Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on the credibility of injured eyewitnesses.
by Siddharth R. Gupta*
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 72
Supreme Court expressed that since the benefit was granted in further cases, the appellants could not be denied the same. However, the directions for application of instant judgment were kept very specific by the Court.
Supreme Court clarified that Clause 3(3) of amalgamation scheme does mention regarding continuation of legal proceedings by or against a transferee bank, but such amalgamation is aimed at securing larger public interest.
“If the conclusion of the Trial Court is a plausible one, merely because another view is possible on reappreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal and substitute its own findings to convict the accused”.
Supreme Court, while going by the ordinary meaning of ‘commercial purpose’, said that ‘Commercial’ denotes “pertaining to commerce”. However, the Explanation clarifies that even purchases in certain situations for ‘commercial purposes’ would not take within its sweep the purchaser out of the definition of expression ‘consumer’
Supreme Court noted that the bail application was rejected as the accused did not appear before the Trial Court.
“What is cruelty for a woman, may not be cruelty for a man, and hence, a more elastic and broad approach is required when a wife seeks divorce.”
“If the records of the enquiry officer reveal that the findings are based on some evidence, it is not the function of the Court in a judicial review to re-appreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence”.
“It would not be out of place to mention that this Court can even turn the clock back, if the situation warrants such dire measures.” said the Supreme Court while deciding instant matter after elections were already conducted.
Supreme Court also clarified that Section 6A of the DSPE Act is a part of the procedure only, in the form of protection to the senior government servants and does not constitute any new offence or sentence.
“The question of debt barred by limitation is to be decided on basis of evidence as, limitation is a mixed question of law and fact”.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s orders, whereby the validity of the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 as amended by the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1997 were upheld.
Supreme Court said that the mere expectation of the Liquidator that a still higher price may be obtained can be no good ground to cancel an otherwise valid auction and go for another round of auction.
The Trial Court partly decreed the challenge against Constable’s discharge and held the discharge order illegal on the ground of being passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
“If the legislature merely seeks to validate the Acts, struck down or rendered inoperative by a Court, by a subsequent legislation without curing the defects in such legislation, the subsequent legislation would be ultra-vires“.
Supreme Court said that, since the appeal is a statutory remedy, the appellant had availed it and withdrawn the same, only as a pre-condition for availing the benefit under the Amnesty Scheme.
Supreme Court said that the burden was on the appellant more particularly in a circumstance when all the family members had got administered the same vaccination from the same source and the appellant himself did not undergo any difficulty when the first two doses were administered.