Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: November 20 – November 24, 2023
1) Stray witness deposition that he saw attesting witness sign the will not enough to meet requirement u/s 69 Evidence Act
The Court held that, for the purposes of Section 69 Evidence Act, it is not enough to merely examine a random witness who asserts that he saw the attesting witness affix signature in the Will.
The Court was deciding a property dispute in a civil appeal was filed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Cause Title- Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad (dead, through LRs.)
Date of Judgment- November 20, 2023
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar
2) 'Insured has no right to claim car replacement': Supreme Court partly allows BMW's appeal against NCDRC order
The Court, while partly allowing appeal filed by BMW India against NCDRC order, observed that the insured has no right to claim car replacement when the insurance policy does not have any such provision.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(NCDRC) had affirmed the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order, instructing both the insurer and BMW to compensate the owner for the complete loss of the BMW 3 Series 320D car by providing a replacement of the same make/model. Against this order, appeals were filed by Bajaj General Insurance (Bajaj) and BMW Pvt Ltd.
Cause Title- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. v Mukul Aggarwal & Ors.
Date of Judgment- November 20, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
3) High Courts & Session Courts can grant interim anticipatory bail even if FIR is registered in another State
The Court held that High Courts and Sessions Courts can grant interim anticipatory bail even when the FIR is registered in another state.
In this case, the complainant-wife appealed against the orders of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, by which anticipatory bail had been granted to the accused-husband and his family in an FIR registered for dowry harassment, cruelty, and assault.
Cause Title- Priya Indoria vs State of Karnataka & Ors. Etc.
Date of Judgment- November 20, 2023
Coram- Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
4) Revenue records are not documents of title, reiterates Supreme Court
The Court, in a land dispute case, reiterated that revenue records are not documents of title. The revenue records neither create nor extinguish the title of ownership, the Court noted.
In this case, Plaintiff claimed ownership based on a Family Settlement Deed from 1953, while Defendant asserted better title from an Inamdar under the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 (Act). The Court overturned a High Court decision that had granted occupancy rights to the Plaintiff. It noted that the Plaintiff was unable to substantiate the case to a high degree of probability. The evidence presented by Plaintiff, particularly the revenue documents, was deemed insufficient, especially when weighed against Defendant's evidence establishing occupancy rights.
Cause Title- P. Kishore Kumar v Vittal K. Patkar
Date of Judgment- November 20, 2023
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Dipankar Datta
5) 'Unseating them now not in public interest': Supreme Court allows two 'wrongly appointed' judicial officers having 'rich experience' to continue in service
The Court permitted two judicial officers to continue in service even though it held that their very appointment was wrong.
The Court partly allowed their appeals against the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court that had quashed their selection and appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
Cause Title- Vivek Kaisth & Anr. v. The State of Himachal & Ors.
Date of Judgment- November 20, 2023
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
6) Twin conditions for bail u/s 45 PMLA mandatory; burden is on accused to prima facie prove that he is not guilty
The Court reiterated that the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 are mandatory and are required to be complied with. The court also said that the use of advanced technology and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in economic offences makes the scrutiny of accused individuals more complex and demanding for legal authorities.
The Appellant was arrested following an ongoing money laundering investigation against Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. for financial irregularities. The Court noted that the Appellant failed to meet the threshold stipulations outlined in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act) for granting bail.
Cause Title- Tarun Kumar v Assistant Director Directorate Of Enforcement
Date of Judgment- November 20, 2023
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
7) Directions issued in writ jurisdiction should not become a substitute to executive discretion of authorities
The Court observed that the directions issued in writ jurisdiction should not become a substitute to executive discretion of the authorities.
The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the Jharkhand State and Director of Mines and Geology, Ranchi against the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court.
Cause Title- State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, (Mines & Geology) and Another v. SOCIEDADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL PVT. LTD. and Others
Date of Judgment- November 20, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
8) General exception u/s 86 IPC will attract only if accused was incapacitated to know and understand his actions due to intoxication
The Court observed that, in order to avail general exception under Section 86 IPC, it must be proved that on account of the intoxication, the accused was incapacitated to know and understand his actions.
