Raghuveer Sharan Vs. District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank & Anr., 2024 INSC 681

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding an SLP against an order of MP High Court dismissing the appellant’s revision application held that S.132 of The Evidence Act, 1872 does not provide absolute immunity to the witness making self-incriminating statements as the same could be abused by an influential person with the help of a dishonest Investigating Officer. The Court held that the only protection available to the witness U/S 132 is from prosecution based on his incriminating statement and not applicable to other evidence on record. Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors., 2024 INSC 726 The Hon’ble Supreme Court while adjudicating an SLP which assailed the judgment of the Hon’ble MP High Court in a Miscellaneous Petition held that delay occurred in preferring amendment application wouldn’t be relevant if the aspect introduced in the amendment is necessary to be decided to adjudicate the issues framed in a case. The respondent/plaintiff in the above case had questioned the genuineness of a ‘Will’ after a year of filing the suit by way of amendment of plaint U/O VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirming the High Court’s decision allowed the same as the partition of the suit property would not be possible without a determination of the question of the existence of the will and its genuineness.

S.D. Containers v. Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd., (2021) 3 SCC 289

The Jurisdiction over infringement suits in which the defendant seeks revocation of registration of design vests in High Court under S. 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000, even when the High Court does not exercise original side jurisdiction. Operation of S. 22(4) of the 2000 Act is not affected by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Ambience Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Ambience Island Apartment Owners, (2021) 2 SCC 163

The Supreme Court held that the execution proceedings and original proceedings are separate and independent. An appeal under S. 23 of the Consumer Protection Act will not lie to Supreme Court against an order which has been passed in the course of execution proceedings. An appeal under S. 23 is maintainable against an order which has been passed by NCDRG on a complaint where the value of goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed, exceeds the threshold which is prescribed. Hence the appeal under S. 23 of the CP Act against the order in execution dismissed as being non-maintainable.

BCCI v. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. Comm. Arb. Petition 4466/2020 (16th June 2021)

The Bombay High Court observed that an arbitral tribunal cannot apply public law principles on fairness and reasonableness. The Court held that “A writ court may well hold against a public body on a public law principle or by invoking Article 14; But an Arbitrator, constrained as he or she is by the contract, has no such power”.