Finality of Judgment - The Legal Chamber

Conduct Matters: Supreme Court Confirms Auction Sale but Orders Buyer to Pay Extra ₹25 Lakh/Acre

29Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Conduct Matters: Supreme Court Confirms Auction Sale but Orders Buyer to Pay Extra ₹25 Lakh/Acre

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision confirming the validity of a court-auctioned property sale. It endorsed the directions for a fresh survey to demarcate the exact purchased area and for the auction purchaser to pay additional consideration, citing his conduct, while ruling that subsequent challenges to the sale were barred by law. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a debt recovery proceeding initiated by the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (KSFC) against a company, for which the respondent, G.M. Krishna, was a guarantor. Following a decree, KSFC attached the respondent's agricultural land for auction. The appellant, R. Raghu, emerged as the highest bidder in a court auction in 2003, and a sale certificate was subsequently issued. The responden...

A New Lease on Life: Supreme Court Allows Death Penalty Review Based on New Mitigation Guidelines

This Supreme Court judgment holds that its extraordinary power under Article 32 of the Constitution can be invoked to reopen the sentencing stage in death penalty cases that have attained finality. This is permissible to remedy a clear breach of the procedural safeguards for individualized sentencing mandated in Manoj v. State of M.P., which are integral to the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21. The Court clarified that such judicial declarations operate retrospectively. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the petitioner, Vasanta Sampat Dupare, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the 2008 kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a four-year-old girl in Nagpur. His conviction and death sentence were confirmed by the High Court in 2012 and ultimately upheld by the Supr...

Supreme Court Explains When a Criminal Court Cannot Change Its Own Order :”Functus Officio”

The Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 340 CrPC are criminal in nature and thus governed by the CrPC. Consequently, a review petition filed under Order XLVII of the CPC is not maintainable. The Court reiterated that Section 362 CrPC bars criminal courts from altering or reviewing their own judgments, except for correcting clerical errors, and the High Court's recall order constituted an impermissible substantive review. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated between two groups, the Khosla Group and the Bakshi Group, regarding a joint venture to develop a resort in Kasauli. A key point of contention was the validity of the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of their joint venture company, Montreaux Resorts Private Limited (MRPL), held on 30.09.2006. The Bakshi Group relied on ...