Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 451 and 457: In this case, civil suit was pending between financier of vehicle and its registered owner, with order of status quo passed therein. Temporary release of vehicle was directed by Magistrate in favour of its registered owner, subject to execution of bond with condition to produce the vehicle when required and subject to any variation of the order by the civil court in pending proceedings. It was held, proper in this case. Proper remedy of financier was to approach civil court in the pending suit if aggrieved by the abovesaid order of the Magistrate. [Manoj v. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 558]
Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws — Non-Scheduled Banks/NBFCs/Chit Funds/Saving Schemes/Financial leasing — Financial Leasing/Hire-purchase: In this case, possession of vehicle, seized by police, hypothecated under hire-purchase agreement was released to financier as opposed to the bona fide purchaser who was a beneficiary of fraud played by the owner on financier. It was held that good faith purchase is not sufficient, to defeat the rights of the financier with whom the vehicle was hypothecated by the original owner under a finance agreement. Order of Transport Authority regarding registration certificate is binding, when the same is not challenged. [SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. v. Ramjan Ali, (2022) 9 SCC 547]
Government Grants, Largesse, Public Property and Public Premises — Government Grants, Allotment, Transfer of Government/Public property/Largesse and Licences — Revocation of Intention to make Grant/Allotment/Transfer/Non-allotment: Allotment of plot, as in this case industrial plot, under the erstwhile policy is not permissible once the policy stands withdrawn/terminated and such withdrawal/termination not challenged. [Ritu Maheshwari v. Promotional Club, (2022) 9 SCC 560]
Labour Law — Reinstatement/Back Wages/Arrears — Reinstatement with back wages — Back Wages — Quantum — Gainful employment after dismissal — Proof: Issue of gainful employment of workmen is question of fact and finding of Tribunal as upheld by High Court cannot be interfered with by Supreme Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution. Armed Forces Ex Officers Multi Services Coop. [Society Ltd. v. Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh, (2022) 9 SCC 586]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — S. 28-A: Re-determination under S. 28-A of the 1894 Act, of amount of compensation granted in Lok Adalat award is not permissible when there is no determination of compensation by court in terms of the 1894 Act. Nature of Lok Adalat award and its executability, explained in detail and distinguished from consent decree passed in terms of compromise arrived at under Or. 23 R. 3 CPC. [Noida v. Yunus, (2022) 9 SCC 516]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 86 and 302 — Patricide (killing of father) — Defence of being under the influence of liquor — Entitlement to — Ingredients of S. 86 — Necessity of satisfaction of: Mere intoxication, held, not enough to attract S. 86. [Chherturam v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 9 SCC 571]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Ss. 13(1)(d) & 13(2) — Discharge — Whether warranted — Determination of — Alleged disproportionate expenditure: In this case, upon correct computation of expenditure during the check period, held, prima facie case not made out against accused, hence, appellant was discharged. [Kanchan Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 9 SCC 577]
Statute Law — Supersession of Judicial Verdict — Tests for determining encroachment of judicial power by legislation and declaration of legislation as unconstitutional: Matters to be considered to determine encroachment of judicial power by legislation and declaration of legislation as unconstitutional the same, the tests to be applied are as follows: (i) Whether legislative prescription or legislative direction interferes with the judicial functions (ii) Whether the legislation targets decided cases or requires its application to a case already finally decided. Matters to be considered include aspects such as the terms of law, issues with which it deals and the nature of the judgment that has attained finality sufficiently establish that the impugned law interferes with the judicial functions. [State of Kerala v. James Varghese, (2022) 9 SCC 593]
