16 June 2025 Legal Updates

RES JUDICATA PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO DIFFERENT STAGES OF SAME PROCEEDINGS AS WELL: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 23, 2025

(d) Bench:

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

Key Facts

A property dispute arose, involving specific performance of a sale agreement dated June 14, 1996. The property was a small shop in Palakkad valued at Rs. 6,00,000/-.

Legal Issues

• Whether appellant could seek deletion from party array after years of participation?
• Whether the Appellant's claim of inherited tenancy under Kerala Rent Control Act was valid?
• What was the validity of including appellant as legal heir under Mohammedan Law?

Court's Reasoning

1. On Res Judicata

• Appellant participated in proceedings for 4+ years without objection. He Filed deletion application only after other legal remedies failed.
• Principle: Once impleadment is accepted, it cannot be challenged later in same proceedings

2. On Tenancy Claims

• No mention of tenancy in 1996 sale agreement (unlike 1976 deed). The Municipality license obtained in 2011 was after decree, during execution. The appellant failed to raise tenancy defense in original suit despite being witness.

3. On Dilatory Tactics

• Court noted pattern of frivolous applications to delay execution. Described as "dubious tactics" and "arsenal of weapons" to frustrate decree.

4. Supreme Court's Decision

• Dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs. 25,000. Confirmed that appellant's deletion application was barred by res judicata. Ordered immediate possession to be handed over to decree-holder within 2 months. Directed police assistance if necessary for possession

Key Legal Principle

• Res Judicata: Applies within same proceedings at different stages

KILLING CIVILIAN WITH OFFICIAL GUNS IN PLAIN CLOTHES NOT PART OF POLICE DUTY; S.197 CRPC SANCTION NOT NEEDED TO PROSECUTE: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Head Constable Raj Kumar & Others v. The State of Punjab & Another; Princepal Singh v. DCP Parampal Singh

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• April 29, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Facts of the Case

This case involves an alleged fake police encounter that occurred on June 16, 2015, at Verka, District Amritsar, Punjab. Nine police officers in plain clothes allegedly surrounded a white Hyundai i-20 car and opened fire at close range, killing the driver Mukhjit Singh @ Mukha. The incident was witnessed by complainant Princepal Singh and other eyewitnesses.

Initially, the police registered an FIR claiming self-defense against a gangster, but a Special Investigation Team later found this version to be false and recommended prosecution of the officers. A private criminal complaint was filed against the nine officers for murder and related charges, and against Deputy Commissioner of Police Parampal Singh for destroying evidence by allegedly ordering removal of the car's registration plates.

Legal Issues

• Whether the criminal complaint against the police officers should be quashed
• Whether prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required before taking cognizance against the public servants
• Whether proceedings against the DCP should be quashed for want of sanction

Supreme Court's Decision

Regarding the Nine Police Officers:

• The Court dismissed their petition for quashing the criminal complaint
• Found prima facie evidence of murder based on eyewitness testimonies and SIT report
• Held that Section 197 CrPC protection was not available as the alleged acts (surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and firing) had no reasonable nexus with official duties
• Emphasized that acts "wholly outside the colour of authority" cannot be protected under Section 197

Regarding the DCP:

• Allowed the appeal by the complainant and restored proceedings against the DCP
• Held that destroying evidence (removing number plates) cannot be considered part of bona fide police duty
• Applied the test that there must be a "direct and inseparable nexus" between the act and official functions
• Ruled that acts intended to "thwart justice" are not protected under Section 197 CrPC

Key Legal Principles

• Section 197 CrPC Protection: Public servants get protection only when acts are done "while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty" - there must be a reasonable nexus between the act and official duty.
• Test for Official Duty: The alleged criminal act must have a "reasonable and rational nexus" with official duties. Acts completely outside the scope of authority get no protection.
• Evidence at Summoning Stage: Courts need only prima facie evidence to summon accused persons, not detailed evaluation of evidence.
• Destruction of Evidence: Acts aimed at suppressing or destroying evidence cannot be considered part of legitimate police duty.

MERE PASSAGE OF TIME DOES NOT BAR ARBITRATION IF ARBITRATION CLAUSE REMAINS VALID & 0 ENFORCEABLE: TELANGANA HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Arbitration Application No. 180 of 2024

(b) Court:

• High Court of Telangana

(c) Date of Decision:

• June 9, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Justice K. Lakshman (Single Judge)

Case Background

This case involves a dispute between a contractor (applicant) and the South-Central Railway (respondent) regarding a Signal and Telecommunications contract worth ₹59,11,058 awarded in December 2012 with a six-month completion period.

Key Facts

• The contractor won a railway tender but couldn't commence work due to pending track renewal by the Engineering Department
• Contract was terminated on January 4, 2017, after it had already expired on June 10, 2015
• Contractor sought arbitration through notices sent in 2017 and 2022, which were rejected by the railway authorities
• The contractor then filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator

Legal Issues

• Whether the arbitration claim was time-barred
• Whether termination was legal after contract expiry
• Whether the disputes could be referred to arbitration

Parties' Arguments

1. Applicant (Contractor):

• Termination was illegal as contract had already expired
• Entitled to refund of EMD and performance guarantee
• Sought compensation for expenses and 10% profit loss
• Arbitration clause remained enforceable

2. Respondent (Railway):

• Claim was time-barred (made 195 days after termination instead of within 120 days)
• Termination was justified due to non-performance
• Claim exceeded three-year limitation period under Arbitration Act

Court's Decision

The court allowed the application and appointed Mr. Mangari Rajender (Retired District Judge) as the sole arbitrator.

Key Legal Principles Applied

• Limitation in Arbitration: Limitation begins from rejection of arbitration request, not from the cause of action
• Pre-referral Stage Analysis: Courts should only reject arbitration if claims are "manifestly" or "ex-facie" time-barred
• Arbitrability: Disputes regarding limitation and validity should be decided by the arbitrator, not the referral court