The court observed thus while it dismissed an appeal filed by an accused who was convicted in a murder case.
Cause Title- Nanhe v State Of UP
Date of Judgment- November 21, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
9) NCLT can refuse to approve resolution plan only when it does not meet requirements u/s 31(1) IBC
The Court observed that National Company Law Tribunal [NCLT] can refuse to approve Resolution Plan only when it does not meet the requirement laid down under Section 31(1) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC].
The Court observed thus in an appeal filed by a company under Section 62 IBC against the judgment of the NCLAT (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal) which had upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT).
Cause Title- Ramkrishna Forgings Limited v. Ravindra Loonkar, Resolution Profession of ACIL Limited & Anr.
Date of Judgment- November 21, 2023
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
10) Gain on foreign exchange in EEFC account cannot be included in computation of deduction under business profits u/s 80HHC Income Tax Act
The Court held that a gain on foreign exchange in Exchange Earners Foreign Currency (EEFC) account cannot be included in computation of deduction under profits of business of the assessee under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Court was deciding a batch of two appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the Bombay High Court in which the subject matter was related to the assessment years 2000-02 and 2001-02.
Cause Title- Shah Originals v. Commissioner of Income Tax-24, Mumbai
Date of Judgment- November 21, 2023
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
11) Benefit of juvenility should be extended to accused in borderline cases when two views are possible
The Court observed that liberal view has to be adopted by extending the benefit of juvenility to the accused in borderline cases when two views are possible. The court also added that the determination of a juvenile's age should be based on the date when the alleged crime was committed.
The court was considering appeal filed by an accused who was concurrently convicted under Sections 302 and 307, along with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC). He had approached the Apex Court raising the plea of juvenility. Though he raised a similar plea before the Trial and Allahabad High Court, it was rejected.
Cause Title- Pawan Kumar v State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Date of Judgment- November 21, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
12) Supreme Court quashes FIR for cheating by selling chemical mixture as petrol since no expert opinion or chemical analysis report was produced with chargesheet
The Court quashed an FIR against the MP Bombay Auto Service Petrol Diesel Pump and associated individuals under Sections 420 and 120¬B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (EC Act) for mixing hydrocarbons through machines to create a substance resembling petrol and diesel for the reason that not expert opinion or chemical analysis report was produced with the chargesheet.
The Police had intercepted a truck, at the MP Bombay Auto Service Petrol Diesel Pump (Pump), and an FIR was registered after collecting samples for testing. A show cause notice for the non-production of an invoice authorizing transportation through the tanker under Section 6(b) of the EC Act was also issued resulting in a fine.
Cause Title- Suresh & Ors. v State of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Judgment- November 24, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
13) Privileges under Sections 22 & 23 of Customs Act regarding abatement & remission extend exclusively to ‘importers’ of insured goods
The Court observed that the privileges enshrined in Sections 22 and 23 of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding abatement and remission extend exclusively to the ‘importers’ of the insured goods.
In this case, an insurance company had filed an appeal against the order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had partially allowed the consumer complaint.
Cause Title- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s. Mudit Roadways
Date of Judgment- November 24, 2023
Coram- Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Sanjay Karol
14) Material circumstances pleaded by prosecution not put to accused during examination u/s 313 CrPC: SC acquits NDPS accused
The Court acquitted an accused who was concurrently convicted under the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on the ground that the material circumstances pleaded by the prosecution were not put to him during his examination under Section 313 CrPC by the Trial Court.
Due to the prolonged time lapse since the incident in May 2001, the Court deemed it unjust to subject the Appellant to additional examination under Section 313, almost twenty-two and a half years after the alleged recovery of contraband.
Cause Title- Nababuddin @ Mallu @ Abhimanyu v State of Haryana
Date of Judgment- November 24, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal