Judgement Supreme Court Supreme Court Today

19 February, 2019 Important Judgments Supreme Court

Updated On: September 16, 2019 9:54 pm

---Advertisement---

19 February, 2019 Important Judgments Supreme Court

1. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Harjeet Singh& Anr.

“If the assailant acts with the intention or knowledge that such action might cause death, and hurt is caused, then the provisions of Section 307 I.P.C. would be applicable”

In State of MP vs. Harjeet Singh, the High court had converted the conviction of the accused from Section 307 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the injuries inflicted were on “unimportant parts” of the Complainant’s body. The High court’ The Accused /Respondents having an intention to commit murder would never cause injuries over such “unimportant” parts of the body, the High court had observed.

2. SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd

“In view of the fact that the consequence of forfeiting a right to file the written statement; non-extension of any further time; and the fact that the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record all points to the fact that the earlier law on Order VIII Rule 1 on the filing of written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 has now been set at naught.”

The bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran

CPC Amendments

The following proviso was added to Order VIII Rule 1 to the Code of Civil Procedure by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 and was made applicable to commercial disputes of a specified value w.e.f 23.10.2015. (Similarly worded proviso was inserted in Order V as well)

3. MMTC Ltd. vs. Vedanta Ltd.

“The Court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award, and must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the Court under Section 34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision”

The Supreme Court has observed that, a court while considering an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award.

The bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Vineet Saran.

Judgment Supreme Court 2019