Important Supreme Court of India Judgments in October 2016

Arbitration – A fresh line must be drawn to ensure the fulfilment of the intent of Parliament in enacting the Act of 1996 and towards supporting commercial understandings grounded in the faith in arbitration. [A. Ayyaswamy Vs. A. Paramasivam; Supreme Court of India, 04-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NF


Arbitration – Allegations of criminal wrongdoing or of statutory violation would not detract from the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to resolve a dispute arising out of a civil or contractual relationship on the basis of the jurisdiction conferred by the arbitration agreement. [A. Ayyaswamy Vs. A. Paramasivam; Supreme Court of India, 04-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NF


Arbitration – Certain disputes like criminal offences of a public nature, disputes arising out of illegal agreements and disputes relating to status, such as divorce, cannot be referred to arbitration. Following categories of disputes are generally treated as non-arbitrable: (i) patent, trademarks and copyright; (ii) anti-trust/competition laws; (iii) insolvency/winding up; (iv) bribery/corruption; (v) fraud; (vi) criminal matters. [A. Ayyaswamy Vs. A. Paramasivam; Supreme Court of India, 04-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NF


Arbitration – Even the invalidity of the main agreement does not ipso jure result in the invalidity of the arbitration agreement. [A. Ayyaswamy Vs. A. Paramasivam; Supreme Court of India, 04-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NF


Arbitration – Insofar as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is concerned, it does not make any specific provision excluding any category of disputes terming them to be non-arbitrable. [A. Ayyaswamy Vs. A. Paramasivam; Supreme Court of India, 04-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NF


Arbitration – Mere allegation of fraud simplicitor may not be a ground to nullify the effect of arbitration agreement between the parties. [A. Ayyaswamy Vs. A. Paramasivam; Supreme Court of India, 04-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NF


Arbitration – The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, should be interpreted so as to bring in line the principles underlying its interpretation in a manner that is consistent with prevailing approaches in the common law world. Jurisprudence in India must evolve towards strengthening the institutional efficacy of arbitration. Deference to a forum chosen by parties as a complete remedy for resolving all their claims is but part of that evolution. Minimising the intervention of courts is again a recognition of the same principle. [A. Ayyaswamy Vs. A. Paramasivam; Supreme Court of India, 04-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NF


Arbitration – The basic principle which must guide judicial decision making is that arbitration is essentially a voluntary assumption of an obligation by contracting parties to resolve their disputes through a private tribunal. The intent of the parties is expressed in the terms of their agreement. Where commercial entities and persons of business enter into such dealings, they do so with a knowledge of the efficacy of the arbitral process. The commercial understanding is reflected in the terms of the agreement between the parties. The duty of the court is to impart to that commercial understanding a sense of business efficacy. [A. Ayyaswamy Vs. A. Paramasivam; Supreme Court of India, 04-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NF


Arbitration – Where there is an arbitration agreement, it is obligatory for the court to refer parties to arbitration and nothing remains to be decided in the original action after such an application is made, except to refer the dispute to an arbitrator. [A. Ayyaswamy Vs. A. Paramasivam; Supreme Court of India, 04-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NF


Benefit of Doubt – Exaggerated to the rule of benefit of doubt can result in miscarriage of justice. Letting the guilty escape is not doing justice. A Judge presides over the trial not only to ensure that no innocent is punished but also to see that guilty does not escape. [Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra; Supreme Court of India, 04-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NJ


Burden of Proof – It is accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is one which occurs to a prudent and reasonable man. Section 3 of the Evidence Act refers to two conditions – (i) when a person feels absolutely certain of a fact – “believe it to exist” and (ii) when he is not absolutely certain and thinks it so extremely probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances, act on the assumption of its existence. The doubt which the law contemplates is not of a confused mind but of prudent man who is assumed to possess the capacity to “separate the chaff from the grain”. The degree of proof need not reach certainty but must carry a high degree of probability. [Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra; Supreme Court of India, 04-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NJ


Company – A reading of Section 87 (2) of the Companies Act, 1956 would clearly indicate that except in situations where dividends have not been paid, holders of preference shares do not have a right to vote except in matters which directly affects the rights attached to the preference shares. [Tin Plate Dealers Association Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satish Chandra Sanwalka, Supreme Court of India, 07-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Nz


Constitution – Fundamental rights and human rights of convicts and under trial prisoners – Discussed. [Re – Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons (II) Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2O9


Constitution – Principles for the exercise of jurisdiction in a petition under Article 136 discussed. [Saddik @ Lalo Gulam Hussein Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Oc


Constitution – Unless due importance is given to the fundamental rights and human rights of the people, the right to life and the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution will have no meaning. [Re – Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons (II) Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2O9


