(1) SUPREME COURT
Dowry death, Presumption
A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 439—Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023—Sections 80, 103(1)—Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023—Section 114—Dowry death—Bail—Cancellation—Order granting bail in dowry death case held unsustainable where High Court failed to consider material evidence including post-mortem report indicating multiple injuries and statutory presumption—In serious offences, bail must be granted with due application of mind—Mechanical grant of bail liable to be set aside—Bail cancelled and accused directed to surrender. [Paras 12 to 19] B. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023—Section 114—Presumption—Dowry death—Courts must consider statutory presumption arising in cases of unnatural death of a married woman within sho...
(2) SUPREME COURT
Quashing of proceeding
A. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 498A, 323, 354—Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961—Sections 3, 4—Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 482—Quashing of proceedings—Matrimonial disputes—Where allegations against relatives of husband are vague, omnibus and unsupported by material evidence, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process—Mere naming of in-laws without specific role or overt acts insufficient—Proceedings liable to be quashed in light of settled principles including Bhajan Lal categories. [Paras 21, 22, 27, 28] B. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 498A, 354—Appreciation of allegations—Requirement of specific material—To constitute offence under Section 498A IPC, cruelty must be supported by cogent material and not bald all...
(3) SUPREME COURT
Electricity
A. Electricity Act, 2003—Sections 61, 86—Tariff determination—Jurisdiction of State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC)—Tariff determination falls exclusively within domain of SERC with no residual regulatory space outside its jurisdiction—SERC empowered to consider incentives/subsidies including those granted by Union Government—However, such consideration must be contextual and purposive and cannot defeat object of grant or policy—Regulatory exercise must align with intent of schemes like Generation Based Incentive (GBI). [Paras 15 to 28, 43 to 47] B. Electricity Act, 2003—Section 61(h)—Renewable energy—Promotion—Tariff—SERC obligated to determine tariff in a manner that promotes generation of electricity from renewable sources—GBI scheme introduc...
(4) SUPREME COURT
A. Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226; Administrative Law—Judicial review of tender process—Scope—Judicial review in contractual matters is limited to examining arbitrariness, mala fides or perversity—Courts must exercise restraint and cannot substitute their decision for that of the tendering authority—Minor errors or marginal differences in evaluation do not justify interference—“Fair play in the joints” must be allowed to the employer. [Paras 19 to 22, 26] B. Tender Conditions—Quality and Cost Based System (QCBS)—Evaluation—Award of contract—Evaluation of bids under QCBS involves technical expertise and financial assessment—Final decision regarding award rests with the owner, who is entitled to adopt pragmatic and flexible approach—Ev...
(5) SUPREME COURT
Framing of charge
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Sections 211 to 213, 228, 215, 464—Framing of charge—Defect—Effect—Object of charge is to inform accused of precise accusation—Substantial compliance sufficient—Where accused had full knowledge of charges, participated in trial and cross-examined witnesses, omission such as unsigned charge or procedural lapse does not vitiate trial—Defect is curable unless it causes failure of justice. [Paras 14.1 to 14.8, 15.1 to 15.4] B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Sections 215, 464—Curable irregularity vs illegality—Defect in framing or signing of charge constitutes procedural irregularity and not illegality—Trial not invalid unless accused is misled or prejudice is shown—Burden lies on accused to demonstrate failure of justice...
(6) SUPREME COURT
Service Law
Service Law—Disciplinary proceedings—Appointment of Inquiry Officer & Presenting Officer—Opportunity to reply to chargesheet—Natural justice—Appointment of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer without affording sufficient opportunity to delinquent to file reply to chargesheet not justified—Employee must be given reasonable opportunity before initiation of inquiry proceedings—Petitioner permitted to file reply within two weeks—Respondent(s) to take decision regarding appointment of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer within two weeks thereafter after considering reply—No opinion expressed on merits..[Para 1] ...
