Important Supreme court Judgments of the year 2020

 

1) Supreme Court: Summary Eviction Procedure Under Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be Invoked To Defeat Right Of Residence Of Woman In A Shared Household As Per DV Act

S. Vanitha  Vs.  The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Ors.

https://www.lawweb.in/2020/12/supreme-court-summary-eviction.html

2) Supreme court: While granting maintenance U/S 125 of CRPC, the court shall take into consideration interim maintenance given to wife under DV Act

RAJNESH  Vs  NEHA & Anr

https://www.lawweb.in/2020/11/supreme-court-while-granting.html

3) Whether Wife can claim Right Of Residence in immovable property Belonging to relatives Of Husband?

SATISH CHANDER AHUJA Vs  SNEHA AHUJA 

https://www.lawweb.in/2020/10/whether-wife-can-claim-right-of.html

4) Supreme Court: after 2018 amendment in the Specific Relief Act, the court must grant specific performance of a contract

B. SANTOSHAMMA & ANR. Vs D. SARALA & ANR. 

https://www.lawweb.in/2020/09/supreme-court-after-2018-amendment-in.html

Print Page

Whether judgment of high court shall remain precedent if said judgment is stayed by Supreme Court?

"Therefore, the effect of the order of stay in a pending appeal before the Apex Court does not amount to 'any declaration of law' but is only binding upon the parties to the said proceedings and at the same time, such interim order does not destroy the binding effect of the judgment of the High Court as a precedent because while granting the interim order, the Apex Court had no occasion to lay down any proposition of law inconsistent with the one declared by the High Court which is impugned."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

G.A. No. 102 of 2018 and C.S. No. 152 of 2017

Decided On: 30.01.2019

 Bahubali Promoters Private Limited  Vs.  Shyam Sel & Power Limited

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

Citation: 2019(1) RCR(Rent) 386

Print Page

What is doctrine of Eclipse?

The doctrine, flowing from the prospective nature of Art. 13(1)  of the constitution of India, was evolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhikaji v. State of M.P. , meaning thereby that a valid pre-constitutional law violating a fundamental right becomes inoperative treating it as having been eclipsed by the relevant fundamental right. If this fundamental right is amended and the shadow is removed, the law revive and operate.

In other words, a law which violates fundamental rights is not a nullity or void ab initio but are only unenforceable in the court of law i.e. remains in a moribund condition. "It is over-shadowed by the fundamental rights and remains dormant, but it is riot dead."

Till the time a law violates a fundamental right provided by the Indian Constitution, it is dormant and inoperative. But if such fundamental right is amended and thereby, the law no more violates, then in such a situation the law becomes alive and operative.

Print Page

Good legal article on precedent

1)Precedent is statement of law found in the decision of superior court  which is to be followed by same court and inferior court.Precedent are principles laid down by court while interpreting statute.Following previous decisions in similar future cases, the court may save time and avoid conflicting decisions, bringing uniformity to law. 

2) Doctrine of stare decisis

The doctrine of stare decisis means 'to stand by decided case ' or 'to uphold precedents'.It states that when a point of law has been decided, it takes form of precedent which is to be followed subsequently and should not normally departed from. The rule of stare decisis means a principle of law settled by courts long ago and followed by series of decisions for long period where the facts are substantially the same.

Print Page

Supreme Court Judgment on Disqualification of convicted representatives in India

Supreme Court of India, in its judgement dated 10 July 2013 while disposing the Lily Thomas v. Union of India case (along with Lok Prahari v. Union of India), ruled that any Member of Parliament (MP), Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or Member of a Legislative Council (MLC) who is convicted of a crime and awarded a minimum of two year imprisonment, loses membership of the House with immediate effect. This is in contrast to the earlier position, wherein convicted members held on to their seats until they exhausted all judicial remedy in lower, state and supreme court of India. Further, Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, which allowed elected representatives three months to appeal their conviction, was declared unconstitutional by the bench of Justice A. K. Patnaik and Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya.

Print Page

Whether dying declaration is admissible in civil suits?

There is a clear distinction between the principles governing the evaluation of a dying declaration under the English law and the Indian law. Under the English law, credence and relevancy of a dying declaration is only when the person making such a statement is in hopeless condition and expecting an imminent death. So under the English law, for its admissibility, the declaration should have been made when in the actual danger of death and that the declarant should have had a full apprehension that his death would ensue. However, under the Indian law, the dying declaration is relevant, whether the person who makes it was or was not under expectation of death at the time of such declaration. The dying declaration is admissible not only in the case of homicide but also in civil suits. The admissibility of a dying declaration rests upon the principle of nemo meritorious praesumuntur mentiri (a man will not meet his maker with a lie in  his mouth).

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 2008

Decided On: 15.03.2012

Bhajju  Vs.  State of M.P.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.K. Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.

Print Page

What is difference between Malfeasance,Misfeasance,and Nonfeasance ?

1)Malfeasance is a wrongful or criminal act perpetrated by a public official or other person of authority. An act of malfeasance is done intentionally, disregarding the fact that the action is morally or legally wrong and will cause someone harm. The adjective form is malfeasant. The word malfeasance is derived from the French word malfaisance, which means wrongdoing.

2) Misfeasance is a an act that lawful, but performed in an unlawful, illegal or injurious manner. Generally, misfeasance is different from malfeasance in that the actor does not have the intent to harm, but the harm comes through the actor’s irresponsibility or negligence. The adjective form is misfeasant.  The word misfeasance is derived from the French word mesfaisance, meaning to mis-do.

