13 August 2025 Legal Updates

CONVICT WHO COMPLETED FIXED TERM LIFE IMPRISONMENT ENTITLED TO BE RELEASED WITHOUT APPLYING FOR REMISSION: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Others

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• July 29, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Key Legal Issue

Whether an accused/convict who has completed a "fixed term life imprisonment" (e.g., 20 years of actual sentence without remission) is entitled to automatic release, or must seek remission from competent authorities.

Facts

The case pertained to murder and the accused (appellant) was convicted under Sections 302, 364, 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The Trial court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment, whereas the High Court modified the sentence to Life imprisonment for 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission plus fine.

The appellant completed 20 years of his sentence on March 9, 2025, however, the State refused to release him automatically, arguing that he needed to apply for remission.

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court held that when a convict completes a fixed-term life sentence, he is entitled to automatic release and does not need to seek remission.

Key Legal Principles Established

1. Distinction between Life Imprisonment Types:

• Regular Life Imprisonment: Until natural death, subject to remission after 14 years (Section 433-A CrPC)
• Fixed-Term Life Imprisonment: Specific period (e.g., 20/25/30 years) without remission, imposed by High Courts/Supreme Court

2. No Remission Required for Fixed-Term Sentences:

• When sentence specifies "20 years actual imprisonment without remission," the convict must serve exactly 20 years. After completion, automatic release follows - no application for remission needed
• Sentence Review Board cannot sit in judgment over judicially determined sentences

3. Constitutional Safeguard:

• Continued imprisonment after sentence completion violates Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). Detention beyond actual release date is "sans sanction of law".

EX-PARTE INJUNCTION MUST BE VACATED IF PLANTIFF FAILS TO COMPLY WITH ORDER 39 RULE 3 CPC CONDITIONS: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow v. The State of U.P. & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• August 11, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

Key Facts:

Time City Infrastructure (plaintiff) claimed ownership of land based on an Agreement to Sell dated March 21, 2015. They alleged payment of ₹3,60,12,782 and peaceful possession since June 21, 2015. The company developed the land with roads and offices. A sale deed was executed on April 30, 2025, which the plaintiff challenged.

Procedural History:

• Trial Court: Granted ex parte injunction maintaining status quo on the disputed land
• High Court: Set aside the trial court's order under Article 227 (supervisory jurisdiction)
• Supreme Court: Disposed of the Special Leave Petition without interfering

Legal Issues:

1. Ex Parte Injunction Under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC:

Courts can grant injunctions without notice only in exceptional circumstances. They must record reasons why delay would defeat the injunction's purpose. The Applicant must comply with mandatory requirements of serving copies to opposite party.

2. Requirements for Injunction:

• Prima facie case
• Balance of convenience
• Irreparable hardship
• All three are sine qua non (essential conditions)

High Court's Findings:

The High Court came to the conclusion that the suit was "legal jugglery" based on a 2015 agreement. No suit for specific performance was filed within limitation period. The Agreement to sell didn't put plaintiff in possession under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. The Trial court failed to consider essential injunction criteria and there was no proper reasoning recorded as mandated by Order 39 Rule 3.

Supreme Court's Observations:

1. On Order 39 Rule 3:

Recording reasons for ex parte injunction is mandatory, not optional. Non-compliance can lead to vacation of ex parte order. Provisions of law protect the right to be heard before restraint.

2. Final Order:

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the decision of the High Court. The matter was remanded to trial court for fresh hearing on injunction application. The Trial court was directed to decide without being influenced by High Court's observations.