Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 23 R. 3 — Consent order: All the parties to the consent terms are required to fully comply with the terms of settlement/consent terms and the consent order. One party cannot be permitted to say that that portion of the settlement which is in their favour be executed and/or complied with and not the other terms of the settlement/consent terms/consent order, and then impugn the other party for contempt of court, not having performed (all of) their own obligations under the consent order. [Ashish Seth v. Sumit Mittal, (2022) 8 SCC 724]
Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Writs — Habeas corpus — Death of both parents — Custody of minor: Independent income, younger age and/or bigger family of maternal aunt cannot be sole criteria to tilt balance and deny custody to grandparents when capacity and/or ability of grandparents to take care of their grandson, cannot be doubted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, custody of minor corpus directed to be continued with appellant paternal grandparents. [Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 8 SCC 804]
Education Law — Employment and Service Matters re Educational Institutions — Appointment/Recruitment: Nature of post/appointment, whether purely contractual, or, conditional appointment made dependent on performance of candidate and availability of post and its continued requirement, determined in this case. [Sushil Kumar Tripathi v. Jagadguru Ram Bhadracharya Handicapped University, (2022) 8 SCC 760]
Family and Personal Laws — Family Property, Succession and Inheritance — Intestate Succession and Escheat: When wills were not found proved by three courts below, in such case, transfer of interest in the property concerned shall take place according to the rules of intestate succession. [Aman Sharma v. Umesh, (2022) 8 SCC 798]
Housing and Real Estate — Building/Planning Norms — Illegal/Unauthorised Development/Construction, Real Estate Frauds, Demolition and Lis Pendens — Real estate scams — Unitech Scam: Detailed directions issued regarding appointment of nominee Directors of scamster developer companies and other ancillary and related matters to protect interests of homebuyers. [Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd., (2022) 8 SCC 749]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 302 or 304 Pt. II — Murder or culpable homicide — Absence of intention to kill — Effect of: In this case, deceased was assaulted by three accused including appellant (A-2) who attacked deceased with wooden log on his head and pushed him down. The cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of head injuries and due to subdural haematoma on the left frontal parietal region with left frontal intra cerebral haemorrhage, though deceased had also suffered rib injuries. A-1 attacked deceased who was lying on the ground using an iron pipe on his chest and A-3 attacked him with a wooden log on his chest and by giving fist-blow on his chest. High Court while acquitting A-1 and A-3 for offence under Ss. 302/34, convicted the appellant under S. 302, even though it held that the act of appellant was not done intentionally to cause the death of the deceased. Material also indicated that the appellant committed the offending act only with the knowledge that such act was likely to cause death. Resultantly, conviction of appellant altered from S. 302 to one under S. 304 Pt. II and, he sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 10 yrs’ RI. [Krishnamurthy v. State, (2022) 8 SCC 664]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302 and 376(2)(i) — Child rape and murder — Defect in investigation, such as non-conducting DNA profiling in terms of S. 53-A CrPC — Effect of, if any, and duty of court: Solely on account of defects or shortcomings in investigation an accused is not entitled to get acquitted and, thus, lapse or omission (purposeful or otherwise) to carry out DNA profiling, by itself, cannot be permitted to decide the fate of a trial for the offence of rape especially, when it is combined with the commission of the offence of murder. Even if such a flaw had occurred in the investigation in a given case, the Court has still a duty to consider whether the materials and evidence available on record before it, is enough and cogent to prove the case of the prosecution. Further, in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to consider whether, despite such a lapse, the various links in the chain of circumstances forms a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused alone in exclusion of all hypothesis of innocence in his favour. [Veerendra v. State of M.P., (2022) 8 SCC 668]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — S. 24(2) — Acquisition proceedings whether had lapsed under — Quashment of proceedings on ground of non-compliance with S. 5-A of the 1894 Act: Nature of such judgment, held, is in personam and not in rem. Petitioners in this case were purchasers of the acquired land. Original landowners/vendors never filed objections as to acquisition of land. Petitioner purchasers had purchased lands knowing that vendors had not disputed acquisition proceedings. Proceedings thus, held, cannot be declared to have lapsed on ground of parity as judgment quashing proceedings on ground of non-compliance with S. 5-A of the 1894 Act, held, is in personam in nature and not in rem, as the grievances of the challengers of the proceedings that stood quashed, were specific to them. [DDA v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd., (2022) 8 SCC 771]
Service Law — Recruitment Process — Eligibility criteria/conditions — Power of laying down suitability criteria — Competent authority — Violation by Selection Board/Board of Examiners of the criteria laid down under the statutory rules: Suitability criteria must be laid down by rule-making authority and not Selection Board unless specifically authorised. Moreover, there can be no estoppel against law. Where law requires something to be done in particular manner and if it is not done in that manner, it would have no existence in law. [Krishna Rai v. Banaras Hindu University, (2022) 8 SCC 713]
