1) When Police Officers Use Case Diary To Refresh Their Memory, Accused Gets Right To Rely On Case Diary To Cross-Examine
The Supreme Court has held that an accused has a right to cross-examine a police officer as to the recording made in the case diary whenever the police officer uses to refresh his memory.
Similarly, in a case where the court uses a case diary for the purpose of contradicting a police officer, then an accused is entitled to peruse the said statement so recorded which is relevant, and cross-examine the police officer on that count.
Shailesh Kumar v. State of UP (now State of Uttarakhand).
2) Supreme Court: The summons issued by ED needs to be respected and responded to by the person to whom summons were issued.
Directorate of Enforcement v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1959-1963 of 2024.
3) Mere Demand For Ransom After Kidnapping Won't Amount To S.364A IPC Offence If There's No Death Threat
Two ingredients need to be established by the prosecution to prove the commission of an offence under Section 364A IPC (Kidnapping for Ransom).
The first ingredient of Section 364A is that there should be a kidnapping or abduction of any person or a person should be kept in detention after such kidnapping or abduction. The second ingredient is that if the said act is coupled with a threat to cause death or hurt to such person.
4) Once Magistrate Seeks Report From Police Under S.202 CrPC, Summons To Accused Be Postponed Until Police Report Is Received
5) No Automatic Vacation Of Stay Orders Of HCs On Civil & Criminal Trials : Supreme Court Overturns 'Asian Resurfacing' Judgment.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday (February 29) overturned its 2018 Asian Resurfacing judgment which mandated the interim orders passed by High Courts staying trials in civil and criminal cases will automatically expire after six months from the date of the order, unless expressly extended by the High Courts.
The latest verdict, setting aside the earlier ruling, was handed out by a five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices Abhay S Oka, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra.
Justice Oka, who read out the judgment, stated that the bench has not agreed with the directions in Asian Resurfacing.
"A direction that all interim orders passed by high courts will automatically expire on the lapse of time cannot be issued in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution," the court held.
"The directions of the Court that provide for automatic vacation of the order of stay and the disposal of all cases in which a stay has been granted on a day-to-day basis virtually amount to judicial legislation. The jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised to make such a judicial legislation.
High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. | Criminal Appeal No. 3589 of 2023.
6) 'They Also Have Right To Privacy' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking 24x7 Digital Monitoring Of MPs/MLAs.
7) Court May Refuse To Appoint Arbitral Tribunal If S.11(6) Petition Is Barred By Limitation Or Claim Is Ex-Facie Time Barred
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act"), and a Court may refuse to make a reference if the claims, on the date of commencement of arbitration proceedings, are ex-facie barred.
"...there is no doubt as to the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitration proceedings in general and that of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 in particular", said the Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra.
M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Versus M/s Aptech Ltd., ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2023.
8) Order 6 Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Plaint Shouldn't Be Allowed If It Alters Nature Of Suit.
The Supreme Court on February 29 (Thursday) held that an application seeking amendment of plaint shouldn't be allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC if the amendment alters the nature of the suit.
In the present case, an amendment of the plaint in a partition suit was sought to include a prayer to declare an earlier compromise decree as void. The Court disallowed the application stating that the amendment had the effect of altering the nature of partition suit to a declaration suit.
BASAVARAJ VERSUS INDIRA AND OTHERS, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2886 OF 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment