Daily Legal Updates for Law Exams: 14th December 2021

1. Trial Court Not Expected To Act In A Particular Way Depending On 'Sensitivity' Of A Case: Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court observed that a Trial Court cannot be expected to act in a particular way depending upon the sensitivity of the case.

• Rather it should be appreciated if a trial court decides a case on its own merit despite its sensitivity, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh said while upholding a Trial Court judgment acquitting two young men accused of murdering a police officer.

• The prosecution case against the accused duo was that both the accused carried three weapons, waylaid the deceased at a signal in a main road at about 5 p.m. and after the initial attack, dragged him to the pavement, and thereafter inflicted multiple injuries. During trial, most of the witnesses pertaining to conspiracy, occurrence, recovery and extraordinary judicial confession turned hostile. The accused were acquitted by granting benefit of doubt.

• In appeal, The Trial Court judgment of acquittal was reversed by the High Court.

• Before the Apex Court, it was contended on behalf of the accused that when the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses in person during their deposition gave its verdict, it could not have been set aside through a cryptic order by the High Court without adequate discussion. The State supported the judgment convicting the accused.

• While setting aside the High Court judgment, the Apex Court bench noted that the Trial Court delivered 'a well merited judgment'. The High Court did not undertake the exercise as mandated under Section 378 read with Section 384 CrPC in reversing the reasoned decision rendered by the trial court, the bench said.

• The following observations have been made in the judgment

1. Presumption of innocence gathers strength when trial court acquits accused

2. An Appellate Court shall not expect the trial court to act in a particular way depending upon the sensitivity of the case.

3. Indictment and condemnation over a decision rendered, on considering all the materials placed before it, should be avoided.

Source: Bar & Bench

2. Environmental Concerns in Char Dham Project- Supreme Court Appoints Oversight Committee Headed By Justice AK Sikri

• Supreme Court while allowing an application filed by the Ministry of Defence for the double-lane widening of roads that are part of the 899-km Char Dham project in Uttarakhand, has appointed an oversight committee headed by Justice AK Sikri.

• In this regard, bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Vikram Nath has observed as follws;

• "We allow the ministry of defence's miscellaneous application of 2020 by permitting the double lane paved shoulder configuration for the three strategic highways. At the same time, we have also taken note of the environmental concerns raised by the HPC on its unanimous consideration of the project and the remedial measures recommended. We direct that they have to be implemented by the MORTH and Ministry of defence.

• In order to ensure implementation of these recommendations, we also set up an oversight committee which will directly report to this court. This committee shall be chaired by Justice AK Sikri. In order to enable the chairperson to receive technical assistance, he shall be aided by a representation of the national environment engineering research Institute, to be nominated by the director and a representative of the Forest research Institute, University of Dehradun. The oversight committee shall receive all logistical and administrative convenience from the union of India, MORTH, MOD, state of Uttarakhand.

• The MORTH and MOD shall also nominate nodal officers for rendering assistance, providing information and cooperating with the work of the committee. The district magistrates for the districts forming part of the project will also provide assistance to the committee

• The objective of the oversight committee is not to undertake an environmental analysis of the project afresh but to assess the implementation of the recommendations of the HPC. A formal notification on this behalf shall be issued by the Union of India within two weeks. Within four weeks, the MoD and MORTH shall place before the committee the steps taken by them in pursuance of the HPC recommendations along with projected timelines for complying with the same.

• Monthly Reports of this nature shall be placed before the committee. The committee shall report to this court every four months. In case of any issue with regard to implementation, the chairperson shall be open to approach this court at anytime.

Source: Bar & Bench

3. Alienation Of Joint Hindu Family Property By 'Karta' For Legal Necessity Or Benefit Of Estate Binding On Other Members: Supreme Court

• Where a Karta has alienated a joint Hindu family property for value either for legal necessity or benefit of the estate it would bind the interest of all undivided members of the family even when they are minors or widows, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment.

• In this case, K. Veluswamy as a Karta of the joint Hindu family executed the agreement to sell of the suit property for Rs.29 lakhs and had received Rs.4 lakhs in advance from Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy. Beereddy Dasaratharmi Reddy instituted the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell impleading both K. Veluswamy and V. Manjunath (son of Veluswamy). This suit was decreed by the Trial Court.

• Manjunath preferred first appeal before the High Court contending that the agreement to sell is unenforceable as the suit property belongs to the joint Hindu family consisting of three persons, K. Veluswamy, his wife V. Manimegala and his son V. Manjunath and, therefore, could not have been executed without the signatures of V. Manjunath. The High Court held that the execution of the agreement to sell by K. Veluswamy as a Karta of the joint Hindu family is not established as no issue on the aspect of authority of the Karta to execute the agreement to sell and legal necessity was framed.

• The Apex Court bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna noted that a joint Hindu family is capable of acting through its Karta or adult member of the family in management of the joint Hindu family property.

• "A coparcener who has right to claim a share in the joint Hindu family estate cannot seek injunction against the Karta restraining him from dealing with or entering into a transaction from sale of the joint Hindu family property, albeit post alienation has a right to challenge the alienation if the same is not for legal necessity or for betterment of the estate. Where a Karta has alienated a joint Hindu family property for value either for legal necessity or benefit of the estate it would bind the interest of all undivided members of the family even when they are minors or widows.

• There are no specific grounds that establish the existence of legal necessity and the existence of legal necessity depends upon facts of each case. The Karta enjoys wide discretion in his decision over existence of legal necessity and as to in what way such necessity can be fulfilled. The exercise of powers given the rights of the Karta on fulfilling the requirement of legal necessity or betterment of the estate is valid and binding on other coparceners.", the court said.

• Thus the court held that signatures of V. Manjunath, son of Karta K. Veluswamy, on the agreement to sell were not required. " Veluswamy being the Karta was entitled to execute the agreement to sell and even alienate the suit property. Absence of signatures of V. Manjunath would not matter and is inconsequential.", the court added.

Source: Bar & Bench