Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - Judgments [August 1-6, 2022]

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - Judgments [August 1-6, 2022]
X
By -  Aishwarya Iyer |
8 Aug 2022 11:54 AM IST
  1. [RIL-SEBI Litigation] While noting that the Security Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is a regulator and has a duty to act fairly while conducting proceedings or initiating any action against the parties, the Supreme Court held that, "Being a quasi-judicial body, the constitutional mandate of SEBI is to act fairly, in accordance with the rules prescribed by law. The role of a regulator is to deal with complaints and parties in a fair manner, and not to circumvent the rule of law for getting successful convictions.
    There is a substantive duty on the regulators to show fairness, in the form of public cooperation and deference."
    Bench: CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli
    Case Title: RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS.
    Click here to read more
  2. [Section 313 CrPC] Noting that the purpose of section 313 CrPC is to provide the accused a reasonable opportunity to explain the adverse circumstances which have emerged against him during the course of trial, the supreme court has held that a
    reasonable opportunity entails putting all the adverse evidences in the form of questions so as to give an opportunity to the accused to articulate his defence and give his explanation.     Court further remarked that if all the circumstances are bundled together and a single opportunity is provided to the accused to explain himself, he may not able to put forth a rational and intelligible explanation.
    Bench: CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli
    Case Title: JAI PRAKASH TIWARI vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
    Click here to read more
  3. [Res Judicata] The Supreme Court has held that only because an issue may not specifically have been dealt with, or reasons not specifically disclosed for decision on that issue, would not vitiate a judgment and order, that is otherwise correct. Top Court further clarified that principles of res judicata are attracted where the matter in issue in the later proceedings has directly and substantially been in issue in earlier proceedings, between the same parties, in a competent forum having jurisdiction.
    Bench: Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari
    Case Title: CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS vs. DRAGENDRA SINGH JADON
    Click here to read more
  4. [Cheque Bounce Cases] While interpreting the provisions mentioned under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Supreme Court has held that an accused who has failed to deposit interim compensation could not be fastened with any other disability including denial of the right to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant.
    Bench: Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia
    Case Title: NOOR MOHAMMED vs. KHURRAM PASHA
    Click here to read more
  5. [Section 482 CrPC] Supreme Court has observed that a complaint should not be read with a pedantically hyper-technical approach to deny relief under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) to those impleaded as accused, who do not have any criminal liability in respect of the offence alleged in the complaint.
    Bench: Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari
    Case Title: SUNITA PALITA & OTHERS vs. M/S PANCHAMI STONE QUARRY
    Click here to read more
  6. [Role of Trial Court] The Supreme Court has reiterated that a trial court is enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and should not act as a mere post office. The top court has further clarified that the material which is required to be evaluated by the court at the time of framing the charge should be the material that is produced and relied upon by the prosecution and the sifting of such material is not to be so meticulous so as to render the exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or otherwise of the accused.
    Bench: Justices Khanwilkar, Oka and Pardiwala
    Case Title: Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey & Ors.
    Click here to read more
  7. [Compromise] The Supreme Court has held that heinous or serious crimes, which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the offender and the complainant and/or the victim. A division bench further said that
    "Crimes like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity and even abetment to commit suicide are neither private nor civil in nature. Such crimes are against the society. In no circumstances can prosecution be quashed on compromise, when the offence is serious and grave and falls within the ambit of crime against society..."    .
    Bench: Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V Ramasubramaniam
    Case Title:     DAXABEN vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
    Click here to read more
Next Story

Articles

read all