DISCLAIMER

The contents of this publication are solely meant for educational

purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or formal

documentation. Though utmost care has been taken by team

academy while preparing the quarterly “e-digest”, chances of

error omission or mistake in it are not ruled out. It is requested

to bring to the notice of academy any such mistake or error for

appropriate corrigendum. As stated above the material is

provided only for academic purpose and same has to be used by

the Judicial officer with wisdom as guide and GSJA owes no

liability or responsibility for inappropriate interpretation of digest

being made by judges. No part of this publication should be

distributed or copied for commercial use without express written

permission from GSJA.

Team Academy

Page 1 of 31

HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Sr. No.

Details of Case Subject

1. Hari Om @ Hero Vs. State Of U.P 2021-JX-(SC)-0-6 Criminal Appeal No. 3 Of 2021 (Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9087 Of 2017) Decided on : 05-01-2021 The circumstance of the fingerprints of the accused on a mirror, this circumstance cannot be regarded as necessarily implicating the accused in the commission of the murder.

Even if we accept that fingerprints lifted from the house of the deceased could be associated with the said two accused, that by itself, in the absence of any substantive piece of evidence, cannot be made the basis of their conviction. These accused are therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Evidence Act

2. Kirti and Another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd 2021-JX-(SC)-0-5 Civil Appeal Nos.1920 of 2021 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) Nos.18728-29 of 2018] Decided on : 05-01-2021 Notional income – Housewife – Therefore, on the basis of the above, certain general observations can be made regarding the issue of calculation of notional income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with respect to them, for the purposes of grant of compensation which can be summarized as follows. a) Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law. b) Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation’s international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all. c) Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the notional income of a homemakers, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. d) The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally. e) The granting of future prospects, on the

Motor Vehicle Compensation

Page 2 of 31

notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation.

3. NN Global Mercantile Pvt Ltd Vs. Indo Unique Flame Ltd., 2021-JX-(SC)-0-14, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 13 Decided on : 11-01-2021 Held that, the non-payment of stamp duty on the commercial contract would invalidate even the arbitration agreement, and render it non-existent in law and unenforceable, was not the correct position in law. In view of the finding in paragraph 92 of the judgment in Vidya Drolia by a co-ordinate bench, which has affirmed the judgment in Garware, the aforesaid issue was required to be authoritatively settled by a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, the Court held.

Arbitration & Conciliation

Act

4. Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala Vs. State Of Gujarat Criminal Appeal No. 1919 of 2010 2021-JX-(SC)-0-20 Decided on : 12-01-2021 Kidnapping from lawful guardianship - A perusal of Section 361 of IPC shows that it is necessary that there be an act of enticing or taking, in addition to establishing the child's minority (being sixteen for boys and eighteen for girls) and care/keep of a lawful guardian Such 'enticement' need not be direct or immediate in time and can also be through subtle actions like winning over the affection of a minor girl - However, mere recovery of a missing minor from the custody of a stranger would not ipso facto establish the offence of kidnapping - Thus, where the prosecution fails to prove that the incident of removal was committed by or at the instigation of the accused, it would be nearly impossible to bring the guilt home. A minor girl's infatuation with her alleged kidnapper cannot by itself be allowed as a defence, for the same would amount to surreptitiously undermining the protective essence of the offence of kidnapping.

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) -

Sections 359, 361, 363 and

366

5. Lakhvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2021-JX-(SC)-0-31 2021 SCC OnLine SC 25 Decided on : 19-01-2021

Section 6 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 leaves no discretion to the Court as it provides, A Court ‘must not’ sentence a person under the age of 21 years to imprisonment unless sufficient reasons for the same are recorded, based on due consideration of the probation officer’s report.

Probation of Offenders Act,

1958 Section 6

Page 3 of 31

6. Dilip Singh Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another Criminal Appeal No. 53 Of 2021 (Arising Out Of Slp (Crl) No. 10484 Of 2019) 2021-JX-(SC)-0-38 Decided on : 19-01-2021 A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.

Criminal Procedure

Code, 1973 (CrPC) -

Sections 438 and 438(2)

7. Venigalla Koteswaramma Vs. Malampati Suryamba And Others Civil Appeal No. 9546 Of 2013 (2021) 2 Scale 170

2021-JX-(SC)-0-30 Decided on : 19-01-2021 An agreement for sale of immoveable property does not itself, create any interest in or charge on such property - A person having an agreement for sale in his favour does not get any right in the property, except the right of obtaining sale deed on that basis. Will - Agreement for sale - Validity and genuineness - Time gap between the two is not of much relevance when examining the questions about their validity and genuineness; and in any case, the sale agreement did not remain an independent or stand-alone document once it was found that this document was indeed mentioned in the disputed Will and the obligations there under were purportedly passed on to the legatee.

Transfer of Property Act,

1882 - Section

54 -

8. X Vs. State of Jharkhand WP (Civil) No. 1352 of 2019 2021-JX-(SC)-0-28 Decided on : 20-01-2021 Held, petitioner’s inability to get any rented accommodation due to her being a rape victim, Court stated that there several Central as well as State Schemes for providing residential accommodation to persons living living below poverty line and other deserving cases. Apex court issued directions in a case wherein a woman for the reason of being a ‘rape victim’ has been unable to secure accommodation.

Rape Survivor

9. Anjali Brahmawar Chauhan Vs. Navin Chauhan 2021 SCC OnLine SC 38

2021-JX-(SC)-0-34

Decided on : 22-01-2021

SC allows video conferencing in matrimonial matter, though not as a matter of course.

Normal course, it would not have directed video conferencing in respect of matrimonial matters as per the above-referred Judgment, but in the present matter, since all the

Family Court Act

Page 4 of 31

proceedings are being conducted in video conferencing, Court directed the Family Court, District Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. to conduct the trial through video conferencing.

10. G.R. Ananda Babu Vs. The State Of Tamil Nadu And Another Criminal Appeal No. of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP(Crl.)No. 213 of 2021) 2021-JX-(SC)-0-133 Decided on : 28-01-2021 Successive Anticipatory Bail : Custodial interrogation and investigation is incomplete - Grant anticipatory bail, without referring to these crucial facts noted in the status report - As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation - Specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge.

Criminal Procedure

Code, 1973 (CrPC) -

Section 438 - Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) -

Sections 143, 436, 302,

307, 149 and 120B

11. Ajay Kumar @ Bittu And Another Vs. State Of Uttarakhand And Another Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)No. 10247/2019) 2021-JX-(SC)-0-47 Decided on : 29-01-2021 Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power - It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant - It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence - Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the Court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. As and when it is found that summoning order could not have been passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C., all subsequent proceedings thereto shall automatically come to an end.