Criminal Law – In a criminal prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and in a situation where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial, prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touch stone of reason and common sense. [Jose @ Pappachan Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Mj


Criminal Law – It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence available, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted. [Jose @ Pappachan Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Mj


Criminal Law – Suspicion however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of “may be true” but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of “must be true”. [Jose @ Pappachan Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Mj


Customs – Information is really not confidential and still the concerned party does not agree to its being made public. In such a situation the information cannot be made public but has to be simply ignored and treated as non est. [Union of India Vs. M/s Meghmani Organics Ltd. Supreme Court of India, 07-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Nv


Death Penalty – Death Sentence Jurisprudence – Statutory provisions and jurisprudence regarding imposition of the death penalty. [Vikas Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NP


Divorce – In a Hindu society, it is a pious obligation of the son to maintain the parents. If a wife makes an attempt to deviate from the normal practice and normal custom of the society, she must have some justifiable reason for that and in this case, we do not find any justifiable reason, except monetary consideration of the Respondent wife. In our opinion, normally, no husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income. The persistent effort of the Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband and in our opinion, the trial Court was right when it came to the conclusion that this constitutes an act of ‘cruelty’. [Narendra Vs. K. Meena; Supreme Court of India, 06-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2MN


Divorce – Levelling of absolutely false allegations and that too, with regard to an extra-marital life to be quite serious and that can surely be a cause for metal cruelty. [Narendra Vs. K. Meena; Supreme Court of India, 06-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2MN


Divorce – The Respondent wife wanted the Appellant to get separated from his family. The evidence shows that the family was virtually maintained from the income of the Appellant husband. It is not a common practice or desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated from the parents upon getting married at the instance of the wife, especially when the son is the only earning member in the family. A son, brought up and given education by his parents, has a moral and legal obligation to take care and maintain the parents, when they become old and when they have either no income or have a meagre income. In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated from the family. In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the family of the husband and normally without any justifiable strong reason, she would never insist that her husband should get separated from the family and live only with her. [Narendra Vs. K. Meena; Supreme Court of India, 06-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2MN


Divorce – Wife to make an attempt to commit suicide. No husband would ever be comfortable with or tolerate such an act by his wife and if the wife succeeds in committing suicide, then one can imagine how a poor husband would get entangled into the clutches of law, which would virtually ruin his sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his entire life. The mere idea with regard to facing legal consequences would put a husband under tremendous stress. The thought itself is distressing. Such a mental cruelty could not have been taken lightly by the High Court. In our opinion, only this one event was sufficient for the Appellant husband to get a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is needless to add that such threats or acts constitute cruelty. [Narendra Vs. K. Meena; Supreme Court of India, 06-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2MN


Domestic Violence – The words “adult male” in Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act will stand deleted since these words do not square with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the proviso to Section 2(q), being rendered otiose, also stands deleted. [Hiral P. Harsora Vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora; Supreme Court of India, 06-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2N0


Election – Before setting aside the election on the improper acceptance of the nomination, the High Court ought to have carried out a further exercise, namely, to find out whether the improper acceptance of the nomination had materially affected the result of the election petition. [Rajendra Kumar Meshram Vs. Vanshmani Prasad Verma Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2MX


Election – If the candidate is a voter of another constituency, then Section 33(5) requires him to enclose along with the nomination or at the time of scrutiny, the electoral roll or certified copy of the same pertaining to that constituency. [Rajendra Kumar Meshram Vs. Vanshmani Prasad Verma Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2MX


Election – Under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 improper rejection of a nomination which itself is a sufficient ground for invalidating the election without any further requirement of proof of material effect of such rejection on the result of the election. [Rajendra Kumar Meshram Vs. Vanshmani Prasad Verma Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2MX


Election – Under Section 100 (1)(d) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 an election is liable to be declared void on the ground of improper acceptance of a nomination if such improper acceptance of the nomination has materially affected the result of the election. [Rajendra Kumar Meshram Vs. Vanshmani Prasad Verma Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2MX


Evidence – The presumption of innocence states that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. In one sense this simply restates in different language the rule that the burden of proof in a criminal case is on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt. As explained above, the burden of proof rule has a number of functions, one of which is to provide a rule of decision for the factfinder in a situation of uncertainty. Another function is to allocate the risk of misdecision in criminal trials. Because the outcome of wrongful conviction is regarded as a significantly worse harm than wrongful acquittal the rule is constructed so as to minimise the risk of the former. The burden of overcoming a presumption that the defendant is innocent therefore requires the state to prove the defendant’s guilt. [Jose @ Pappachan Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Mj