(7) SUPREME COURT
Electricity Law
A. Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958—Section 5A; Constitution of India, 1950—Article 14—Exemption—Power to withdraw—Exemption granted under Section 5A is a concession and not a vested right—State has power to withdraw or modify exemption in exercise of same statutory power—Beneficiaries have no enforceable right to continuation of exemption—Withdrawal of exemption for fiscal reasons such as augmentation of revenue held valid and not violative of Article 14. [Paras 16 to 20] B. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation—Applicability—Fiscal policy—Doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation not applicable where withdrawal of exemption is in public interest—Government can change policy in fiscal matters if justified by supervening...
(8) SUPREME COURT
Rent and Eviction
A. U.P. Urban Premises Rent Control Act, 2021—Sections 21(2), 38—Jurisdiction of Rent Authority—Scope—Jurisdiction of Rent Authority confined to determination of landlord-tenant relationship and eviction grounds—Authority has no jurisdiction to adjudicate questions of title or ownership—Entertaining restoration application on basis of alleged title dispute held beyond jurisdiction—Order passed without jurisdiction declared nullity. [Paras 7 to 9, 12] B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Principles of res judicata, finality of litigation; Doctrine of abuse of process—Once landlord-tenant relationship and eviction decree attain finality up to Supreme Court, parties cannot reopen same issues through collateral proceedings—Filing restoration application after dismissal of SLP, re...
(9) SUPREME COURT
Suspension of sentence, POCSO
A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012—Sections 3, 4—Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 389—Suspension of sentence—Pending appeal—Suspension of sentence can be granted where arguable issues arise in appeal and material evidence has not been properly considered by Trial Court—Failure to consider prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164 CrPC raising involvement of another person constitutes a significant factor—Appellate Court justified in suspending sentence and granting bail pending appeal. [Paras 5, 8, 9] B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 164—Appreciation of evidence—Statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC is a material piece of evidence and must be duly considered—Non-consideration of such statement affecting ...
(10) SUPREME COURT
POCSO
A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012—Sections 6, 10—Investigation—Misclassification of offence—Where material on record discloses prima facie offence under Section 6 POCSO Act, dilution of offence to lesser provision under Section 10 held unjustified—Investigating agency cannot downplay gravity of offence for extraneous reasons—Court emphasized correct legal classification based on evidence—Prima facie case under aggravated penetrative sexual assault made out. [Paras 3, 4] B. Criminal Law—Investigation—Fairness—Bias—Constitution of Special Investigation Team (SIT)—Investigation found to be biased, inconsistent and aimed at discrediting victim—Shifting stand of police raises serious doubts about credibility—To ensure fair, impart...
(1) MADRAS
Presumption
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 118, 138, 139—Dishonour of cheque—Presumption—Rebuttal—Appeal against acquittal—Statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 arises upon admission of signature on cheque, but same is rebuttable on preponderance of probabilities—Where defence establishes probable case that cheque was issued as security in tenancy transaction and surrounding circumstances render alleged loan improbable, presumption stands rebutted—Complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt—Trial Court rightly acquitted accused—No interference warranted in appeal in absence of perversity—Acquittal affirmed. [Paras 8, 9] ...
(2) MADRAS
Presumption
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 118, 138, 139—Dishonour of cheque—Presumption—Rebuttal—Appeal against acquittal—Though statutory presumption arises in favour of complainant upon admission of signature on cheque, the same is rebuttable on preponderance of probabilities—Where defence establishes probable explanation (cheque issued as security in tenancy dispute) and surrounding circumstances render existence of legally enforceable debt improbable, presumption stands rebutted—Trial Court rightly held complainant failed to prove liability beyond reasonable doubt—In appeal against acquittal, no interference warranted in absence of perversity—Acquittal affirmed. [Paras 8, 9] ...
(3) HIMACHAL PRADESH
Acquittal, Compounding of offence
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138, 147—Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 397—Dishonour of cheque—Revision—Compounding of offence—Post-conviction—Offence under Section 138 NI Act can be compounded at any stage, including at revisional stage after affirmation of conviction—Where parties have amicably settled dispute and entire compensation amount stands paid/deposited, Court justified in permitting compounding—Conviction and sentence set aside and accused acquitted—Complainant entitled to release of deposited amount along with litigation costs and compounding fee in terms of Damodar S. Prabhu guidelines. [Paras 5 to 9] ...