Criminal Procedure

Code, 1973 (CrPC) -

Section 319

12. Union Of India Vs. K. A. Najeeb Criminal Appeal No. 98 Of 2021 2021 (0) AIJEL-Sc 66978 Supreme Court Of India 2021-JX-(SC)-0-52 Decided on : 01-02-2021 The Court held that any constitutional court has the power to grant bail to people accused of offences under UAPA irrespective of Section 43-D (5), so as to enforce the right to

Criminal Bail

Page 5 of 31

speedy trial which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

13. N.Vijayakumar Vs. State Of Tamil Nadu, Crminal Appeal No. 100101 Of 2021 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 66987 Decided on : 03-02-2021 Mere Recovery Of Currency Notes From Public Servant Does Not Constitute Offence U/s 7 Of Prevention Of Corruption Act.

Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988

Section - 7 , 13(2) , 13(1)(d)

14. OPTO Circuit India Ltd. Vs. Axis Bank Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4171 of 2020) LL 2021 SC 61, 2021-JX-(SC)-0-57 Decided on : 03-02-2021 Held, that before directing freezing of bank accounts under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Authority has to record the belief of commission of the act of money laundering. It certainly is not the requirement that the communication addressed to the Bank itself should contain all the details. But what is necessary is an order in the file recording the belief as provided under Section 17(1) of PMLA before the communication is issued and thereafter the requirement of Section 17(2) of PMLA after the freezing is made is complied. There is no other material placed before the Court to indicate compliance of Section 17 of PMLA, more particularly recording the belief of commission of the act of money laundering and placing it before the Adjudicating Authority or for filing application after securing the freezing of the account to be made. In that view, the freezing or the continuation thereof is without due compliance of the legal requirement and, therefore, not sustainable."Holding thus, the bench directed to defreeze of the accounts of the company.

PMLA

15. Joginder and Another Vs. State Of Haryana And Others Spl (Civil) No. 1829 Of 2021 2021-JX-(SC)-0-61 Decided on : 05-02-2021 Illegal Occupants Of Government/Panchayat Land Cannot Claim Regularization As A Matter Of Right. Regularization of the illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land can only be as per the policy of the State Government and the conditions stipulated in the Rules. If it is found that the conditions stipulated for regularisation have not been fulfilled, such persons in illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land are not entitled to regularization.

Unauthorized Occupation

Page 6 of 31

16. A. Subramanian & Anr. Vs. R. Pannerselvam Civil Appeal No.9472 Of 2010 2021-JX-(SC)-0-63 Decided on : 08-02-2021 1. When plaintiff has not narrated anything about the title

in the plaint and suit is filed for injunction then plaintiff

can seek for a bare permanent injunction without

seeking a prayer for declaration.

2. It is a common principle of law that even trespasser,

who is in established possession of the property could

obtain injunction. However, the matter would be

different, if the plaintiff himself elaborates in the plaint

about title dispute and fails to make a prayer for

declaration of title along with injunction relief. The High

Court has rightly observed that a bare perusal of the

plaint would demonstrate that the plaintiff has not

narrated anything about the title dispute obviously

because of the fact that in the previous litigation, DW1

failed to obtain any relief. The High court has rightly

observed that the principle that plaintiff cannot seek for

a bare permanent injunction without seeking a prayer

for declaration is not applicable to the facts of the

present case.

Specific Relief Act

17. M/s. Kalamani Tex & Anr Vs. P. Balasubramanian [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1876 of 2018] Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2021 2021-JX-(SC)-0-70 Decided on : 10-02-2021 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Once the accused had admitted his signatures on the cheque and the Deed, the trial Court ought to have presumed that the cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt. The trial Court fell in error when it called upon the Complainant to explain the circumstances under which the accused were liable to pay. Such approach of the trial Court was directly in the teeth of the established legal position, and amounts to a patent error of law.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138

18. Chintels India Ltd. Vs. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 4028 Of 2020 2021-JX-(SC)-0-65 Decided on : 11-02-2021 Held that an order refusing to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is appealable under Section 37 of the Act.the

Section 37 of the

Arbitration and

Conciliation Act 1996

Page 7 of 31

question of law is answered by stating that an appeal under section 37(1)(c)of the Arbitration Act, 1996 would be maintainable against an order refusing to condone delay in filing an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 to set aside an award setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award "does not stand by itself. The expression has to be read with the expression that follows-"under section 34". Section 34 is not limited to grounds being made out under section 34(2).

19. Pravat Chandra Mohanty Vs. The State Of Odisha & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 125 OF 2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.6174/2020) 2021-JX-(SC)-0-75

Decided on : 11-02-2021

1. Whether wooden lathi or batten is dangerous weapon

under section 324 of IPC depends on the manner of its

use?

2. Wooden lathi and batten are the weapons which are

usely possessed by the police and the submission

cannot be accepted that the injuries cannot be caused

by wooden lathi and batten which may cause death. It

depends on the manner of use of the wooden lathi and

batten.

3. The offence under Section 324 in the facts of the

present case can be compounded only with permission

of the Court. Sub-Section (5) of Section 320 provides

that no composition for the offence shall be allowed

without the leave of the Court. The grant of leave as

contemplated by sub-section (5) of Section 320 is not

automatic nor it has to be mechanical on receipt of

request by the appellant which may be agreed by the

victim. The statutory requirement, makes it a clear duty

of the Court to look into the nature of the offence and

the evidence and to satisfy itself whether permission

should be or should not be granted. The administration

of criminal justice requires prosecution of all offenders

by the State. (Para 29)

Section 324 of IPC

Cr.P.C 320 (5)

20. Khokan @ Khokhan Vishwas Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Criminal Appeal No. 121-2021 2021-JX-(SC)-0-71 Decided on : 11-02-2021 As per explanation to exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Section 300 of the IPC is in two

IPC 300 Part 4

Page 8 of 31

parts. The first part is when culpable homicide can be said to be the murder and the second part is the exceptions when the culpable homicide is not murder. The relevant part of Section 300 IPC for our purpose would be clause 4 to Section 300 and exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. As per clause 4 to Section 300 IPC, if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury, such culpable homicide can be said to be the murder. However, as per exception 4 to Section 300, culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. As per explanation to exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.

21. K. Akbar Ali Vs. K. Umar Khan & Ors Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31844 Of 2018 2021-JX-(SC)-0-130 Decided on : 12-02-2021 1. An application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for

rejection of the plaint requires a meaningful reading of

the plaint as a whole. Clever drafting creating illusions

of cause of action are not permitted in law and a clear

right to sue should be shown in the plaint.