Evidence – Where the case against the accused depends wholly or partly on inferences from circumstantial evidence, factfinders cannot logically convict unless they are sure that inferences of guilt are the only ones that can reasonably be drawn. If they think that there are possible innocent explanations for circumstantial evidence that are not “merely fanciful”, it must follow that there is a reasonable doubt about guilt. There is no rule, however, that judges must direct juries in terms not to convict unless they are sure that the evidence bears no other explanation than guilt. It is sufficient to direct simply that the burden on the prosecution is to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt, or so that they are sure. The very high standard of proof required in criminal cases minimises the risk of a wrongful conviction. It means that someone whom, on the evidence, the factfinder believes is “probably” guilty, or “likely” to be guilty will be acquitted, since these judgements of probability necessarily admit that the factfinder is not “sure”. It is generally accepted that some at least of these acquittals will be of persons who are in fact guilty of the offences charged, and who would be convicted if the standard of proof were the lower civil standard of the balance of probabilities. Such acquittals are the price paid for the safeguard provided by the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard against wrongful conviction. [Jose @ Pappachan Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Mj


Evidence – While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the court has to assess whether read as a whole, it is truthful. In doing so, the court has to keep in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities to find out whether such discrepancies shake the truthfulness. Some discrepancies not touching the core of the case are not enough to reject the evidence as a whole. No true witness can escape from giving some discrepant details. Only when discrepancies are so incompatible as to affect the credibility of the version of a witness, the court may reject the evidence. [Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra; Supreme Court of India, 04-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NJ


Fraud is a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his detriment. Fraud can be of diffeent forms and hues. Its ingredients are an intention to deceive, use of unfair means, deliberate concealment of material facts, or abuse of position of confidence. The Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘fraud’ as a concealment or false representation through a statement or conduct that injures another who relies on it. [A. Ayyaswamy Vs. A. Paramasivam; Supreme Court of India, 04-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NF


Honour Killing is a seminal ground for imposing the fixed term sentence of twenty-five years for the offences under section 302/34 IPC on the two accused persons, who though highly educated in good educational institutions, had not cultivated the ability to abandon the depricable feelings and attitude for centuries. [Vikas Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NP


Honour Killing – Freedom, independence, constitutional identity, individual choice and thought of a woman be a wife or sister or daughter or mother cannot be allowed to be curtailed definitely not by application of physical force or threat or mental cruelty in the name of his self-assumed honour. [Vikas Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NP


Honour Killing – Neither the family members nor the members of the collective has any right to assault the boy chosen by the girl. Her individual choice is her self-respect and creating dent in it is destroying her honour. And to impose so called brotherly or fatherly honor or class honor by eliminating her choice is a crime of extreme brutality, more so, when it is done under a guise. It is a vice, condemnable and deplorable perception of “honour”, comparable to medieval obsessive assertions. [Vikas Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NP


Honour Killing – Whether penalty of only the death sentence – discussed. [Vikas Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NP


Injury – Non explanation of injuries on accused is an important circumstance which requires the court to satisfy itself that true version is not suppressed and whether defence version is probable. [Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra; Supreme Court of India, 04-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NJ


Judicial Service – Whether prescribing 40% marks as the minimum qualifying marks for the interview after holding the written examination and before conducting the viva-voce was within the power of the respondents; or whether it amounts to change in the criteria of selection in the midst of the selection process. [Salam Samarjeet Singh Vs. High Court of Manipur at Imphal, Supreme Court of India, 07-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Np


Life Imprisonment – Meaning and nature of – discussed. [Vikas Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NP


Motive – Even if the absence of motive, as alleged, is accepted, that is of no consequence and pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime. Therefore, in case there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence cannot be discarded only on the ground of absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance. [Saddik @ Lalo Gulam Hussein Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Oc


Penal Code – Law relating to appropriate invocation of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC discussed. [Saddik @ Lalo Gulam Hussein Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Oc


Penal Code – Locus classicus on the interpretation of Sections 299 and 300 of the IPC discussed. [Saddik @ Lalo Gulam Hussein Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Oc


Rape – Prosecutrix used to take financial help from the accused persons and that she used to indulge in dubious late night activities for which her husband had deserted her. The defence plea of false implication as the accused persons had declined to oblige the prosecutrix qua her demand for financial help therefore cannot be lightly discarded in the overall factual scenario. Her version therefore is a plausible one and thus fit in with the defence plea to demolish the prosecution case. [Raja Vs. State of Karnataka; Supreme Court of India, 04-10-2016http://wp.me/p67iIm-2ND


Remand – High Court had no jurisdiction to remand the case to the trial court inasmuch as no party to the appeal had even raised this ground before the first appellate court or/and the High Court as to why the remand of the case to the trial Court is called for and nor there was any finding recorded on this question by the first appellate court. [Syeda Rahimunnisa Vs. Malan Bi (Dead) by L.Rs. Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Mg


