Blog Archives - Page 96 of 1687

30 Jan

Non-Adherence to Payment Schedule Bars Buyer from Seeking Specific Performance of Sale Agreement: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog #agreement, #buyer, #Sale, #SpecificPerformance, #SupremeCourt

Case Title: Alagammal and Ors. v. Ganesan and Anr.

Case No: Civil Appeal No. 8185 of 2009

Decided on: 10^th January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

Facts of the Case

The first, second, and third appellants (“Appellants”) entered into a registered Agreement of Sale with the respondents on November 22, 1990, for the sale of a property at a consideration of Rs. 21,000, with an advance payment of Rs. 3,000. The agreement set a six-month timeframe for completing the transaction. Meanwhile, the appellants executed a Sale Deed for the same property with appellant no.7 on November 5, 1997, for a consideration of Rs. 22,000.

On November 18, 1997, the respondents sent a Notice to the appellants, demanding the execution of the Agreement. Subsequently, the respondents filed an original suit in the Munsiff Court against the appellants, seeking specific performance of the Agreement, damages, and the recovery of money with interest.

The Principal District Munsiff Judge dismissed the suit. The respondents, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed to the First Appellate Court, which ruled in their favor. The High Court upheld the decision in the Impugned Judgment.

This Civil Appeal is filed by the Appellants against the High Court’s impugned order and judgment in the Second Appeal.

Issue

The central issue under consideration pertains to whether the Agreement dated November 22, 1990, clearly specifies a definite period within which the respondents are obligated to make full payment, as outlined in the recitals of the sale agreement executed by appellant no.1 in favor of the respondents.

Court’s analysis and decision

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that adherence to the specified time frame for payment in a contract is crucial for executing an ‘agreement to sale.’ The Court overturned the decisions of both the High Court and the First Appellate Court. Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted that the buyer is obligated to strictly comply with the stipulated time for payment; failure to do so bars the buyer from seeking specific performance of the sale deed.

The Court pointed out that, according to the contract, the buyer had a six-month period to pay the entire balance. However, the respondents failed to demonstrate that they even offered to fulfill this obligation by paying the remaining amount within the specified six-month period. Consequently, the Court concluded that the respondents did not meet their obligation under the Agreement within the designated time frame.

The Court ultimately overturned the challenged judgment rendered by both the High Court and the First Appellate Court, reinstating the order and judgment issued by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the appeals are granted.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

29 Jan

Dying declaration can not be considered as a valid evidence upon lethal injury to the victim: SC

Prime Legal

Blog #sc #primelegal #dyingdeclarationn #murder #trial

Title: JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA V STATE OF MP

Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1348 OF 2011 WITH 1347 OF 2011

Dated on: 7.1.2024

Corum: HON’BLE JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL J

Facts of the case

In this present case an appeal is filed by the Jitendra Kumar who is one among the four convicts in a murder trial. Initially the four convicts were imprisoned under section 302 and 34 of the IPC for allegedly being involved in the death of Pappu alias Rajendra Yadav. In this contention all four individuals were declared guilty for causing the murder of Pappu with lethal weapons by the trial court ad were sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine individually. In response the convicts filed a joint appeal in the HC where the decision of trial court was upheld. During the course of the trial one of the appellants- Manja @Amit Mishra passed away and his pending appeal is now filed by Jitendra Kumar. Presently the appeal stands before the SC of India.

Legal Provision

This present case invokes section 302 read with sec 34 of the IPC which talks about Murder and acts committed by several persons in furtherance of common intention. In this present contention the four convicts caused the death of Pappu with the intent of causing harm and death to him. Another important legal provision is the dying declaration made by the deceased to his mother and brother ascertaining the circumstances surrounding the incident and which Is highly evaluated by the court.

Court analysis and judgement

In the present case the hon’ble court in its judgment made a lot of observation regarding the evidences obtained in the present case and came to the conclusion to allow the appeal. The SC observed that the dying declaration by the deceased could not be taken into consideration as the victim already suffered from fatal injuries which could not have allowed him to provide with valid information regarding the convicts. The court with regard to the eye witnesses established that legal background of them casted sufficient doubt on the reliability and credibility of their testimony and the additional mentions of the other two eye witnesses did not provide enough evidence to the case and hence the SC set aside the orders of the HC and allowed the present appeal.