2. Court can look into the document along with plaint:

Where on the face of the averments in the plaint, the

claim in a suit is based on an agreement executed

through a Power of Attorney holder, the Court is not

debarred from looking into the Power of Attorney. It is

open to the Court to read the terms of the Power of

Attorney along with the plaint in the same manner as

documents appended to the plaint, which form part of

the plaint.

Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

22. Ravinder Nath Agarwal Vs. Yogender Nath Agarwal & Ors. Transfer Petition (Civil) No.970 Of 2016 Decided on : 12-02-2021

1. The Supreme Court observed that the mandatory

requirement to seek probate or letters of administration

for establishing a right as executor or legatee under a

Will, is applicable only to Wills made by a Hindu,

Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina within the local limits of the

ordinary original civil jurisdiction of certain High Courts

and to Wills made outside those territories, to the extent

Indian Succession Act 1925

Page 9 of 31

they cover immovable property situate within those

territories.

2. There is no prohibition for a person whose case falls

outside the purview of these provisions, from producing,

relying upon and claiming a right under a Will, in any

proceeding instituted by others including the other legal

heirs for partition or other reliefs.

23. H.S. Goutham Vs. Rama Murthy And Another Etc. Civil Appeal No. 1844 Of 2010 With Civil Appeal No. 1845 Of 2010 2021-JX-(SC)-0-68 Decided on : 12-02-2021

1. Orders 21 Rule 92 and Orders 21 Rule 94 - Once the

sale is confirmed and the sale certificate has been

issued in favour of the purchaser, the same shall

become final.

2. Application to set aside sale on the ground of

irregularity or fraud - Where any immovable property

has been sold in execution of a decree, the decree-

holder, or the purchaser, or any other person entitled to

share in a ratable distribution of assets, or whose

interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the

Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material

irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it -

Therefore, as per Order XXI Rule 90, an application to

set aside the sale on the ground of irregularity or fraud

may be made by the decree holder on the ground of

material irregularity or fraud in publishing or

conducting it.

3. Held, that unless and until the procedure under Order

XLI Rules 27, 28 and 29 are followed, the parties to the

appeal cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence

and/or the appellate court is not justified to direct the

court from whose decree the appeal is preferred or any

other subordinate court, to take such evidence and to

send it when taken to the Appellate Court.

4. In this case, the judgment debtor filed objections in the

execution petition and contended that the consent

decree was obtained by fraud. This objection was

overruled and the court proceeded with the execution

proceedings and the sale of the mortgaged property

came to be confirmed in favour of the auction

purchaser. The execution court also later dismissed the

application of judgment debtor to set aside the court

Procedure Code, 1908

(CPC) - Order 21 Rule 90

to98

Page 10 of 31

auction/sale. This was challenged by the Judgment

Debtor before the High Court. The consent decree was

also challenged before the High Court by filing first

appeal.

24. Kadupugotla Varalakshmi Vs. Vudagiri Venkata Rao & Ors Civil Appeal No.543 OF 2021 Decided on : 16-02-2021 Subsequent purchaser of the suit property can challenge the readiness and willingness on part of the plaintiff in a specific performance suit.

The specific Relief Act,

1963

25. The High Court of Judicature at Madras Rep. by its

Registrar General Vs. M.C.Subramaniam & Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3063-3064 OF 2021 2021-JX-(SC)-0-97 Decided on : 17-02-2021 Held that the parties who privately agree to settle their dispute outside the modes contemplated under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure are also entitled to refund of Court fees. wherein parties who settle their dispute through a Mediation Centre or other centres of alternative judicial settlement under Section 89, CPC would be entitled to claim refund of their courtfee, whilst parties who settle the disputes privately by themselves will be left without any means to seek a refund.

Section 89 of

the Code of Civil

Procedure + Court Fees

Refund

26. Khushi Ram & Ors. Vs. Nawal Singh & Ors. Civil Appeal No.5167 Of 2010 2021-JX-(SC)-0-94 Decided on : 22-02-2021 Held Married woman's heirs on her parental side not strangers for the purposes of succession under Hindu Succession Act, A perusal of Section 15(1)(d) indicates that heirs of the father are covered in the heirs, who could succeed. When heirs of father of a female are included as person who can possibly succeed, it cannot be held that they are strangers and not the members of the family qua the female.

The Hindu Sucession Act

1956 Section 15

27. Enforcement Directorate, Government Of India Vs. Kapil Wadhawan & Anr. Etc. Criminal Appeal Nos. 701-702 OF 2020 2021-JX-(SC)-0-145 Decided on : 23-02-2021 The core issue that arises for consideration is whether while computing the period of 90 days or 60 days as contemplated in Section 167 (2)(a)(ii) of the CrPC, the day of remand is to be included or excluded, for considering a claim for default bail? The Supreme Court referred this issue to a larger

Cr.P.C 167(2)

Page 11 of 31

bench. 1. State of M.P. Vs. Rustom & Ors., Ravi Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar and M. Ravindran Vs. Intelligence Officer, Director of Revenue Intelligence where it was held that the date of remand is to be excluded for computing the permitted period for completion of investigation. 2. Chaganti Satyanarayan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , CBI Vs. Anupam J Kulkarni , State Vs. Mohd. Ashraft Bhat , State of Maharashtra Vs. Bharati Chandmal Varma , and Pragyna Singh Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra to contend that the date of remand must be included for computing the available period for investigation for determining entitlement to default bail.

28. R. Damodaran Vs. The State Represented By The Inspector Of Police Criminal Appeal No.1008 Of 2010 2021-JX-(SC)-0-108 Decided on : 23-02-2021

1. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain

conviction must be complete and incapable of

explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt

of the accused and such evidence should not only be

consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be

inconsistent with his innocence.

2. The present case squarely rests on circumstantial

evidence where the death has been caused by homicidal

violence and the appellant who had himself taken the

deceased to the hospital and made a false statement to

the Doctor that she had suffered a cardiac arrest which

was found to be false after the postmortem report was

received and the nature of injuries which were attributed

on the body of the deceased of which a reference has

been made clearly establish that it is the case where

none other than the accused appellant has committed a

commission of crime with intention to commit the murder

of his own wife who was at the advanced stage of

pregnancy.

Circumstantial Evidence

Page 12 of 31

29. Devilal and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No. 989 OF 2007 2021-JX-(SC)-0-121 Decided on : 25-02-2021 Section 20 of Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000 refers to cases where a person had ceased to be a juvenile under the 1986 Act but had not yet crossed the age of 18 years then the pending case shall continue in that court as if the 2000 Act has not been passed and if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, shall forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile.

