expertise in taxation law.
Justice Bhatti served as the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court for 1 month before being elevated to the Supreme Court on 14-07-2023.
Supreme Court Collegium Recommendations
-
Orissa High Court
-
Kerala High Court
-
Gujarat High Court
-
Telangana High Court
-
Bombay High Court
-
Andhra Pradesh High Court
-
Manipur High Court
-
Supreme Court Collegium recommends appointment of 15 Permanent Judges for 5 High Courts
-
Supreme Court Collegium recommends transfer of 3 High Court Judges
1. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1000/2022, Order Dated: 24-07-2023
2. , Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.14853/2023, Order dated: 24-07-2023
