Sec 142 NIA | When complainant is a company, an authorized employee can represent the company and such averment is sufficient to take cognizance and issue process: Supreme Court

February 23, 2022January 15, 2023
Supreme Court, Judgment

Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Hon’ble the Chief Justice N. V. Ramana, Justice, A. S Bopanna, and Justice Hima Kohli have observed that when the complainant/payee is a company, an authorized employee can represent the company. Such averment and prima facie material is sufficient for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance and issue process.

Period of Limitation is excluded even for filing the Written Statement and in cases where Delay is not Condonable | Supreme Court Clarified

February 15, 2022January 15, 2023
Supreme Court, Judgment

The Supreme Court while hearing a civil appeal has once again clarified the issues with regard to the period of limitation and has observed that period envisaged finally in the Order dated 23.09.2021 is required to be excluded in computing the period of limitation even for filing the written statement and even in cases where the delay is otherwise not condonable.

Order 23 Rule 3A CPC | Separate Suit not maintainable against a Consent Decree: Supreme Court

February 9, 2022January 15, 2023
Supreme Court, Judgment

n a judgment authored by Justice M. R. Shah, it has been observed that the only remedy available to a party to a consent decree to avoid such consent decree, is to approach the court which recorded the compromise and separate suit is not maintainable.

Default Bail under Section 167(2) CRPC cannot be claimed on the ground that Cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of 60 days: Supreme Court

February 7, 2022January 15, 2023
Supreme Court, Judgment

The Court while hearing a criminal appeal has observed that filing of a charge-sheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 167, CrPC and that an accused cannot demand release on default bail under Section 167(2) on the ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of 60 days.

Consent Decree cannot be modified or altered unless the mistake is a patent or obvious mistake: Supreme Court

February 4, 2022January 15, 2023
Supreme Court, Judgment

The Court has observed that a consent decree cannot be modified/ altered unless the mistake is a patent or obvious mistake. Or else, there is a danger of every consent decree being sought to be altered on the ground of mistake/ misunderstanding by a party to the consent decree.

When Dying Declaration is true and voluntary, Court can base its conviction on it without Corroboration: Supreme Court

February 2, 2022January 15, 2023
Supreme Court, Judgment

In a recent judgment the Court observed that there is neither a rule of law nor of prudence to the effect that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon without a corroboration. If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base its conviction on it, without corroboration.

Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act is not a bar to a Suit filed by an unregistered firm, if the same is for enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right: Supreme Court

January 31, 2022January 15, 2023
Supreme Court, Judgment

The Supreme Court in a civil appeal has observed that Section 69(2) of the Act of 1932 is not a bar to a suit filed by an unregistered firm, if the same is for enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right.

The Expression District defined in Section 2(4) of the Code includes the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court: Supreme Court

January 28, 2022January 15, 2023
Supreme Court, Judgment

The Court while hearing a appeal arising out of the execution proceedings observed that the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court is always exercised, based on pecuniary limits. It would be impossible to read into Section 44A of the Code that even though the pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Court is restricted, still for the purpose of execution of a foreign decree, it becomes the District Court in respect to those matters which fall within the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court and the expression “district” defined under Section 2(4) of the Code will have to be given its true effect.

Order of Conviction by the High Court while exercising the Revisional Jurisdiction is beyond the scope and ambit of Section 401 CrPC: Supreme Court

January 25, 2022January 15, 2023
Supreme Court, Judgment

The Court after analyzing the law laid down in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC observed that, “on a plain reading of sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.PC, it has to be held that sub-section (3) of Section 401 CrPC prohibits/bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.”

Daughter entitled to inherit self-acquired property of her father: Supreme Court

January 21, 2022January 15, 2023
Supreme Court, Judgment

The Court observed that, if a property of a male Hindu dying intestate is a self-acquired property or obtained in partition of a coparcenary or a family property, the same would devolve by inheritance and not by survivorship, and a daughter of such a male Hindu would be entitled to inherit such property in preference to other collaterals.