Juvenile Justice Care

and Protection of Children Act, 2000

30. Joydeep Majumdar Vs. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar Civil Appeal Nos. 3786-3787 OF 2020 2021-JX-(SC)-0-117 Decided on : 26-02-2021 Held that, Wife leveling allegations which affects career and reputation of husband is mental cruelty against him for the purpose of seeking divorce. The degree of tolerance will vary from one couple to another and the Court will have to bear in mind the background, the level of education and also the status of the parties, in order to determine whether the cruelty alleged is sufficient to justify dissolution of marriage, at the instance of the wronged party then the reputation of the spouse is sullied amongst his colleagues, his superiors and the society at large, it would be difficult to expect condonation of such conduct by the affected party.

Family Laws

31. P. Mohanraj and Others Vs. M/S. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited Civil Appeal No. 10355 of 2018 2021-JX-(SC)-0-128 Decided on : 01-03-2021

1. A Section 138/141 proceeding against a corporate

debtor is covered by Section 14(1) (a) of the IBC.

2. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 -

Dishonour of Cheque - Civil proceeding is not

necessarily a proceeding which begins with the filing of

a suit and culminates in execution of a decree.

3. It would include a revenue proceeding as well as a writ

petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, if the

reliefs therein are to enforce rights of a civil nature.

Insolvency

and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 -

Section 14(1)(a) -

Moratorium Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 -

Section 138 -

Page 13 of 31

4. Criminal proceedings are stated to be proceedings in

which the larger interest of the State is concerned.

Given these tests, it is clear that a Section 138

proceeding can be said to be a "civil sheep" in a

"criminal wolf's" clothing, as it is the interest of the

victim that is sought to be protected, the larger interest

of the State being subsumed in the victim alone moving

a court in cheque bouncing cases.

32. Archana Rana Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another Criminal Appeal No. 167 Of 2021

2021-JX-(SC)-0-122 Decided on : 01-03-2021 Cheating essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows: i) a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and ii) the person cheated must be dishonestly induced toa) deliver property to any person; or b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. Having gone through the complaint/FIR and even the charge-sheet, it cannot be said that the averments in the FIR and the allegations in the complaint against the appellant constitute an offence under Section 419 & 420 IPC. The High Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellant herein for the offences under Sections 419 & 420 IPC.

Section 420 IPC

33. The State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs. Tr N Seenivasagan Criminal Appeal Nos 231-232 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos 3104-3105 of 2020) 2021-JX-(SC)-0-158 Decided on : 01-03-2021 Section 311 of the true test, therefore, is whether it appears to the Court that the evidence of such person who is sought to be recalled is essential to the just decision of the case. Section 311 deals with the power to summon material witness, or examine person present. Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re­examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re­examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case, the provision reads.

Section 311 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure

Page 14 of 31

34. Kapil Agarwal and others Vs. Sanjay Sharma and others Criminal Appeal No. 142 Of 2021 2021-JX-(SC)-0-127 Decided on : 01-03-2021 1. when in a case instituted otherwise than on a police

report, i.e., in a complaint case, during the course of the

inquiry or trial held by the Magistrate, it appears to the

Magistrate that an investigation by the police is in

progress in relation to the offence which is the subject

matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate

shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and

call for a report on the matter from the police officer

conducting the investigation.

2. It also provides that if a report is made by the

investigating police officer under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken

by the Magistrate against any person who is an

accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall

inquire into or try together the complaint case and the

case arising out of the police report as if both the cases

were instituted on a police report. It also further

provides that if the police report does not relate to any

accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does

not take cognizance of any offence on the police report,

he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was

stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of

Cr.P.C.

3. Thus, merely because on the same set of facts with the

same allegations and averments earlier the complaint is

filed, there is no bar to lodge the FIR with the police

station with the same allegations and averments.

Section 210 173 Cr.P.C.

35. M/S. Chitralekha Builders and Another Through Anil G. Shah Power Of Attorney and Husband Of The Partner Vs. G.I.C. Employees Sonal Vihar Co-Op. Housing Society Limited And Another Civil Appeal No. 946 Of 2016 2021-JX-(SC)-0-129 Decided on : 01-03-2021 Appellants were not a party to the Consent Orders - It was not open for the Court to examine the legal effect of the Consent Orders to which the appellants were not a party.

Civil Procedure

Code, 1908 (CPC) -

Section 96 Appeal for

original decree -

Page 15 of 31

36. Dhirendra Singh @ Pappu Vs. State Of Jharkhand Criminal Appeal No. 580 of 2018 2021-JX-(SC)-0-125 Decided on : 01-03-2021 Murder - Merely because the weapon is not seized cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when his presence and his active participation and using firearm by him has been established and proved - Conviction upheld.

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 302

and 34 -

37. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. M/S Navigant Technologies Private Limited Civil Appeal No. 791 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10372 of 2020)

2021-JX-(SC)-0-134 Decided on : 02-03-2021 Held that, We are of the considered opinion that the period of limitation for filing objections would have to be reckoned from the date on which the signed copy of the award was made available to the parties.

Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 -

Section 34(3)

38. Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State Of Maharashtra Criminal Appeal No. 1348 Of 2013 2021-JX-(SC)-0-135 Decided on : 02-03-2021 1. Held that false explanation or non-explanation of the

accused to the questions posed by the court under

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot

be used as a link to complete the chain. It can only be

used as an additional circumstance, when the

prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances

leading to no other conclusion than the guilt of the

accused.

2. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the

prosecution of discharging its primary burden of proving

the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.

FS u/s 313 not a

Substantial Evidence

39. V. N. Patil Vs. K. Niranjan Kumar & Ors. Criminal Appeal No(S). 267 Of 2021 2021-JX-(SC)-0-141 Decided on : 04-03-2021 18. The aim of every Court is to discover the truth. Section 311 CrPC is one of many such provisions which strengthen the arms of a court in its effort to unearth the truth by procedure sanctioned by law. At the same time, the discretionary power vested under Section 311 CrPC has to be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice.

CR.P.C Sec 311

Page 16 of 31

40. Dr. Rajesh Pratap Giri Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr. Criminal Appeal Nos. 272273 Of 2021 Decided on : 05-03-2021 The life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the trial.''

anticipatory bail

41. Alka Khandu Avhad Vs. Amar Syamprasad Mishra & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 258 Of 2021 2021-JX-(SC)-0-153 Decided on : 08-03-2021

held that, even in case of a joint liability, in case of individual persons, a person other than a person who has drawn the cheque on an account maintained by him, cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A person might have been jointly liable to pay the debt, but if such a person who might have been liable to pay the debt jointly, cannot be prosecuted unless the bank account is jointly maintained and that he was a signatory to the cheque.",

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act.

42. Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 283 Of 2021 (Arising Out Of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6432/2020) 2021-JX-(SC)-0-161 Decided on : 08-03-2021 The Magistrates and trial Judges have as much, if not more, responsibility in safeguarding the fundamental rights of the citizens of India as the highest court of this land. Misuse of successive complaints by the same party, where thesecond complaint is clearly propped up to materially improve on the earlier one, resonates with us. "The trial courts and the Magistrates have an important role in curbing this injustice. They are the first lines of defence for both the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the harassed and distraught litigant. We are of the considered opinion that the trial courts have the power to not merely decide on acquittal or conviction of the accused person after the trial, but also the duty to nip frivolous litigations in the bud even before they reach the stage of trial by discharging the accused in fit cases. This would not only save judicial time that comes at the cost of public money, but would also protect the right to liberty that every person is entitled to under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this context, the trial Judges have as much, if not more, responsibility in safeguarding the fundamental rights of the citizens of India as the highest court of this land.

Code of Criminal

Procedure, Section 155(2)

,200

Page 17 of 31

43. RE: Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 2021-JX-(SC)-0-159, LL 2021 SC 144 Decided on : 08-03-2021 In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021. 2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.

Extension Of Limitation

44. Sumeti Vij Vs. M/S Paramount Tech Fab Industries Criminal Appeal No(S). 292 Of 2021 2021-JX-(SC)-0-164 Decided on : 09-03-2021 Primary burden was discharged by the complainant that the cheques were issued by the appellant in lieu of the material supplied, and documentary evidence duly exhibited was placed on record to substantiate the claim, and it was for the appellant accused to discharge her burden to rebut in defence as required under Section 139 of the Act.

NI Act 138, 139

45. Priti Saraf & Anr. Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr

Criminal Appeal No(S).296 Of 2021 2021-JX-(SC)-0-172 Decided on : 10-03-2021 Merely because the offence was committed during the course of a commercial transaction, would not be sufficient to hold that the complaint did not warrant a trial.

The ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot be said to be absent on the basis of the allegations in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet. We would like to add that whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of

Sections 406

and 420 IPC

Page 18 of 31

the evidence to be led during the course of trial. Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellants, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing such proceedings.

46. Bhima Razu Prasad Vs. State, rep. By Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/SPE/ACUII Criminal Appeal No Of 2021 2021-JX-(SC)-0-182

Decided on : 12-03-2021 Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC will not bar prosecution by the investigating agency for offence punishable under Section 193, IPC, which is committed during the stage of investigation. This is provided that the investigating agency has lodged complaint or registered the case under Section 193, IPC prior to commencement of proceedings and production of such evidence before the trial court. In such circumstance, the same would not be considered an offence committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court for the purpose of Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC.

Section 195(1)(b)(i),

CrPC

47. State Bank Of India & Anr. Petitioner(s) Vs. Ajay Kumar Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).4038/2021 Date : 12-03-2021 Judgments are intended to convey the reasoning and process of thought which leads to the final conclusion of the adjudicating forum. The purpose of writing a judgment is to communicate the basis of the decision not only to the members of the Bar, who appear in the case and to others to whom it serves as a precedent but above all, to provide meaning to citizens who approach courts for pursuing their remedies under the law. Such orders of the High Court as in the present case do dis-service to the cause of ensuring accessible and understandable justice to citizens.

How To Write Judgment

48. Sartaj Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. Etc. Criminal Appeal Nos. 298299 OF 2021 2021-JX-(SC)-0-178 Decided on : 15-03-2021 An accused can be summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of even examination ­in ­chief of the witness and the Court need not wait till his cross­ examination.

Section 319 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure

Page 19 of 31

49. Fakhrey Alam Vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 319 Of 2021 Decided on : 15-03-2021 The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, the time period for investigation specified under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be extended by seeking to file supplementary charge sheet qua UAPA offences.

An oral application for grant of default bail would suffice We need only emphasize what is already observed in Bikramjit Singh case (supra) that default bail under first proviso of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is a fundamental right and not merely a statutory right as it is, a procedure established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus a fundamental right is granted to an accused person to be released on bail once the conditions of the first proviso to Section 167(2)of the Cr.P.C. are fulfilled.

CRPC 167 (2)

50. Naveen Singh Vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Criminal Appeal No. 320 OF 2021 Anr2021-JX-(SC)-0-177 Decided on : 15-03-2021 Seriousness of the offence is one of the relevant considerations while considering the grant of bail.

Bail

51. Aparna Bhat & Ors. Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 329 Of 2021 2021-JX-(SC)-0-186 Decided on : 18-03-2021 Bail conditions as to gender stereotyping shall be avoided- Directions are given The role of all courts is to make sure that the survivor can rely on their impartiality and neutrality, at every stage in a criminal proceeding, where she is the survivor and an aggrieved party. The law does not permit or countenance such conduct, where the survivor can potentially be traumatized many times over or be led into some kind of non-voluntary acceptance, or be compelled by the circumstances to accept and condone behavior what is a serious offence.

(a) Bail conditions should not mandate, require or permit contact between the accused and the victim. Such conditions should seek to protect the complainant from any further harassment by the accused.

(b) Where circumstances exist for the court to believe that there might be a potential threat of harassment of the victim, or upon apprehension expressed, after calling for reports from the police, the nature of protection shall be separately.

CRPC 439

Page 20 of 31

(c) In all cases where bail is granted, the complainant should immediately be informed that the accused has been granted bail and copy of the bail order made over to him/her within two days;

(d) Bail conditions and orders should avoid reflecting stereotypical or patriarchal notions about women and their place in society, and must strictly be in accordance with the requirements of the Cr. PC. In other words, discussion about the dress, behavior, or past conduct or morals of the prosecutrix, should not enter the verdict granting bail;

(e) The courts while adjudicating cases involving gender related crimes, should not suggest or entertain any notions (or encourage any steps) towards compromises between the prosecutrix and the accused to get married, suggest or mandate mediation between the accused and the survivor, or any form of compromise as it is beyond their powers and jurisdiction;

(f) Sensitivity should be displayed at all times by judges, who should ensure that there is no traumatization of the prosecutrix, during the proceedings, or anything said during the arguments, and

(g) Judges especially should not use any words, spoken or written, that would undermine or shake the confidence of the survivor in the fairness or impartiality of the court. * Further, courts should desist from expressing any stereotype opinion, in words spoken during proceedings, or in the course of a judicial order , to the effect that