(4) HIMACHAL PRADESH
Acquittal, NDPS
A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Section 50—Search of person—Compliance—Mandatory compliance of Section 50 requires that accused be clearly informed of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate—Only two options permissible—Giving any third option or recording vague consent vitiates search—Failure to obtain proper written waiver renders recovery doubtful and inadmissible—Non-compliance fatal to prosecution case. [Paras 22, 23] B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Section 20—Recovery—Appreciation of evidence—Conviction can be based on official witnesses, however, where material contradictions and discrepancies exist in their testimonies and no independent witness is associated despite availability,...
(5) HIMACHAL PRADESH
Appeal against acquittal
A. Penal Code, 1860—Sections 279, 304-A—Rash and negligent driving—Proof—“High speed” alone insufficient—To establish rashness or negligence, prosecution must prove specific negligent act—Mere allegation of driving at “high speed” is insufficient—“High speed” is a relative term and cannot by itself establish criminal negligence—No evidence regarding manner of driving or breach of duty—Conviction cannot be based on such vague assertions. [Paras 19–23] B. Evidence Act, 1872—Section 25; Criminal Trial—Confession to police—Admissibility—Confessional statement made by accused to police is inadmissible—FIR or statement given by accused containing confession cannot be used against him except to limited extent unde...
(6) DELHI
Service Law
A. Constitution of India—Article 226—Judicial review—Transfer of employee—Scope of interference—Limited jurisdiction—Transfer being an incident of service, employee has no vested right to be posted at a particular place—Judicial review under Article 226 is limited to cases of mala fides, statutory violation or patent arbitrariness—Where transfer effected pursuant to policy and Supreme Court directions, and based on administrative exigencies and availability of vacancies, no interference warranted—Tribunal rightly declined interference. [Paras 16–18, 27–29] B. Service Law—Transfer policy—Medical grounds—Reasonable accommodation—Applicability of disability law—Requirement of proof—Claim for accommodation on medical grounds must sati...
(8) HIMACHAL PRADESH
Appeal against acquittal
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 118, 138, 139—Dishonour of cheque—Presumption—Rebuttal—Statutory presumption arises once execution of cheque is admitted, but is rebuttable on preponderance of probabilities—Where defence establishes that cheque was issued as blank signed security to spouse and subsequently misused, and surrounding circumstances render alleged loan improbable, presumption stands rebutted—Complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt. [Paras 16, 20] B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 378—Appeal against acquittal—Scope—Interference with acquittal permissible only when findings are perverse or based on misreading of evidence—Where trial court has taken a plausible and reasonable view based on evidence, appellate court s...
(9) DELHI
Suit for recovery
A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Order XII Rule 6—Decree on admission—Requirement of clear and unequivocal admission—A decree on admission can be passed only where the admission is clear, unambiguous, and leaves no room for doubt—Where the defendant’s written statement reproduces the plaintiff’s averments regarding outstanding rent but simultaneously denies non-payment and asserts timely payment, the pleadings disclose a dispute raising triable issues—In such circumstances, passing a decree on admission is unwarranted and the matter requires full trial. (Paras 14 to 18) B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Order XII Rule 6—Reproduction of pleadings—Not an admission—Holistic reading of written statement—Mere reproduction of the plaintiff’s pleadings in the w...
(10) DELHI
A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 37—Appeal against order under Section 34—Scope of interference—Limited judicial review—While exercising jurisdiction under Section 37, the appellate court does not rehear the matter on merits or sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by the arbitral tribunal—Interference is warranted only where the court under Section 34 has ignored settled parameters or where findings suffer from patent illegality, perversity, or manifest error—Legislative intent is to minimise judicial intervention and accord finality to arbitral awards—Where the learned Single Judge has applied the correct principles and the findings disclose no manifest error, appellate interference is unwarranted and the appeals are liable to be dismissed. (Paras 1 to 3, 25 to 28, ...