Sunday, 17 June 2018

Whether finding given by court without jurisdiction on merits of case will amount to res judicata?

In our opinion the High Court misconstrued the earlier order as it failed to note that the observations made thereunder were not binding since they were made without jurisdiction. It is useful to quote Corpus Juris Secundum2, which recognizes the difficulty faced by the High Court in application of res judicata in following words-

it is sometimes difficult to determine when a particular issue determined is of sufficient dignity to be covered by the Rule of estoppel.

Mulla3 has aptly cautioned against such mis-application of res judicata in the following manner-

It is not to be assumed that matters in respect of which issues have been framed are all of them directly and substantially in issue. Nor is there any special significance to be attached to the fact that a particular issue is the first in the list of issues. Which of the matters are directly in issue and which collaterally or incidentally, must be determined on the facts of each case. A material test to be applied is whether the court considers the adjudication of the issue material and essential for its decision.

19. It is apparent from the perusal of the impugned order that the High Court stretched the ambit of 'finality' for some observations to the saying (relating to collateral aspects) that every such observation was final unless reversed in appeal, which had an effect of throttling the substantive justice out of life. We cannot approve such reasoning of the High Court that the issue had attained finality, since the observations were made by a court which went against its own findings that the court did not have any authority/jurisdiction to do so. Once the court concludes that a case is not maintainable Under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it did not have any jurisdiction to make further observations on merits as has been done in this case.


Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2190 of 2017)

Decided On: 23.01.2018

 Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai Vs. Pankaj Arora (Secretary) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
N.V. Ramana and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.
Citation: (2018) 3 SCC 699
Print Page

Saturday, 16 June 2018

Whether maintenance granted U/S 125 of CRPC will be superseded if maintenance is granted U/S 24 of Hindu marriage Act?

Second, consequent upon passing of the maintenance order dated 15.07.2016 Under Section 24 of the Act by the Family Court, the order passed by the Family Court, Samastipur Under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure stands superseded and now no longer holds the field. Indeed, this fact was conceded by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent (wife).


Civil Appeal No. 3658 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6301 of 2017)

Decided On: 09.04.2018

 Sanjay Kumar Sinha  Vs. Asha Kumari and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
Citation:     (2018) 5 SCC 333  
Print Page

Whether adverse remark passed against Judicial officer should be expunged?

 At the same time, condemnation of the Presiding Officer and going to the extent of damning him, albeit, in an oblique manner, may not be justified in the facts of this case. No doubt, it was expected of the Presiding Judge to play more active and positive role. However, if error is committed on that front, it is also not appropriate to arrive at other extreme conclusions against that Presiding Officer in the absence of any cogent evidence against him. We were also informed that the said Presiding Officer is at the verge of retirement and is going to retire within a couple of months, after rendering long service of more than 30 years. This Court has time and again stated that the High Court should not lightly pass strictures against the judges in the subordinate judiciary {See - Awani Kumar Upadhyay v. High Court of Judicature of Allahabad and Ors. MANU/SC/0119/2013 : (2013) 12 SCC 392 and Amar Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. MANU/SC/0495/2012 : (2012) 6 SCC 491}.


Criminal Appeal No. 492 of 2014, 

Decided On: 30.10.2017

Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.

Citation: (2018) 11 SCC 129
Print Page

Whether high court and session court can cancel bail granted to accused if there is infirmity in order granting the bail?

The High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. Such orders are against the well recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel such bail orders particularly when they are passed releasing accused involved in heinous crimes because they ultimately result in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse impact on the society. Needless to say that though the powers of this Court are much wider, this Court is equally guided by the above principles in the matter of grant or cancellation of bail.


Criminal Appeal No. 1662 of 2012 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 155 of 2012)

Decided On: 16.10.2012

Kanwar Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Aftab Alam and Ranjana Prakash Desai, JJ.

Citation: (2012) 12 SCC 180
Print Page