(i) women are physically weak and need protection;

(ii) women are incapable of or cannot take decisions on their own;

(iii) men are the head of the household and should take all the decisions relating to family;

(iv) women should be submissive and obedient according to our culture;

(v) good women are sexually chaste;

(vi) motherhood is the duty and role of every woman, and assumptions to the effect that she wants to be a mother; (vii) women should be the ones in charge of their children, their upbringing and care;

(viii) being alone at night or wearing certain clothes make

Page 21 of 31

women responsible for being attacked;

(ix) a woman consuming alcohol, smoking, etc. may justify unwelcome advances by men or has asked for it ; (x) women are emotional and often overreact or dramatize events, hence it is necessary to corroborate their testimony;

(xi) testimonial evidence provided by women who are sexually active may be suspected when assessing consent in sexual offence cases; and

(xii) lack of evidence of physical harm in sexual offence case leads to an inference of consent by the woman

52. Government Of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented By Executive Engineer Vs. M/S Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 995 Of 2021 2021-JX-(SC)-0-190 Decided on : 19-03-2021 The Supreme Court held that the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act is not excluded by the scheme of Commercial Courts Act.

This means that delay for filing appeals under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act can be condoned by showing sufficient cause as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Limitation Act Sec. 5

53. Ram Chandra & Ors. Vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8633/2017 Decided on : 19-03-2021 The claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case as held by this Court in Abuzar Hossain @ Ghulam Hossain vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2012) 10 SCC 489. The delay in raising the claim of juvenility is no ground for rejection of such a claim. Similar view has been taken in numerous subsequent cases of this Court.

Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care

and Protection of Children) Act, 2000

54. Manoj Kumar Sood & Anr. Vs. State Of Jharkhand Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No(S). 1274/2021 Decided on : 19-03-2021 It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for realization of disputed dues. It is open to a Court to grant or refuse the prayer for bail, depending on the facts and circumstance of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration, while considering an application for bail are, the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction; the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the

Bail /Anticipatory

Bail

Page 22 of 31

witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character behaviour and standing of the accused; the larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A Criminal Court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.

55. The State Of Kerala Vs. Mahesh Criminal Appeal No. 343 Of 2021 (Arising Out Of Slp (Crl.) No.1530 Of 2021) and Interlocutory Application Nos. 24659 and 41412 Of

2021 Decided on : 19-03-2021 The object, scope and ambit of the directions issued by this Court from time to time in In Re : Contagion of Covid 19 Virus In Prisons. This Court did not direct release of all under-trial prisoners, irrespective of the severity of the offence. This Court gives directions to the States and Union Territories were directed to constitute a High Powered Committee to determine which class of prisoners could be released on parole or interim bail for such period as might be thought appropriate. The Order of this court to States/Union Territories to consider release of prisoners convicted of minor offences with prescribed punishment of seven years or less. The orders of this Court are not to be construed as any direction, or even observation, requiring release of under-trial prisoners charged with murder, and that too, even before investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed.

Interim Bail

56. Sesh Nath Singh & Anr. Vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-Operative Bank Ltd And Anr. Civil Appeal No. 9198 Of 2019 2021-JX-(SC)-0-197 Decided on : 22-03-2021

1. The Supreme Court held that there is no bar to exercise

by the Court/Tribunal of its discretion to condone delay

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in the absence of a

formal application. However, the Court can always insist

that an application or an affidavit showing cause for the

delay be filed.

2. Keeping in mind the scope and ambit of proceedings

under the IBC before the NCLT/NCLAT, the expression

‘Court’ in Section 14(2) would be deemed to be any

forum for a civil proceeding including any Tribunal or

any forum under the SARFAESI Act.

3. Section 5 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act are not

Section 5 of the Limitation Act IBC before

the NCLT/NCLAT, SARFAESI Act

Page 23 of 31

mutually exclusive. Even in a case where Section 14

does not strictly apply, the principles of Section 14 can

be invoked to grant relief to an applicant under Section 5

of the Limitation Act by purposively construing ‘sufficient

cause’. It is well settled that omission to refer to the

correct section of a statute does not vitiate an order. At

the cost of repetition it is reiterated that delay can be

condoned irrespective of whether there is any formal

application, if there are sufficient materials on record

disclosing sufficient cause for the delay.

57. Ramesh Alias Dapinder Singh Vs. State Of Himachal

Pradesh Criminal Appeal No.347 Of 2021 2021-JX-(SC)-0-193 Decided on : 22-03-2021 The intention of the principal offender and his companions to deal with any person who might intervene to stop the quarrel must be apparent from the conduct of the persons accompanying the principal culprit or some other clear and cogent incriminating piece of evidence. In the absence of such material, the companion or companions cannot be held guilty for every offence committed by the principal offender.

IPC Section

34

58. Netaji Achyut Shinde (Patil) & Anr. Vs. The State Of Maharashtra Criminal Appeal No. 121 Of 2019 2021-JX-(SC)-0-196 Decided on : 23-03-2021 A cryptic phone call without complete information or containing part-information about the commission of a cognizable offence cannot always be treated as an FIR. A mere message or a telephonic message which does not clearly specify the offence, cannot be treated as an FIR. If any minor inconsistencies are found with respect to details of the accused, they are inconsequential, having regard to the fact that the overall weight of evidence clearly points to the role of the accused What constitutes proof of common intention, may differ from situation to situation and much depends on the facts of each case and the role played by each accused.

The presence of these accused, to facilitate the execution of the common design amounts to actual participation in the criminal act.

The essence of Section 34 is simultaneous consensus of the minds of persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result. Such consensus can be developed at the spot and thereby intended by all of them.

FIR

Page 24 of 31

59. Charansingh Vs. State Of Maharashtra And Others Criminal Appeal No.363 Of 2021 2021-JX-(SC)-0-215 Decided on : 24-3-2021 1. Statement Made During Enquiry At Pre FIR Stage Neither

A Confession Nor A Statement U/s 160 CrPC.

