Supreme Court Weekly Update 22-28 April 2019
1. Kumar Ghimirey V. The State of Sikkim
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the power of a High Court to enhance sentence awarded to a convict, while considering his appeal, can only be exercised after giving him the notice of enhancement.
The bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph
2. Mallikarjunaiah vs. Nanjaiah
“Mere continuous possession howsoever long it may have been qua its true owner is not enough to sustain the plea of adverse possession.”
The bench comprising of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
3. Sadayappan @ Ganesan vs. State
The witness may be called “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished, the Supreme Court observed while rejecting a defence contention in a criminal appeal.
4. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Rekhaben Nareshbai Rathod
“The contractual duty so imposed is such that any suppression, untruth or inaccuracy in the statement in the proposal form will be considered as a breach of the duty of good faith and will render the policy voidable by the insurer.”
5. State of Rajasthan vs. Mukesh Sharma
The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006.
The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha observed that there is no requirement for laying of the Rules before the Legislature prior to promulgation and no time limit has been prescribed for laying has been provided.
6. Nagji Odhavji Kumbhar & Anr v. State of Gujarat
“Since there are multiple wounds, it cannot be said that the appellants have acted at the spur of the moment without pre-meditation and that the appellants are not taken any advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. “
7. Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel V. State of Gujarat
‘Admission’ Made By Accused To Police Officer Before Investigation Commences May Be Admissible. The Bench observed that a statement made by the accused to a police officer before the investigation commences, is admissible in evidence, if it contains only an admission [and not a confession].