Print Page

Criteria for grant of free legal aid under legal services authorities Act

Chapter IV

ENTITLEMENT TO LEGAL SERVICES

12. Criteria for giving legal services.—Every person who has to file or defend a case shall be entitled to legal services under this Act if that person is—

(a) a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;

(b) a victim of trafficking in human beings or begar as referred to in Article 23 of the Constitution;

(c) a woman or a child;

18[(d) a person with disability as defined in clause (i) of Section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995;]

(e) a person under circumstances of undeserved want such as being a victim of a mass disaster, ethnic violence, caste atrocity, flood, drought, earthquake or industrial disaster; or

(f) an industrial workman; or

(g) in custody, including custody in a protective home within the meaning of clause (g) of Section 2 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (104 of 1956), or in a juvenile home within the meaning of clause (j) of Section 2 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (53 of 1986), or in a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home within the meaning of clause (g) of Section 2 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 (14 of 1987); or

19[(h) in receipt of annual income less than rupees nine thousand or such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the State Government, if the case is before a court other than the Supreme Court, and less than rupees twelve thousand or such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government, if the case is before the Supreme Court.]

13. Entitlement for legal services.—(1) Persons who satisfy all or any of the criteria specified in Section 12 shall be entitled to receive legal services provided that the concerned Authority is satisfied that such person has a prima facie case to prosecute or to defend.

(2) An affidavit made by a person as to his income may be regarded as sufficient for making him eligible to the entitlement of legal services under this Act unless the concerned Authority has reason to disbelieve such affidavit.

Print Page

Whether proceeding before Lok adalat is judicial proceeding?

The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

22. Powers of 1 [Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat.]—(1) The 1 [Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat] shall, for the purposes of holding any determination under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:—

---

(a) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and examining him on oath;

---

(b) the discovery and production of any document;

---

(c) the reception of evidence on affidavits;

---

(d) the requisitioning of any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any court or office; and

---

(e) such other matters as may be prescribed.

---

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers contained in sub-section (1), every 1 [Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat] shall have the requisite powers to specify its own procedure for the determination of any dispute coming before it.

---

(3) All proceedings before a 1 [Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat] shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and every 1 [Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat] shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purpose of section195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

---

Print Page

Legal Maxims for Judicial service Exam

1) qui facit per alium facit per se :- Qui facit per alium facit per se is a Latin legal term that means, "He who acts through another does the act himself." It is a fundamental legal maxim of the law of agency. It is a maxim often stated in discussing the liability of employer for the act of employee in terms of vicarious liability."

2) Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet is a legal phrase that is seen used in the law of evidence. It means ‘a transaction between others does not prejudice one who was not a party to it’. Things done between strangers must not cause an injury to people who are not parties to such acts.

3) Allegata et probata is a Latin term meaning things alleged and proved. The allegations made by a party to a suit, and the proof adduced in their support. It refers to general evidence rules which requires that the proofs must correspond with the allegations.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Procedure to be followed by civil court in complaint U/S 340 of CRPC relating to perjury in civil suit

The section thus says that the court should be of opinion
that an enquiry should be held. Even for forming an opinion, there
should be some evidence and not mere surmises. If there is a prima

facie evidence, the court must enter into an enquiry and record a
finding as to whether an offence referred to in Section 195 of Code of
Criminal Procedure is committed. It was, therefore, not proper on
part of Judges of the lower courts to have rejected the application.
The learned Civil Judge should have, in fact, upon consideration of
the application, decided whether it was necessary to hold the enquiry
and if found necessary should have held an enquiry. Merely because
civil suit was pending, that did not prevent and could not prevent the
Civil Judge from entering into an enquiry. I would, therefore, set
aside both the orders and direct the civil judge to register Exh.52 as
Miscellaneous Judicial Case and then proceed to decide the
application according to the provisions contained in Section 340 of
Code of Criminal Procedure. Pendency of this application shall not be
and cannot be a constraint on the Civil Judge in deciding the Civil suit
on merits. The civil judge may proceed to decide the suit and may
also proceed to decide the application under Section 340 of Code of
Criminal Procedure separately. The application under Section 482 of
Code of Criminal procedure is thus disposed of in the above terms.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1115/07.

Kenneth Desa s/o Late John Desa, V  Gopal s/o Leeladhar Narang,

CORAM: C.L.PANGARKAR,J.
DATE : 11th July, 2007.
Citation: 2007 ALLMR (CRI)2281

Print Page

Supreme Court: Basic concept of anti-suit injunction

The Courts in India like the Courts in England are courts of both law and equity. The principles governing grant of injunction - an equitable relief - by a court will also govern grant of anti-suit injunction which is but a species of injunction. When a court restrains a party to a suit/proceeding before it from instituting or prosecuting a case in another court including a foreign court, it is called anti-suit injunction. It is a common ground that the Courts in India have power to issue anti-suit injunction to a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction, in an appropriate case. This is because courts of equity exercise jurisdiction in personam. However, having regard to the rule of comity, this power will be exercised sparingly because such an injunction though directed against a person, in effect causes interference in the exercise of jurisdiction by another court.

Supreme Court of India

Modi Entertainment Network & Anr vs W.S.G.Cricket Pte. Ltd on 21 January, 2003

Bench: Syed Shah Quadri, Arijit Pasayat

Print Page