Judicial Vision August 2021

August 2021 Judicial Vision Issue # 8
At a glance…
Sl
No
Court Parties Journal Provision of
law
Dictum
jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by
the trial court. (Para 12).
5 Supreme
Court
Compack
Enterprises India
(P) Limited v.
Beant Singh
(2021) 3 SCC
702: AIR
2021 SC
2821
CPC-Secs.
151, O. 23 R.3,
Consent decrees are intended to create estoppels by
judgment against the parties, thereby putting an end to
further litigation between the parties. Resultantly, this
Court has held that it would be slow to unilaterally
interfere in, modify, substitute or modulate the terms of
a consent decree, unless it is done with the revised
consent of all the parties thereto. (Gupta Steel Industries
v. Jolly Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. & anr., (1996) 11 SCC 678;
Suvaran Rajaram Bandekar & ors. v. Narayan R. Bandekar
& ors., (1996) 10 SCC 255). (Para 18)
However, this formulation is far from absolute and does
not apply as a blanket rule in all cases. This Court, in
Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India &ors.,
(1992) 1 SCC 31, has held that a consent decree would
not serve as an estoppel, where the compromise was
vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake. Further,
this Court in the exercise of its inherent powers may also
unilaterally rectify a consent decree suffering from
clerical or arithmetical errors, so as to make it conform
with the terms of the compromise. (Para 20)
6 Supreme
Court
Union of India v.
K.A. Najeeb
(2021) 3
SCC 713
CrPC-Sec. 439 “It must be emphasised at the outset that there is a vivid
distinction between the parameters to be applied while
considering a bail application, vis--à--vis those
applicable while deciding a petition for its
cancellation…. Ideally, no person ought to suffer
adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is
established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to
the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective
trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a
potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts
are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to
be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that
a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has
suffered incarceration for a significant period of time,
Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them
on bail (Para 16)”
7 Supreme
Court
Joydeep
Majumdar v.
Bharati Jaiswal
Majumdar
(2021) 3
SCC 742
HMA-Sec.
13(1) (ia)
For considering dissolution of marriage at the instance
of a spouse who allege mental cruelty, the result of such
mental cruelty must be such that it is not possible to
continue with the matrimonial relationship. In other
words, the wronged party cannot be expected to
condone such conduct and continue to live with his/her
spouse. The degree of tolerance will vary from one
couple to another and the Court will have to bear in
mind the background, the level of education and also
the status of the parties, in order to determine whether
the cruelty alleged is sufficient to justify dissolution of
marriage, at the instance of the wronged party. In Samar
Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, this Court gave
illustrative cases where inference of mental cruelty
could be drawn even while emphasizing that no uniform
standard can be laid down and each case will have to be
decided on its own facts. (Para 10)
Here the allegations are levelled by a highly educated
spouse and they do have the propensity to irreparably
damage the character and reputation of the appellant.
When the reputation of the spouse is sullied amongst his
colleagues, his superiors and the society at large, it
Page | 6 | 6
Go to: In this Issue