Section 27 - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction, Stresses Need for Concrete Proof of Identity

29Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction, Stresses Need for Concrete Proof of Identity

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish their identity as the perpetrators. The sole eyewitness could not identify them, and the testimonies of other witnesses were unreliable. Recovery of weapons was inadmissible as proof of their use in the crime under Sections 25-27 of the Evidence Act. Facts Of The Case: On June 3, 2000, an altercation occurred between appellants Rajendra Singh, his son Bhupender Singh, and Diler Singh after the appellants began digging Diler Singh's field. Later that day, at around 1:30 PM, Diler Singh's son, Pushpendra Singh (the deceased), was sitting at Jogither diversion. The three appellants arrived on a motorcycle, armed with swords and a 'kanta'. Upon seeing them, the deceased fled towards northern fields...

Supreme Court Upholds CCI’s Power: No Second Notice Needed Before Imposing Penalty

This Supreme Court judgement clarifies that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is not mandated to issue a second, separate show-cause notice specifically proposing the penalty. A single notice, which forwards the investigation report alleging contravention and invites a reply, constitutes sufficient compliance with natural justice. The legal scheme envisages a consolidated hearing on both liability and penalty, with the appellate body serving as a check against disproportionate penalties. Facts Of The Case: An information was filed with the Competition Commission of India (CCI) by M/s Crown Theatre against the Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation (KFEF) and its office-bearers. The complaint alleged that KFEF, along with its President and General Secretary, engaged in anti-compe...

Supreme Court Restores Ejectment Decree: ‘ND’ Postal Endorsement Doesn’t Invalidate Notice Under Transfer of Property Act

The Supreme Court held that a notice sent via registered post under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is deemed served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887, even if returned with an "ND" (Not Delivered) endorsement. The High Court erred in setting aside the ejectment decree by ignoring this legal presumption of service. The Trial Court's decree was restored, affirming the landlord's right to evict the tenant for non-payment of rent and other charges. The judgment reinforces the principle that proper dispatch of a registered notice fulfills statutory service requirements unless rebutted. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Krishna Swaroop Agarwal (since deceased and represented by his legal heir), was the landlord of a property in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, which ...