29 October 2024 - Legal Updates

1. Police’s Action to Take Possession of Immovable Property Without Sanction Of Law Reflects Lawlessness: Supreme Court

In a recent case, the Supreme Court disapproved of the police’s action to take possession of the immovable property by taking keys of the property under an application filed by the litigant.

“We believe that this action by the police to take possession of immovable property reflects total lawlessness. Under no circumstances, can the police be allowed to interfere with the possession of immovable property, as such action does not bear sanction by any provision of law,” the bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta said.

While holding so, the court also observed against the imposition of the onerous bail conditions by the courts which tends to impact the ongoing civil disputes between the parties.

In this case, the appellants/accused were alleged to have committed criminal trespass into the complainant's house and then constructed the wall to seal the entry of the complainants. The High Court while granting bail to the accused put a condition that the police shall carry out a demolition exercise of the wall at the expense of the accused. Also, the High Court directed the police to hand over the keys to the premises to the complainants after the completion of the demolition exercise.

The second condition was resisted by the State stating that a Civil Suit was pending between the State and the complainant, his wife, and another litigant in which the State has sought a declaration of title and permanent injunction. According to the State, the High Court ought not to have ventured into the civil dispute inter se between the parties, as the order to deliver the possession of the property to the complainant (who is the defendant in the pending suit for title declaration), is bound to have prejudicial consequences on the civil rights of the parties.

Setting aside the conditions put by the High Court, the court said that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by imposing onerous and unreasonable conditions unrelated to the grant of bail i.e., the direction for removal of the wall at the expense of the appellants/accused and handing over possession of the disputed property to the complainant.

“This Court has consistently emphasised that the Court's discretion in imposing conditions must be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the accused's presence, and prevent the misuse of liberty to impede the investigation or obstruct justice”, the court observed.

The Court said that it would be impermissible to put such conditions which tantamount to deprivation of civil rights.

Given the aforementioned, the Court allowed the appeal setting aside the abovementioned two bail conditions.

Case- Ramratan @ Ramswaroop & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

2. Right to Dignity Under Article 21 Includes Being Able to Attend Once In A Lifetime Family Rituals Like Son’s Wedding: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India also includes Right to live with dignity that encompasses attending once in a lifetime family rituals like right of a father to attend son’s marriage.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing a petition filed on behalf of the accused who was in judicial custody for last 6 years on multiple FIRs with allegations of financial misappropriation and irregularities in relation to a society named Kheteshwar Urban Credit Cooperative Society.

The petition, who was the son of the accused, acting as his guardian ad litem, was seeking interim bail for his father to be able to attend the wedding of the petitioner (accused's son).

The Court observed that Right to life under Article 21 was guaranteed to all irrespective of the individual being an accused or under trial. This right also included the right to dignity of being able to attend once in a lifetime family rituals i.e. right of a father to attend marriage of his son.

“Right to life does not mean mere right to exist but to live with dignity. Such a right cannot be and ought not to be curtailed on the ground that father of petitioner father is since an accused pending cases.”

The Court opined that the father of the petitioner was indeed required to be personally present at the time of marriage of his son not only to facilitate marriage arrangement but to also bless the newlyweds to upkeep his dignity with his family and society.

Hence, the Court stated that the accused was a person with strong family ties and was not a flight risk. The nature of prosecution evidence against him was mostly all documentary which were seized and there was no likelihood of any kind of tampering with the same.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the accused was granted an interim bail for 15 days.

Case- Yudhishter Singh Rajpurohit vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

3. Failure to Apply Binding Precedents Constitutes Error Reviewable Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has emphasised that the failure to apply statutes and binding precedents constitutes a palpable legal flaw warranting review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

A bench of Justice M.A Chowdhary Clarified that courts must adhere to applicable statutes and precedents, especially those laid down by the Supreme Court, to ensure judgments are free from errors.

Shedding light on the mandate of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which allows a review of a judgment if certain criteria are met—such as the discovery of new evidence, a mistake or error on the face of the record, or other sufficient reasons—Justice Chowdhary emphasized the importance of correct application of law.

He observed that if a statutory provision is not applied correctly, or if a relevant binding precedent cited by the parties is ignored, it constitutes a palpable error, making the judgment eligible for review as it affects its correctness.

The court made these observations while hearing a review petition was filed by one Ram Prasad seeking reconsideration of the High Court's earlier judgment. The petitioners argued that there were errors apparent on the face of the record.

The primary issue concerned the misclassification of the deceased, Madan Lal Gupta, as married, resulting in an incorrect deduction of one-third of his income towards personal expenses instead of the correct deduction of 50%, applicable for bachelors.

Additionally, the petitioners pointed out that the Court, while deciding the compensation, failed to account for a 40% increase in income under "future prospects," in line with binding precedents set by the Supreme Court.

After considering the rival contentions the court underscored the significance of adhering to applicable statutes and binding judicial precedents and noted,

"When a case is decided, the Court considers the claim and the relief sought, applies the statute which is applicable, and the law which is laid down, particularly when it is by a Constitutional Bench. If the applicable statute is not applied, the judgment becomes amenable to review. Similarly, when a binding Supreme Court judgment is ignored, it constitutes a palpable error, self-evident on the record, which justifies invoking the review powers under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC."

The Court emphasized that binding precedents must be followed to maintain judicial consistency. In light of this, the Court found that the failure to apply the correct deduction rate and the omission of future prospects warranted review.

Citing National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation the court reiterated the principle of future prospects and provided guidelines on compensation calculations, including the multiplier method and the treatment of personal expenses for bachelors.

It thus revised compensation and enhanced the previous award and directed the insurance company to release the enhanced amount with the same interest rate as awarded earlier by the Tribunal.

Case- Ram Prasad vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.