Tag: Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Supreme Court Rules: “Right to Prefer an Appeal” Includes “Right to Prosecute it” for Victims
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: “Right to Prefer an Appeal” Includes “Right to Prosecute it” for Victims

The Supreme Court held that the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC includes the right to prosecute it. Consequently, upon the death of the original appellant-victim, their legal heir is entitled to be substituted to continue the appeal. The definition of ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) CrPC is broad and inclusive, enabling such substitution to ensure the right of access to justice is not defeated. Facts Of The Case: On December 9, 1992, an attack occurred in which Virendra Singh was killed, and informant Tara Chand (PW-1) and his son Khem Singh (PW-3) were injured. The Sessions Court convicted accused Ashok, Pramod, and Anil @ Neelu, sentencing them to life imprisonment, but acquitted six other accused. The convicted accused appealed to the High Court, which, vi...
Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance: Land Sale Agreement Enforced After 24 Years
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance: Land Sale Agreement Enforced After 24 Years

The Supreme Court upheld the decree for specific performance of a 2001 land sale agreement, ruling that the plaintiffs proved readiness and willingness under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It nullified subsequent fraudulent sales under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (lis pendens) and affirmed the court’s power to grant possession under Section 22 despite omitted pleadings. The judgment emphasized that mere price escalation cannot deny equitable relief and imposed an additional ₹25 lakh payment to balance interests. Collusive transactions were declared void, reinforcing protections against pendente lite transfers. Facts Of The Case: In 2001, Krishan Gopal (appellant) agreed to sell 9 acres of agricultural land in Punjab to Gurmeet Kaur and her two sons for ₹10 lakh under an Ag...
Who Pays Entry Tax? Supreme Court Decides Liquor Warehouse vs. Manufacturer Case
Supreme Court

Who Pays Entry Tax? Supreme Court Decides Liquor Warehouse vs. Manufacturer Case

The Supreme Court upheld the levy of entry tax on liquor manufacturers under the Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax Act, 1976. It ruled that manufacturers "caused the entry of goods" into local areas under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(3), even through state warehouses. The Court clarified that Section 3B (special provision for liquor) was merely an enabling provision, and the absence of a notification under it did not bar tax collection under Section 14 (general machinery provision). The judgment affirmed that the tax liability rests on manufacturers, not warehouses, as they initiated the goods' movement into the state. Facts Of The Case: The case involved M/S United Spirits Ltd. and other liquor manufacturers challenging their liability to pay entry tax under the Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax Act,...
“Masterminds Can’t Claim Parity with Minor Accused”: Supreme Court Overrules Bail Order under 302 IPC
Supreme Court

“Masterminds Can’t Claim Parity with Minor Accused”: Supreme Court Overrules Bail Order under 302 IPC

The Supreme Court ruled that bail parity cannot be mechanically applied when material distinctions exist between accused persons. It held that alleged conspirators/masterminds of a serious crime (Section 302 IPC) cannot claim bail parity with minor co-accused, especially when evidence suggests their active role in hiring a contract killer. The Court emphasized that bail decisions must consider the gravity of allegations, evidentiary role of each accused, and potential witness intimidation, rather than granting parity as a blanket rule. The judgment clarified that "parity" under Section 439 CrPC requires comparable roles, not mere similarity of charges. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a brutal shooting during a marriage procession in Rajasthan on November 28, 2023. The prosecution al...