Written by- Namitha Ramesh

click here to view judgement

28 Jan

SC reverses conviction- examines unreliable testimony and enforces strict rule for evidence

Prime Legal

Blog

Title: PRADEEP KUMAR V STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1338 OF 2010

Dated on: 5.1.2024

Corum: HON’BLE JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

Facts of the case

The case is a criminal appeal filed by Pradeep Kumar, who was convicted of murder along with another accused, Sumit Gupta, for the murder of one Samsheer Singh by the trial court and the high court. defendants were convicted of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court condemned them to life in prison with stringent conditions. The appellant later appealed the ruling, and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana maintained the conviction and sentence. The events began on April 11, 2004, while Assistant Sub-Inspector Balbir Singh was on duty in Kaithal. Sunil Kumar Bhura, the complainant and a relative of the deceased, met and claimed that Shamsher Singh, the deceased, had been missing since the previous night. The complainant presented information, indicating that the deceased received a phone call on the night of April 10, 2004, went to Gole Market, and did not return. The complainant, along with Balwant Singh found the deceased’s body the next morning. Statements from witnesses claimed sightings of the accused with dandas on the night of the incident. Subsequently Police recorded extra judicial confession where the accused surrendered on April 2004. Relaying upon the circumstantial evidence the trail court included the statement of the accused to convict him.

Legal provision

The laws invoked in this case are section 302 and section 34 of IPC. Section 302 speaks about the punishment for murder whereas section 34 speaks about the committing of joint criminal liability along with common intention. In this present case the convict Pradeep Kumar and the accused Sumit Gupta caused the death of another person with the common intention of his co-accused. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and the circumstances of the case to determine whether the appellant was guilty of murder or not.

Court Analysis and Judgement

The Supreme Court of India granted Pradeep Kumar’s criminal appeal after he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Shamsher Singh by the trial court and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana the Supreme Court acquitted Pradeep Kumar of all counts, finding the prosecution’s case based on circumstantial evidence to be untrustworthy, implausible, and contradictory. The Supreme Court disregarded the testimony of witnesses who claimed to have last seen Pradeep Kumar with the deceased, citing contradictions, discrepancies, and coincidences. The Supreme Court also questioned Pradeep Kumar’s extrajudicial confession to an ex-sarpanch, calling it dishonest and unbelievable. The SC also observed that the charges, evidence and against the appellant would not match.

Written by- Namitha Ramesh

click here to view judgement

26 Jan

Section 364A IPC Requires Proof of Abduction Coupled with Ransom Demand and Life Threat for Conviction: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog #Abduction, #IPC, #kidnapping, #LifeThreat, #ransom, #SupremeCourt

Case Title: Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1420 of 2019

Decided on: 3^rd January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

Facts of the Case

The Supreme Court received two appeals challenging the High Court’s decision to uphold the conviction order of the Trial Court. The appellants had been found guilty under Sections 307, 120B, 364-A, 392, and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 364A. Notably, the third accused was acquitted by the Trial Court. According to the prosecution, the appellants kidnapped a Class 12th student with the intention of demanding ransom, and during the incident, they attempted to kill him. Despite suffering severe injuries, the victim managed to escape, resulting in the amputation of his right leg. The accused had lured the victim, who was staying as a paying guest, for a motorcycle ride but later assaulted him, attempting to strangle him. Believing him to be dead, the accused poured petrol on him, set him on fire, and looted his mobile phone and cash. Miraculously, the victim survived, escaped, and sought medical assistance, leading to police intervention.

Issue

The main issue is the conviction of appellants for abduction, attempted murder, and ransom demand, leading to life imprisonment, with a key legal question about the sufficiency of evidence.

Legal Provision

Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is an offence where kidnapping or abduction is made and a person is put to death or hurt; or a person is threatened with death or actually murdered, on demand of ransom.

Court’s analysis and decision

The Supreme Court has ruled that an offense under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) does not apply if kidnapping or abduction occurs without any ransom demand. The Court resolved an appeal challenging the High Court’s affirmation of the conviction order by the Trial Court under Sections 307, 120B, 364-A, 392, and 397 of the IPC. It noted the prosecution’s failure to prove the existence of a ransom call, leading to the conclusion that the accused cannot be held liable under Section 364A IPC. Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Satish Chandra Sharma emphasized that Section 364A involves kidnapping or abduction resulting in a person’s death or harm, or a threat of death or murder upon a ransom demand.