2. Whether an enquiry at pre-FIR stage would be legal and

to what extent such an enquiry is permissible? Yes. A

enquiry at pre? FIR is permissible only to the extent to

arrive at the conclusion that whether cognizable offence

has been committed or not. (Police has no option but to

register FIR if found cognizable offence has been

committed.) A statement made in pre -FIR stage cannot be

said to be confessional in character

3. Scope Of Open Enquiry Under Prevention Of Corruption

Act. : an enquiry at pre-FIR stage is held to be

permissible and not only permissible but desirable, more

particularly in cases where the allegations are of

misconduct of corrupt practice acquiring the

assets/properties disproportionate to his known sources

of income. After the enquiry/enquiry at pre-registration of

FIR stage/preliminary enquiry, if, on the basis of the

material collected during such enquiry, it is found that the

complaint is vexatious and/or there is no substance at all

in the complaint, the FIR shall not be lodged. However, if

the material discloses prima facie a commission of the

offence alleged, the FIR will be lodged and the criminal

proceedings will be put in motion and the further

investigation will be carried out in terms of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. Therefore, such a preliminary

enquiry would be permissible only to ascertain whether

cognizable offence is disclosed or not and only thereafter

FIR would be registered. Therefore, such a preliminary

enquiry would be in the interest of the alleged accused

also against whom the complaint is made.

FIR & Preliminary

Inquiry

60. Patricia Mukhim Vs. State Of Meghalaya & Ors. Criminal Appeal No.141 Of 2021 2021-JX-(SC)-0-213 Decided on : 25-3-2021 Free speech of the citizens of this country cannot be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases, unless such speech has the tendency to affect public order.

Only where the written or spoken words have the tendency of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order or

IPC Section 505 & 153 A

Page 25 of 31

affecting public tranquility, the law needs to step in to prevent such an activity. The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153 A IPC and the prosecution has to prove the existence of mens rea in order to succeed.

61. Naresh Kumar Vs. Kalawati And Others Criminal Appeal No. 35 Of 2013 2021-JX-(SC)-0-212 Decided on : 25-3-2021 A dying declaration is admissible in evidence under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It alone can also form the basis for conviction if it has been made voluntarily and inspires confidence. If there are contradictions, variations, creating doubts about its truthfulness, affecting its veracity and credibility or if the dying declaration is suspect, or the accused is able to create a doubt not only with regard to the dying declaration but also with regard to the nature and manner of death, the benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the accused. Therefore much shall depend on the facts of a case. There can be no rigid standard or yardstick for acceptance or rejection of a dying declaration.

Section 32 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872

Page 26 of 31

HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Sr. No.

Details of Case Subject

62. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd Vs. Rupdevsinhji Dolatsinhji SA/223/2015 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC-242576 Decided on : 07-01-2021 Held: it is imperative for the Court holding the Trial to decide admissibility of the documentary evidence. Giving alphabets or numbers, as exhibit to the documents would not per se decide that document is admitted in evidence. Tendering of document is one aspect and admitted the document is another aspect. Hon’ble High Court further held that for producing secondary evidence, the necessity of Section 65 and it is sub-section are to be strictly observed and without following such, stairway secondary evidence cannot be tendered and cannot be considered. Hon’ble High Court further opined that mere admission of the documents in the evidence is not amount its proof. The Court cannot escape from the obligation to decide the question of admissibility of the documents. There can be two situation as to admissibility of the document, First, an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself in admissible in evidence and Second, where the objection does not dispute admissibility of the document of evidence but is in regards to mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular and insufficient. In the former one issue of admissibility does not go away only on it being marked or exhibited. Even in appeal or revision admissibility can be questioned. In later one, once document is admitted into evidence the objection goes away.

Evidence Act

63. Pankajkumar Mulshankar Teraiya Vs. Heirs of Jivubhai Udesasng R/Civil Revision Application No. 169 of 2020 2021 (0) AIJEL – HC 242587 Decide on : 18-01-2021 Held : Conjoint reading of Sections 63 and 84(C) of the Gujarat Agricultural and Tenancy Act, 1948, implies that until a document or transaction is held invalid, a suit seeking declaration of the ownership and possession based upon such transactions document cannot be rejected in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

CPC O 7 R 11

64. Vinubhai Harilal Patel (Malavia) Vs. Assistant Right to

Page 27 of 31

Commissioner of Income Tax SCA/7187/2014 2021 (0) AIJEL – HC – 242614; 2021 JX (Guj) 25 Decided on : 27-01-2021 Held: The issues pertain to information under RTI Act, it is observed that though terms public interest has wider connotation and scope it cannot be used to cover all situations. The Private interest may also have a share of public interest in it but such applications which are basically means for private interest of the applicant cannot be pressed to yield information from public authority.

Information Act

Sec 8(1)(J)

65. Ramendrasinh Jaysinh Kushvah Vs. State Of Gujarat R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 12699 Of 2020 Decided on : 11-02-2021 Held that, it cannot be gainsaid that the corruption has become a social menace and is very much rampant nowadays. It is like a termite or a poisonous snake which has penetrated deeply into our systems. It is often quoted that the Public servants are like fish in the water, none can say when and how a fish drank the water. The gravity of the offence punishable under the PC Act enacted to meet with the menace of corruption with a very strong hand, granting bail to the present petitioner, who is prima facie involved in the alleged offences under the P.C. Act, it is not desirable to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

CRPC 438

66. Taufik Idrishbhai Patel (Ghanchi) Vs. Nurabhai Alibhai Momin (Bhagat) Appeal From Order No. 121 of 2021 2021-JX-(Guj)-0-50, 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 242661 Decided on : 12-02-2021 Unregistered agreement to sale can have received in to evidence in suit for Specific Performance.

Code Of Civil Procedure,

1908 Order – 43 R.1(R) , 39 R.1 , 39 R.2

67. Malekben Mahmmadbhai Keshwani Vs. Hajibhai Mahmadbhia Keshwani Wadivala

2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 242668 Decided on : 20-02-2021 Xerox copy of a public document is inadmissible in evidence unless and until it is proved in a way as provided under the law and hence, on such a document, the prayer which is made by the petitioner plaintiff, cannot be acceded to. There cannot be any ambiguity as regards the powers of the Court under O.13 R.10, O.16 R.6 & 14, O.7 R.14 and O.11 R.12 of the CPC but for the fact that proper plea is to be made or at proper stage, the same should be exercised by the Court concerned.

O.13 R.10 of the CPC

Page 28 of 31

68. Kanakadurga Finance Limited Through Ashwin S. Patole Vs. State Of Gujarat 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 242689 Decided on : 23-02-2021 The insurer may be permitted to move a separate petition for the release of the recovered vehicle as soon as it is informed of such recovery before the Jurisdictional Court and such release shall be made within 30 days of the said petition, after taking necessary photographs which is duly authenticated and certified and a detailed panchnama is drawn. The photographs so taken, may be used as secondary evidence during the trial, hence, physical production of the vehicle can be dispensed with.

CRPC 451-457

69. State Of Gujarat Vs. Ghanshyam R. Patel First Appeal No. 1400 of 1996 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 242684 Gujarat High Court Decided on : 25-02-2021 The effect when there is provision in the Contract agreement regarding extension of time then it would be not a case that time was essence of the contract.

