Whether Influence Of Bias In Testimony Of Interested Witnesses can Be Overlooked?

From the study of the aforesaid precedents of this court,
we may note that whoever has been a witness before the court of
law, having a strong interest in result, if allowed to be weighed in
the same scales with those who do not have any interest in the
result, would be to open the doors of the court for perverted truth.
This sound rule which remain the bulwark of this system, and
which determines the value of evidence derived from such sources,
needs to be cautiously and carefully observed and enforced. There
is no dispute about the fact that the interest of the witness must
affect   his   testimony   is   a   universal   truth.   Moreover,   under   the
influence of bias, a man may not be in a position to judge correctly,
even if they earnestly desire to do so. Similarly, he may not be in a
position   to   provide   evidence   in   an   impartial   manner,   when   it
involves his interest. Under such influences, man will, even though
not consciously, suppress some facts, soften or modify others, and
provide favorable color. These are most controlling considerations in
respect to the credibility of human testimony, and should never to
be overlooked in applying the rules of evidence and determining its
weight in the scale of truth under the facts and circumstances of
each case.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 408 OF 2014

BHASKARRAO & ORS.  Vs  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA     
Dated: APRIL 26, 2018.

Print Page

Whether court can correct errors of arbitrator?

The 1996 Act makes provision for the supervisory role of courts, for the review of the arbitral award only to ensure fairness. Intervention of the court is envisaged in few circumstances only, like, in case of fraud or bias by the arbitrators, violation of natural justice, etc. The court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators. It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired. So, the scheme of the provision aims at keeping the supervisory role of the court at minimum level and this can be justified as parties to the agreement make a conscious decision to exclude the court's jurisdiction by opting for arbitration as they prefer the expediency and finality offered by it.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 15545-15546 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 39038-39039 of 2012)

Decided On: 03.10.2017

Chittaranjan Maity Vs.  Union of India (UOI)

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Jasti Chelameswar and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

Print Page

When making allegations of corruption and bias against Judge amounts contempt of court?

Every citizen has a fundamental right to speech,
guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
Contempt of Court is one of the restrictions on such
right. We are conscious that the power under the Act has
to be exercised sparingly and not in a routine manner. If
there is a calculated effort to undermine the judiciary,
the Courts will exercise their jurisdiction to punish the
offender for committing contempt. We approve the

findings recorded by the High Court that the Appellants
have transgressed all decency by making serious
allegations of corruption and bias against the High Court.
The caustic comments made by the Appellants cannot, by
any stretch of imagination, be termed as fair criticism.
The statements made by the Appellants, accusing the
judiciary of corruption lower the authority of the Court.
The Explanation to sub-Section 12 (1) of the Act provides
that an apology should not be rejected merely on the
ground that it is qualified or tendered at a belated stage,
if the accused makes it bona fide. The stand taken by the
Appellants in the contempt petition and the affidavit filed
in this Court does not inspire any confidence that the
apology is made bona fide. After a detailed consideration
of the submissions made by both sides and the evidence
on record, we are in agreement with the judgment of the
High Court that the Appellants are guilty of committing
contempt of Court.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 463 of 2006
HET RAM BENIWAL & ORS.

V
RAGHUVEER SINGH & ORS.
Dated:October 21, 2016

Print Page

What constitute waiver of right under Securitization Act?

 Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a right. It involves
conscious abandonment of an existing legal right, advantage,
benefit, claim
or privilege, which except for such a waiver, a
party could have enjoyed. In fact, it is an agreement not to assert a
right. There can be no waiver unless the person who is said to have
waived, is fully informed as to his rights and with full knowledge
about the same, he intentionally abandons them. (Vide Dawsons
Bank Ltd. v. Nippon Menkwa Kabushiki Kaisha, Basheshar Nath v.
CIT, Mademsetty Satyanarayana v. G. Yelloji Rao, Associated
Hotels of India Ltd. v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh, Jaswantsingh
Mathurasingh v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn., Sikkim Subba
Associates v. State of Sikkim and Krishna Bahadur v. Purna

Theatre.)
42. This Court in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Dr
Hakimwadi Tenants’ Assn.
considered the issue of
waiver/acquiescence by the non-parties to the proceedings and held:
(SCC p. 65, paras 14-15)
“14. In order to constitute waiver, there must be voluntary
and intentional relinquishment of a right. The essence of a
waiver is an estoppel and where there is no estoppel, there
is no waiver. Estoppel and waiver are questions of
conduct and must necessarily be determined on the facts
of each case. ...

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4679 OF 2014
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) No. 35168 OF 2011]

Vasu P. Shetty V M/s Hotel Vandana Palace & Ors.

Dated;April 22, 2014

Print Page

Good judgment on life of judge

  The Judges do not do an easy job. They repeatedly do what the rest of us seek to avoid, i.e., make decisions. Judges, though are mortals, they are called upon to perform a function that is the kingpin in the hierarchical system of administration of justice. He directly comes in contact with the litigant during the day do day proceedings in the Court. On him lies the responsibility to build solemn atmosphere in dispensation of justice, the personality, knowledge, judicial restraint, capacity to maintain dignity character, conduct, official as well as personal, and integrity are the additional aspects which make the functioning of the court successful and acceptable. Law is a means to an end and justice is that end. But in actuality, Law and Justice are distant neighbours; sometimes even strange hostiles. If law shoots down justice, the people shoot down law and lawlessness paralyses development, disrupts order and retards progress. {vide All India Judges Association vs. Union of India & Ors. (1992) 1 SCC 119] quoted with approval, and the statement of law, by Krishna Iyer} Fourteenth Report of the Law, commission , extracted and approved by this court in the above judgment, postulates thus:

" If the public is to give profound

respect to the judges

the judges should by their

conduct try and observe it; not by

word or deed should they give cause

for the people that they do

not deserve the pedestal on which

we expect the public to place

them. It appears to us that not

only for the performance of his

duties but outside the court as

aloofness amounting almost to self-

imposed isolation."

Supreme Court of India

High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Shirishkumar Rangrao Patil & Anr on 30 April, 1997

Print Page