Tuesday 26 March 2024

Short notes on Latest Supreme Court judgments (Part 4)


1) Consumer Protection Act | If Commercial Use Is By Purchasers Themselves For Earning Livelihood By Self-Employment, They'll Be 'Consumers

The Supreme Court has ruled that a person buying goods either for resale or for use in large-scale profit-making activity, will not be a ‘consumer’ entitled to protection of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, if the commercial use is by the purchasers themselves for the purpose of earning their livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchasers of goods would continue to be ‘consumers’.

Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. vs M/s Vipul Ltd.

2) SLP Cannot Be Filed To Challenge An Order Passed By High Court On Administrative Side.

Justice KV Viswanathan referred to the observations made in Dev Singh and Others vs. Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court and Others, (1987) 3 SCC 169.

"Article 136 contemplates only special leave petition to the Court from adjudication of courts and tribunals and such adjudication must doubtless be judicial. Since no Special Leave Petition can be filed against the administrative order, there is nothing wrong with the order of the Registrar and the order dated 6th January, 2023 passed by the Registrar is upheld", the judge noted.

Nimmanapally Surya Reddy vs Honorable Chief Justice High Court Of Telangana - 2023.

3) Cheque Bounce Case Can Be Quashed U/S 482 Only If Amount Is Patently Non-Recoverable; Whether Debt Time-Barred Or Not Is A Question Of Evidence

K. Hymavathi vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2023- 2023 INSC 811

4) Eyewitness Account Can't Be Discarded Merely Because Of Inconsistencies With Medical Evidence

It observed, “In the judgment of this Court reported in Darbara Singh ­vs­ State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 476, this Court has given greater importance to ocular evidence over the opinion of the medical expert. This principle applies to the case before us. Even if in the opinion of the autopsy surgeon there was a mismatch of the knife with the injuries caused, the doctor’s evidence cannot eclipse ocular evidence. The evidence on post ­occurrence events is consistent.”

It opined “Just because there were more injuries than the ones narrated by the eyewitness cannot negate the prosecution's version. In our opinion the discrepancies pointed out by the appellant are minor ones. An eyewitness to a gruesome killing cannot in deposition narrate a blow-by-blow account of the knife strikes inflicted on the deceased like in a screenplay"

On the aspect of discrepancies, the Court had summed up the principle thus “There are bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence of eyewitnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence….

The court shall have to bear in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations: whereas some become speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction, and belief that the wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact, it depends upon individuals and individuals. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise.”

Rameshji Amarsingh Thakor v. State of Gujarat

5) Certified Copy Can Be Produced To Prove Original Sale Deed In Trial 

Appaiya vs Andimuthu@ Thangapandi & Ors.

6) S. 27 Evidence Act | Discovery Can't Be Proved Against Person If He Wasn't Accused Of Any Offence & Wasn't In Custody Of Police At The Time Of Confession

The Supreme Court has held that for a confession made to the police to be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, two essential conditions must be met: the individual must be 'accused of any offence,' and they must be in 'police custody' at the time the confession is made.

Rajesh v State of MP

7) Prioritise Cases Of HIV Positive Persons : Supreme Court Directs All Courts; Issues Directions To Centre & States To Enforce HIV Act

The Court further directed all Courts, Tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies in the country to prioritize the cases relating to HIV-infected persons for early disposal as per the mandate of Section 34(2) of the HIV Act. The Court also directed that steps should be taken to keep the identity of HIV-infected persons anonymous.

 C.A. No. 7175/2021

  • Print Page

    No comments:

    Post a Comment