Supreme Court clarifies arbitrator's power to award interest - International Law Office

Supreme Court clarifies arbitrator's power to award interest - International Law Office:

'via Blog this'

High Court sets aside order to book 13 cops for 2002 ‘encounter’ - Express India

High Court sets aside order to book 13 cops for 2002 ‘encounter’ - Express India: "Dayal Krishan, the prosecutor appearing for the government, further pointed that the CBI had not adduced before the CMM the statements of three material witnesses — the then DCP (East) and two mediapersons who had said that the policemen fired in self-defence.

"

'via Blog this'

Pal @ Palla Vs State of UP (2010) 10 SCC 123

"Sub-section (2) of Section 210 provides that if a report is made by the investigating officer under Section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person, who is an accused in a complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try the two cases together, as if both the cases had been instituted on a police report. Sub-section (3) provides that if the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case, or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on a police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of the Code....

As was observed in Harjinder Singh case clubbing and consolidating the two cases, one on a police challan and the other on a complaint, if the prosecution versions in the two cases are materially different, contradictory and mutually exclusive, should not be consolidated but should be tried together with the evidence in the two cases being recorded separately, so that both the cases could be disposed of simultaneously."

Revanasiddappa & Another Vs Mallikarjun & Others

HMA- section 16(2)- legitimacy of child from second marriage and their share in ancestral property- matter referred to larger bench-  

25. The legislature has used the word "property" in Section 16(3) and is silent on whether such property is meant to be ancestral or self-acquired. Section 16 contains an express mandate that such children are only entitled to the property of their parents, and not of any other relation.

26. On a careful reading of Section 16 (3) of the Act we are of the view that the amended Section postulates that such children would not be entitled to any rights in the property of any person who is not his parent if he was not entitled to them, by virtue of his illegitimacy, before the passing of the amendment. However, the said prohibition does not apply to the property of his parents. Clauses (1) and (2) of Section 16 expressly declare that such children shall be legitimate. If they have been declared legitimate, then they cannot be discriminated against and they will be at par with other legitimate children, and be entitled to all the rights in the property of their parents, both self-acquired and ancestral. The prohibition contained in Section 16(3) will apply to such children with respect to property of any person other than their parents.

27. With changing social norms of legitimacy in every society, including ours, what was illegitimate in the past may be legitimate today. The concept of legitimacy stems from social consensus, in the shaping of which various social groups play a vital role. Very often a dominant group loses its primacy over other groups in view of ever changing socio- economic scenario and the consequential vicissitudes in human relationship. Law takes its own time to articulate such social changes through a process of amendment. That is why in a changing society law cannot afford to remain static. If one looks at the history of development of Hindu Law it will be clear that it was never static and has changed from time to time to meet the challenges of the changing social pattern in different time....

With the amendment of Section 16(3), the common law view that the offsprings of marriage which is void and voidable are illegitimate `ipso-jure' has to change completely. We must recognize the status of such children which has been legislatively declared legitimate and simultaneously law recognises the rights of such children in the property of their parents. This is a law to advance the socially beneficial purpose of removing the stigma of illegitimacy on such children who are as innocent as any other children....
However, one thing must be made clear that benefit given under the amended Section 16 is available only in cases where there is a marriage but such marriage is void or voidable in view of the provisions of the Act.
In the instant case, Section 16(3) as amended, does not impose any restriction on the property right of such children except limiting it to the property of their parents. Therefore, such children will have a right to whatever becomes the property of their parents whether self acquired or ancestral.

Allauddin Mian and others Sharif Mian and another Vs State of Bihar (1989) 3 SCC 5,

"....Therefore, in order to fasten vicarious responsibility on any member of an unlawful assembly the prosecution must prove that the act constituting an offence was done in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or the act done is such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly. Under this section, therefore, every member of an unlawful assembly renders himself liable for the criminal act or acts of any other member or members of that assembly provided the same is/are done in prosecution of the common object or is/are such as every member of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed. This section creates a specific offence and makes every member of the unlawful assembly liable for the offence or offences committed in the course of the occurrence provided the same was/were committed in prosecution of the common object or was/were such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed. Since this section imposes a constructive penal liability, it must be strictly construed as it seeks to punish members of an unlawful assembly for the offence or offences committed by their associate or associates in carrying out the common object of the assembly. What is important in each case is to find out if the offence was committed to accomplish the common object of the assembly or was one which the members knew to be likely to be committed. There must be a nexus between the common object and the offence committed and if it is found that the same was committed to accomplish the common object every member of the assembly will become liable for the same. Therefore, any offence committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of any one or more of the five objects mentioned in Section 141 will render his companions constituting the unlawful assembly liable for that offence with the aid of Section 149, IPC...." 

State of Rajasthan Vs Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180

Evidence - sec 24- extra judicial confession -

"An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra- judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility."

State Of Uttaranchal Vs M/S. Golden Forest Co (P) Ltd, on 11 April, 2011 SC

The only question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the Board of Revenue, U.P. could hear and decide the revisions filed by the appellant after creation of the State of Uttranchal (renamed as Uttrakhand) by the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000.

Held - No

Associated Hotels of India Ltd Vs RN Kapoor, [1960] 1

whether a transaction amounts to a lease or a license - "27. There is a marked distinction between a lease and a license. Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act defines a lease of immovable property as a transfer of a right to enjoy such property made for a certain time in consideration for a price paid or promised. Under Section 108 of the said Act, the lessee is entitled to be put in possession of the property. A lease is thereforee a transfer of an interest in land. The interest transferred is called the leasehold interest. The Lesser parts with his right to enjoy the property during the term of the lease, and it follows from it that the lessee gets that right to the exclusion of the Lesser. Whereas Section 52 of the Indian Easement Act defines a license.

