General Court Martial and Criminal Procedure Code

(2013) 4 SCC 186, Union of India v. Ajeet Singh

 

GCM is a substitute of criminal trial. While Army Act and Army Rules apply, as CrPC deals with principles of natural justice, thus, the principles applied therein may provide guidelines with respect to misjoinder of charges and a joint trial. (paragraph 16)

Construction of Rules to benefit Employees

1991 Supp (2) SCC 363, Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee v. Union of India

 

No rule or order which is meant to benefit employees should normally be construed in such a manner as to work hardship and injustice specially when its operation is automatic and if any injustice arises then the primary duty of the courts is resolve it in such a manner that it may avoid any loss to one without giving undue advantage to other..

 

Followed in State of UP v. Mahesh Narain, (2013) 4 SCC 169

Under 482 CrPC, even non-compoundable offences can be quashed by High Courts

(2013) 4 SCC 58, Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi

 

The High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 CrPC does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrpC. … Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure it is held that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 CrPC would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.

Forfeiture of the Right to Appoint Arbitrator

(2013) 4 SCC 35, Deep Trading Company v. Indian Oil Corporation

 

Appointment by the Corporation during the pendency of proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is non est, as the appointment after forfeiture of its right is of no consequence.

GO whose quashing is sought must be produced before the court

Any government order sought to be challenged before the High Court, must be produced before it. It is improper to quash an order which is not produced before the High Court.

(1986) 4 SCC 667

(2009) 8 SCC 492

 

Relationship between Section 125 CrPC and Section 18 of HAMA

"Proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature and intended to provide a speedy remedy to the wife and any order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by compromise or otherwise cannot foreclose the remedy available to a wife under Section 18(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act." 

Nagendrappa Natikar Vs. Neelamma dated 15-3-2013 available athttp://www.supremelaw.in/2013/03/nagendrappa-natikar-vs-neelamma.html

Power of Attorney Holder cannot depose in lieu of the person who attorney s/he is

It is a settled legal proposition that the power of attorney holder cannot depose in place of the principal. Provisions of Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC empower the holder of the power of attorney to  "act" on behalf of the principal. The word "acts" employed therein is confined only to "acts" done by the power-of-attorney holder, in exercise of the power granted to him by virtue of the instrument. The term "acts", would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power-ofattorney holder has preferred any "acts" in pursuance of the power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for acts done by the principal, and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of a matter, as regards which, only the principal can have personal knowledge and in respect of which, the principal is entitled to be crossexamined. (See: Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1441; Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217; M/S Shankar Finance and Investment v. State of A.P & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 422; and Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512).