Remand – In order to claim remand of the case to the trial court, it is necessary for the appellant to first raise such plea and then make out a case of remand on facts. [Syeda Rahimunnisa Vs. Malan Bi (Dead) by L.Rs. Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Mg


Remand – In the absence of any ground taken before the first appellate court and the High Court as to why the remand order in these cases is called for and if so under which Rule of Order XLI of CPC and further in the absence of any finding, there was no justification on the part of the High Court to remand the case to the trial court. [Syeda Rahimunnisa Vs. Malan Bi (Dead) by L.Rs. Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Mg


Remand – The appellate court is required to record reasons as to why it has taken recourse to any one out of the three Rules of Order XLI of CPC for remanding the case to the trial court. [Syeda Rahimunnisa Vs. Malan Bi (Dead) by L.Rs. Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Mg


Remand – The power of the appellate court to remand the case to subordinate court is contained in order XLI Rule 23, 23-A and 25 of CPC. It is, therefore, obligatory upon the appellant to bring the case under any of these provisions before claiming a remand. [Syeda Rahimunnisa Vs. Malan Bi (Dead) by L.Rs. Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Mg


Remission – The principle for applying remission arises only after expiry of 14 years if the Court imposes sentence of imprisonment for life. [Vikas Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NP


Second Appeal – Jurisdiction of High Curt to decide the second appeal is confined only to questions framed. When the High Court did not frame any question on the question of remand, to the trial court a fortiori it had no jurisdiction to deal with such question. [Syeda Rahimunnisa Vs. Malan Bi (Dead) by L.Rs. Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Mg


Second Appeal – Scope of Section 100 of CPC while deciding the second appeal by the High Court – Discussed. [Syeda Rahimunnisa Vs. Malan Bi (Dead) by L.Rs. Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Mg


Second Appeal – Sine qua non for admitting the second appeal was existence of “substantial question of law in the case” and therefore unless the questions framed were debatable, or/and arguable or/and involving any legal question, the High Court had no jurisdiction to formulate such questions treating them to be substantial question of law. [Syeda Rahimunnisa Vs. Malan Bi (Dead) by L.Rs. Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Mg


Sentence – If there are convictions for multiple offences in one case, does the court have the option of directing that the sentences imposed thereon shall run consecutively and not concurrently; [Vikas Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NP


Sentence – Sentencing Principles – Imposition of fixed terms sentence is justified. [Vikas Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NP


Sentence – In a case where the court does not intend to impose a death sentence because of certain factors, it may impose fixed term sentence keeping in view the public concept with regard to deterrent punishment. [Vikas Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NP


Sentence – In terms of sub-section (1) of Section 427, if a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced. However this normal rule is subject to a qualification and it is within the powers of the Court to direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. [Benson Vs. State of Kerala; Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NM


Sentence – Jurisdiction of the appellate court while considering a prayer for enhancement of the sentence. [Vikas Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NP


Unlawful Assembly – An offence committed in prosecution of common object of an unlawful assembly by one person renders members of unlawful assembly sharing the common object vicariously liable for the offence. The common object has to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members of the assembly and all the surrounding circumstances. It can be gathered from the course of conduct of the members. It is to be assessed keeping in view the nature of the assembly, arms carried by the members and the behavior of the members at or near the scene of incident. Sharing of common object is a mental attitude which is to be gathered from the act of a person and result thereof. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when common object can be inferred. When a crowd of assailants are members of an unlawful assembly, it may not be possible for witnesses to accurately describe the part played by each one of the assailants. It may not be necessary that all members take part in the actual assault. [Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra; Supreme Court of India, 04-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NJ


Unlawful Assembly – Once it is established that the unlawful assembly had a common object, it is not necessary that all the persons forming the unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act. For the purpose of incurring vicarious liability under the provision, the liability of other members of the unlawful assembly for the offence committed during the continuance of the occurrence, rests upon the fact whether the other members knew before hand that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. [Saddik @ Lalo Gulam Hussein Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2Oc


Unlawful Assembly – When a crowd of unlawful assembly commits an offence, it is often not possible to accurately describe the part played by each of the assailants. Though the appreciation of evidence in such cases may be a difficult task, the court has to perform its duty of sifting the evidence carefully. [Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra; Supreme Court of India, 04-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NJ


Witness – Mere fact that some of the witnesses have not been examined is of no consequence when credible evidence to prove the case has been produced. [Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra; Supreme Court of India, 04-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NJ


Witness – Normal discrepancy does not affect the credibility of a witness. [Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra; Supreme Court of India, 04-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NJ


Workmen – Respondents directed to deposit an amount of Rs. Two lakhs each towards compensation payable to each one of the 14 workmen. This amount shall be in full and final satisfaction of all the claims, demands and outstandings. [Workmen Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Supreme Court of India, 03-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2O7

Comments