The Contract Act

70. Vimal Dairy Limited Vs. Gujarat Tea Depot Company Appeal From Order No. 2 Of 2021 ; Civil Application No. 1 Of 2020 ; 2021 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 242691 Decided on : 01-03-2021 Prima facie Res integra, that instead of dissimilarity of trade products, the Court has to see prima facie, similarities in the product, since the man of average prudence or average intelligence cannot be deceived in dealing with purchasing the goods in the market, since in the present case, the product Tea ("WAGH BAKRI PREMIUM") is such, every type of persons may purchase including, middle class, rich person and others, they may not be deceived by purchasing the goods of so called Appellant / Original Defendant. Prima facie, by allowing product of the Appellant / Original Defendant, will cause confusion in the minds of public at large. Further, it is pertinent to note that the Appellant / Original Defendant has yet not started manufacturing fully in the market as compared to the Respondents / Original Plaintiffs and therefore quia timet action was the need of the hour in the view of the learned Trial Court, and therefore, when the discretion is exercised by the learned Trial Court, the Appellant / Original Defendant has knocked the door of this Court, ex facie the Appellant / Original Defendant failed to rebut prima facie case of the Respondents / Original Plaintffs as Absque injuria.

Copyright Act, 1957

Section - 2(C) Code Of Civil Procedure,

1908 Order – 43 R.1(R)

Page 29 of 31

71. Messrs Mahalaxmi Rubtech Ltd. Vs. Union Of India 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 242693 Decided on : 02-03-2021 Held that, the impugned circular to the extent of para 3(a) is ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as also ultra vires Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Customs Act, 1962 Section

– 149

72. Pandya Manishanker Dhanjibhai Vs. State Of Gujarat With Kumarbhai Jaishukhbhai Mehta Vs. State Of Gujarat 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 242711 Decided on : 08-03-2021 The court management and case flow management of the cases should not only care for the consolidation and classification of the cases involving common points for rendering common judgments on cases involving common points, but the Courts should also be conscious to examine primarily and at a preliminary level, whether the extraordinary jurisdiction invoked by the Petitioners is appropriate or not and whether they can be relegated to an alternative remedy at the lower appropriate Forums, Courts or Tribunals or not. Consolidate the trial of all such pending civil suits and assign the same to one Court for trial in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

CPC And Case Flow

Management Rules

73. Rajkot Mahajan Panjrapol Thro Bhaveshbhai Naranbhai Jallu Vs. State Of Gujarat 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 242712 Decided on : 12-03-2021 Custody of animal: it appears that the panjarapole is an important institution to achieve the object of the Act i.e. to prevent infliction, unnecessary pain or sufferings on animals and further to prevent the cruelty to animals. Panjarapole is a charitable institution and it functions for the noble purpose and do their best for preserving the cattle in the State. In view of this, it cannot be said that panjarapole has no interest in the case pertaining to cruelty to animals. Thus, keeping in view the scheme of the Act and the fact that it is not only recognized by the State, but it is vested with statutory obligation, in my view, the panjarapole has locus to maintain a petition with respect to the interim custody of the animal seized for the offence under the Act of 1960 or the ancillary Acts."

Cr P C 451 Animal

Cruelty Act

Page 30 of 31

74. Mukesh Padmakarbhai Kulkarni Vs. State Of Gujarat 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 242718 Decided on : 16-03-2021 Abatement has to be in near proximity of the alleged act of the commission of the suicide as well as it has to be so grave in nature due to which deceased was not left with any other option, but to commit suicide.

Code Of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 Section

– 439

75. Arunkumar Jagatramka Vs. Ultrabulk A/s 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 242717 Decided on : 18-03-2021 Section 51, CPC provides for powers of the court to enforce the execution. Amongst the modes prescribed, it is provided as one of the recourses that upon application of the decree holder, the court may order execution of decree by arrest and detention of judgment debtor in prison. The Proviso attached thereto says that where the decree is for payment of money, the execution by detention in prison is not to be ordered unless reasonable opportunity of showing cause to the judgment debtor is extended and the court is satisfied that the conditions stated in the provision were fulfilled or met with.

Order XXI Rule 37, CPC

76. Shakuntalaben D/o Bhagwandas Vyankatdas And W/o Surendralal Narharidas Vs. Chunilal Dhulabhai Patel (Expired) 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 242725 Decided on : 18-03-2021 Held that, By virtue of Order 22 Rule 3, the court on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff be made a party and shall proceed with the suit, it is settled law that parties having same interest are the necessary parties and can be joined in the same litigation.

Code Of Civil Procedure,

1908 Section - 2(11), Order

– 22 R.3

77. The Gujarat State Wakf Board Vs. Shaikh Aunali Ismailji Ezzy Civil Revision Application No. 162 of 2020 Decided on : 19-03-2021 1. The Wakf Tribunal can decide all disputes, questions or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property. The words "any dispute, question or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property" are, in our opinion, words of very wide connotation. Any dispute, question or other matters whatsoever and in whatever manner which arises relating to a Wakf or Wakf property can be decided by the Wakf Tribunal. 2. Under Section 83 (5) of the Wakf Act, 1995 the Tribunal has all powers of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, and hence it has also powers under Order 39

Wakf Act, 1995

Page 31 of 31

Rules 1, 2 and 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant temporary injunctions and enforce such injunctions. Hence, a fullfledged remedy is available to any party if there is any dispute, question or other matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property. 3. we are of the opinion that since the matter fell under the purview of the Wakf Act, only the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction in the matter, and not the Civil Court. 4. it is clear that fraud has a definite meaning in law and it must be proved and not merely alleged and inferred."

78. Binaben W/o Bhupendrabhai Sevantilal Shah Vs. State Of Gujarat Criminal Appeal No. 1580 of 2016 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 242728 Decided on : 26-03-2021 Hon’ble court observered that, the appreciation of an approver's evidence has to satisfy a double test. His evidence must show that he is a reliable witness and that is a test which is common to all witnesses. If this test is satisfied the second test which still remains to be applied is that the approver's evidence must receive sufficient corroboration. Admissibility of Electronic evidence : The Certificate is valid since the witness had downloaded the CDRs of three mobiles from 'Billing Server'/ The accused cannot be held guilty in absence of any complete chain of circumstances which led to the conclusion by the learned Trial Court that the appellants were the only persons who have committed the offence.

IPC, 1860 Section -

302, 120B, 506(2), 365, 201, 306,

307 & Indian Evidence Act

133