Under the aforesaid section, if a document gives only a right to use the property in a particular way or under certain terms while it remains in possession and control of the owner thereof, it will be a license. The legal possession, thereforee, continues to be with the owner of the property, but the licensee is permitted to make use of the premises for a particular purpose. But for the permission his occupation would be unlawful. It does not create in his favor any estate or interest in the property. There is, therefore, clear distinction between the two concepts. The dividing line is dear through sometimes it becomes very thin or even blurred

Qudrat Ullah Vs Municipal Board Bareilly, (1974) 1 SCC 202

"... If an interest in immovable property, entitling the transferors to enjoyment is created, it is a lease; if permission to use land without right to exclusive possession is alone granted, a license is the legal result."

Chandran @ Manichan @ Maniyan Vs State of Kerala, SC

extract of the judgment-
Alcohol has already proved itself to be one of the major enemies of the human beings. However, its grip is not loosened in spite of the realization of the evil effects of alcohol on the human life. On the other hand, the unholy grip is being tightened day by day. Therefore, when the standard and healthy alcohol in the form of liquor is not available or is too costly for a common man, the poor section of the society goes for illicitly distilled liquor which is sold by the bootleggers. The conscienceless bootleggers - thanks to their avarice for money - take full advantage of this human weakness and without any compunction or qualms of conscience, distill illicit liquor and then to increase the sale and to gain astronomical profits make their product more potent at least in taste so as to attract the poor customers. Such poor customers invariably become the prey of such unholy avarice on the part of the bootleggers and in the process even lose their lives at times or suffer such injuries which are irreparable like total blindness etc. and that is precisely what has happened in this case....

The argument raised was that this evidence could not be taken into consideration and it would be inadmissible because this witness, though was an accomplice he was neither granted pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. nor was he prosecuted and the prosecution unfairly presented him as a witness for the prosecution. The contention is clearly incorrect in view of the decision of this Court in Laxmipat Choraria & Ors. V. State Of Maharashtra [AIR 1968 SC 938]. While commenting on this aspect, Hidayatullah, J. observed in paragraph 13 that there were number of decisions in the High Courts in which the examination of one of the suspects as the witness was not held to be legal and accomplice evidence was received subject to safeguards as admissible evidence in the case. The Court held:"On the side of the State many cases were cited from the High Courts in India in which the examination of one of the suspects as a witness was not held to be illegal and accomplice evidence was received subject to safeguards as admissible evidence in the case.

In those cases, s. 342 of the Code and s. 5 of the Indian Oaths Act were considered and the word 'accused' as used in those sections was held to denote a person actually on trial before a court and not a person who could have been so tried. The witness was, of course, treated as an accomplice. The evidence of such an accomplice was received with necessary caution in those cases. These cases have all been mentioned in In re Kandaswami Gounder and it is not necessary to refer to them in detail here....

it has been consistently held that the evidence of an accomplice may be read although he could have been tried jointly with the accused.

In some of these cases the evidence was re-ceived although the procedure of s. 337, Criminal Procedure Code was applicable but was not followed. It is not necessary to deal with this question any further because the consensus of opinion in India is that the competency of an accomplice is not destroyed because he could have been tried jointly with the accused but was not and was instead made to give evidence in the case. Section 5 of the Indian Oaths Act and s. 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not stand in the way of such a procedure."The Court finally observed:"It is not necessary to deal with this question any further because the consensus of opinion in India is that the competency of an accomplice is not destroyed because he could have been tried jointly with the accused but was not and was instead made to give evidence in the case." The Court has also observed in paragraph 11:

The position that emerges is this : No pardon could be tendered to Ethyl Wong because the pertinent provisions did not apply. Nor could she be prevented from making a disclosure, if she was so minded. The prosecution was not bound to prosecute her, if they thought that her evidence was necessary to break a smugglers' ring. Ethyl Wong was protected by s. 132 (proviso) of the Indian Evidence Act even if she gave evidence incriminating herself. She was a competent witness although her evidence could only be received with the caution necessary in all accomplice evidence. The expression 'criminal proceeding' in the exclusionary clause of s. 5 of the Indian Oaths Act cannot be used to widen the meaning of the word accused. The same expression is used in the proviso to S. 132 of the Indian Evidence Act and there it means a criminal trial and not investigation.

The same meaning must be given to the exclusionary clause of s. 5 of the Indian Oaths Act to make it -conform to the provisions in pari materia to be found in Ss. 342, 342A of the Code and s. 132 of the Indian Evidence Act. The expression is also not rendered superfluous because if given the meaning accepted by us it limits, the operation of the exclusionary clause to criminal prosecution as opposed to investigations and civil proceedings. It is to be noticed that although the English Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, which (omitting the immaterial words) provides that "Every person charged with an offence...... shall be a competent witness for the defence at every stage of the proceedings" was not interpreted as conferring a right on the prisoner of giving evidence on his own behalf before the grand jury or in other words, it received a limited meaning; see Queen v. Rhodes (1899) 1 QB 77.

"This case would bring about the legal position that even if the prosecution did not prosecute PW-53 and used his evidence only as an accomplice, it was perfectly legal. The evidence of such witness subject to the usual caution was admissible evidence. The contention of Shri Radha Krishnnan that his evidence would be inadmissible because he was not granted pardon or he was not made accused would, thus, be of no consequence and is rejected. In this backdrop, after considering the whole material and the findings of the Trial Court and the appellate Court, we have no hesitation to hold that the Trial Court and the appellate Court were right in convicting A-7.