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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.