The Court referred to the case of Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana [(2021) 9 SCC 59], highlighting three conditions to establish an offense under Section 364A. First, there must be a kidnapping or abduction. Second, there should be a threat of death or harm to the person, or the accused’s conduct must reasonably indicate such a threat. Third, the act must aim to compel the government, foreign state, intergovernmental organization, or any other person to perform or abstain from an act or pay a ransom.

The Court observed that the victim did not mention any ransom demand during examination, and the only mention in a supplementary police statement lacked substantial evidence. The Court criticized the Trial Court and High Court for overlooking this critical flaw in Section 364A evidence. It corrected the High Court’s characterization of the supplementary statement as a “dying declaration,” clarifying it as a statement under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

The Bench partially allowed the appeals, changing the Section 364A conviction to Section 364 IPC with a ten-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the accused. The remaining convictions under Sections 307, 120B, 392, and 397 IPC were upheld, along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- directed to be paid to the victim under Section 357A of CrPC. The Court thus disposed of the appeal.

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

26 Jan

JUDICIAL OFFICERS ARE NOT ON PAR WITH GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: SUPREME COURT

Prime Legal

blog, Blog # government, #Employees, #judicial, #Judiciary, #SupremeCourt

Case title: All India Judges Association V. Union of India & Ors.

Case no.: Writ Petition Civil no. 643 of 2015

Decided on: 04.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y Chandrachud, Hon’ble Justice J.B Pardiwala, Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The present writ petitions are concerning the allowances which have been granted to judicial officers and retired judicial officers by Second National judicial pay commission.

This Court adopted the Second National Judicial Pay Commission’s recommendations on the revision of judicial officers’ salary and pension by orders dated July 27, 2022, April 5, 2023, and May 19, 2023. Justice P V Reddy, a former judge of this Court of India, chaired the commission.

The court noted that, with the exception of three allowances that were modified, the allowances recommended by the First National Judicial Pay Commission, also known as the Shetty Commission, were upheld by this Court in All India Judges Association v Union of India in 2002. Following that, this Court accepted all allowances recommended by the subsequent pay commission, the Judicial Pay Commission, also known as the Justice Padmanabhan Committee, in its decision All India Judges Association v Union of India 2010.

In the report, the SNJPC took twenty-one allowances into account. Two new allowances are suggested among the SNJPC’s recommended allowances, and one allowance has two more components added to it.

The SNJPC has given state governments and union territories the opportunity to object to the allowances proposed. This Court’s record contains objections.

PETITIONERS OBJECTIONS:

The objections said by governments are that there will be a greater financial burden and expense as a result of the rate revision or, if applicable, the new allowances. It is necessary to abide by the allowance payment regulations set forth by each State for its own administrative establishment. Judicial officers must receive benefits that are commensurate with those of other government employees.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court on same benefits as govt. employees held that Judicial service is an integral and significant component of the state’s functions, contributing to the constitutional obligation to uphold the rule of law. Judicial service is distinct in its characteristics and in the responsibilities entrusted to District Judiciary officers to provide objective justice to citizens. The State is responsible for ensuring that the conditions of service, both during and after office tenure, as well as the post-retirement emoluments made available to former members of the judicial service.

The court on one of the objections raised by government that a financial burden cannot be used as an excuse to avoid the state’s mandatory duties. One such duty is to provide necessary service conditions for the effective discharge of judicial functions. There is also a need to maintain consistency in the service conditions of judicial officers across the country. Thus, the argument that each state’s rules must govern pay and allowances lacks substance. It would be completely inappropriate to compare judicial service to that of other state officers. Members of the judicial service have distinct functions, duties, restrictions, and restraints that apply both during and after service.

The court accepted the 21 recommendations of SNJPC and directed the formation of a Committee in each High Court to oversee the implementation of the SNJPC’s recommendations as approved by this Court. The Committee shall be known as the “Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary.” All states and union territories must now act promptly in accordance with the aforementioned directives. Disbursements for arrears of salary, pension, and allowances due and payable to judicial officers, retired judicial officers, and family pensioners shall be computed and paid on or before February 29, 2024. The CSCDJs established in accordance with the previously issued directives must monitor compliance.

By no later than April 7, 2024, each Committee operating under the High Court’s auspices must submit its report to this Court through the High Court’s Registrar General.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

1 … 94 95 96 97 98 … 1,687