Cases Reported in 2015 SCC Vol. 9 October 28, 2015 Part 2

  • Arms Act, 1959 — Ss. 7, 20, 23, 25, 27 and 30 — Applicability of 1959 Act: Recovery of large quantity of unlicensed and unauthorised arms and ammunition from crew members of foreign vessel intercepted in Indian territorial waters, attracts provisions of Arms Act for initiating prosecution. [State of T.N. v. Mariya Anton Vijay, (2015) 9 SCC 294]
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 12 R. 6 — Power under — Nature of and Considerations for exercise of: Expression “may” suggests power of court under Or. 12 R. 6 CPC is discretionary and cannot be claimed as of right. Judgment on admission is not a matter of right. Where defendants raised objections which go to root of the case, it would not be appropriate to exercise discretion under Or. 12 R. 6 CPC. [S.M. Asif v. Virender Kumar Bajaj, (2015) 9 SCC 287]
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 22 R. 10 — Continuance of suit against person on whom interest in suit property devolves during pendency of suit: Where the interest in the suit property has devolved upon the second defendant on the basis of the alleged gift deed, the suit may be continued against such second defendant. For the sake of continuance of the suit against the persons upon whom such interest has devolved during the pendency of the suit, leave of the court has to be obtained. Leave can be obtained only by that person upon whom interest has devolved during the pendency of the suit, otherwise, there may be preposterous results, as such a party might be unaware of the pending litigation and the same would not be consequently feasible. If a duty is cast upon him then in such an eventuality he is bound by the decree even in case of failure to apply for leave. Therefore, as a rule of prudence, the initial duty lies upon the person on whom such an interest has devolved upon any such property to apply for leave of the court in case the factum of devolution was within his knowledge or with due diligence could have been known by him. [Kirpal Kaur v. Jitender Pal Singh, (2015) 9 SCC 356]
  • Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 227, 228 and 319 — Discharge: Remedy of discharge is not applicable in case of accused summoned under S. 319. Standard of proof employed for summoning a person as an accused under S. 319 CrPC, is higher than the standard of proof employed for framing a charge against an accused. Thus, it does not stand to reason that a person who is summoned as an accused to stand trial and added as such to the proceedings on basis of a stricter standard of proof can be allowed to be discharged from the proceedings on the basis of a lesser standard of proof such as a prima facie connection with the offence necessary for charging the accused. [Jogendra Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2015) 9 SCC 244]
  • Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Determination of Network Tariff for City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks and Compression Charge for CNG) Regulations, 2008 — Regns. 3 and 4 — Validity: Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Determination of Network Tariff for City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks and Compression Charge for CNG) Regulations, 2008 purportedly made under S. 22 of 2006 Act are ultra vires parent Act (Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006) since parent statute does not empower Board to fix any tariff of a consumer of natural gas. [Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board v. Indraprastha Gas Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 209]

 

 

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

one × 4 =