Skip to Content

22nd January, 2025

1). Supreme Court: Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be a Ground for Transferring Cheque Dishonour Complaints or Any other Complaints, Raise Objection Before Trial Court

The Supreme Court on January 21, 2025, dismissed a petition seeking the transfer of multiple cheque dishonour complaints, ruling that lack of territorial jurisdiction is not a valid ground for transferring such complaints to another court.

Case Details

  • Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
  • Petition: Filed by the accused in 22 complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).
  • Prayer: Transfer of complaints from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, to a court in Mumbai, Maharashtra.

Arguments of the Petitioners

  1. Agreements Executed in Mumbai: The agreements between the parties were signed in Mumbai, and the construction work under the agreements was also in Mumbai.
  2. Cheque Delivery in Mumbai: The cheques in question were handed over in Mumbai.
  3. Jurisdiction Clause: Clause 10 of the agreement stated that any legal or arbitration proceedings would fall under the jurisdiction of Mumbai courts.
  4. Deliberate Action by Respondents: The respondents deposited the cheques in a Varanasi bank branch to confer jurisdiction on the Varanasi court.

Observations by the Supreme Court

  1. Territorial Jurisdiction to Be Raised Before Trial Magistrate:
    • The Court held that the question of territorial jurisdiction should be addressed before the trial magistrate.
    • Under Section 201 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, if a magistrate lacks jurisdiction to hear a case, they can return the complaint for filing in the proper court or direct the complainant to the correct forum.
  2. Corresponding Provision in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023:
    • Under Section 224 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, if a complaint is filed with a magistrate who lacks jurisdiction:
      • For written complaints: The magistrate must return the complaint for presentation in the appropriate court, with an endorsement.
      • For oral complaints: The magistrate must direct the complainant to the proper court.
  3. Transfer Not Justified on Jurisdictional Grounds:
    • The Supreme Court observed that the lack of territorial jurisdiction alone is not a valid ground to seek the transfer of complaints.
    • The petitioners are entitled to raise this issue before the ACJM in Varanasi, who has the authority to decide if the case should be returned or dismissed.
  4. Exemption from Personal Appearance:
    • The Court noted that the trial court could exempt the accused from personal appearances, provided they attend court when their presence is necessary.

Decision

The Court dismissed the transfer petition, reaffirming that:

  • Territorial jurisdiction disputes should be raised before the trial court.
  • The trial court has the discretion to decide on the matter under Section 201 CrPC or Section 224 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Significance of the Decision

  1. Clarifies Jurisdictional Disputes: This ruling underscores that territorial jurisdiction disputes under Section 138 of the NI Act should be resolved at the trial court level, not through transfer petitions.
  2. Prevents Forum Shopping: The decision reinforces the principle that courts should not entertain jurisdictional objections for transfer unless there is a substantial reason.
  3. Saves Judicial Time: By directing parties to raise jurisdictional issues before the trial magistrate, the decision avoids unnecessary delays at the Supreme Court level.

Legal Provisions Involved

  1. Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Deals with cheque dishonour cases and allows the complainant to initiate proceedings in courts where the cheque was presented, dishonoured, or returned unpaid.
  2. Section 201, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973: Empowers a magistrate to return complaints if they lack jurisdiction.
  3. Section 224, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Mirrors Section 201 of the CrPC and lays down similar provisions for returning complaints filed in an incorrect court.

This ruling highlights the appropriate forum and procedure for raising jurisdictional issues, ensuring efficient judicial processes.

Case Name – M/S Kamal Enterprises v. A. K. Constructions Co


2). Supreme Court Clarifies: Court Can Annul or Extend Time Post-Decree in Specific Performance Cases

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

Case Background

The present case involved a decree for specific performance of a sale agreement. The trial court decreed specific performance, directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration within 20 days. However, at the execution stage, the defendants filed an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking rescission of the decree on account of the plaintiff’s alleged non-compliance.

The High Court dismissed the application, affirming the trial court’s decision to proceed with execution. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the plaintiff's failure to deposit the balance amount within 20 days warranted rescission of the decree.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant/Defendant’s Arguments

  1. Failure to Comply: The plaintiff failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated by the trial court.
  2. Effect of Trial Court’s Direction: The trial court's original direction regarding the timeline for payment continued to apply even after the High Court's judgment in the second appeal.

Respondent/Plaintiff’s Arguments

  1. Power to Extend Time: The court retained discretion under Section 28 of the Act to grant additional time for compliance, as the sale deed had not yet been executed.
  2. Effect of High Court Judgment: The High Court’s decision in the second appeal superseded the trial court’s timeline for deposit, as the original trial court order had merged with the appellate court's judgment.

Key Issues

  1. Does the court retain control over a specific performance decree after its passing?
  2. Can the timeline for compliance with such a decree be extended?

Observations of the Court

  1. Jurisdiction of the Court Post-Decree:
    • A decree for specific performance is preliminary in nature, meaning it does not conclude the court’s involvement.
    • The court retains jurisdiction to monitor compliance and address related issues until the decree is fully executed, i.e., the sale deed is registered.
    • Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act grants the court the discretion to rescind the contract if the plaintiff fails to comply or to extend the timeline for compliance.
  2. Discretionary Power under Section 28:
    • The court highlighted that Section 28 provides flexibility to ensure justice for both parties.
    • While the court can annul a decree, such power should be exercised cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances.
    • Extending the timeline for payment does not modify the decree but ensures equitable relief.
  3. Doctrine of Merger:
    • Citing Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Tejaji Farasram (AIR 1954 BOM 93) and Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. (1958) 34 ITR 130, the court explained:
      • Once an appellate court delivers a judgment, the trial court’s order merges into the appellate court’s order.
      • The appellate court’s directions override earlier timelines set by the trial court.
  4. Application of Section 28:
    • In the present case, the defendants argued that the plaintiff’s failure to deposit the balance within the 20 days initially stipulated by the trial court justified rescission.
    • The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the High Court had upheld the trial court’s decree but did not reiterate the 20-day timeline.
  5. Relevant Precedents:
    • Sardar Mohar Singh v. Mangilal (1997) 9 SCC 217: Affirmed that courts retain control over specific performance decrees until their execution.
    • Other precedents established that extending payment timelines is procedural and does not alter the substantive terms of the decree.

Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the defendants’ appeal, concluding that:

  1. The High Court committed no error in affirming the trial court’s decree.
  2. The trial court retains the discretion to extend the time for payment under Section 28, ensuring justice for all parties.

Significance of the Decision

  1. Ensures Finality and Flexibility in Specific Performance Decrees: The ruling emphasizes that courts have discretion to extend time for compliance, preventing unnecessary rescission of decrees.
  2. Upholds the Doctrine of Merger: The decision clarifies that appellate judgments override original trial court directions.
  3. Balancing Interests: By retaining jurisdiction until execution, the court ensures equitable relief for both parties in specific performance cases.

Legal Provisions Referenced

  1. Section 28, Specific Relief Act, 1963:
    • Empowers courts to rescind specific performance decrees if the plaintiff fails to comply with its terms.
    • Allows courts to extend time for compliance to ensure justice.
  2. Doctrine of Merger:
    • When an appellate court passes a judgment, the original trial court order ceases to exist and merges with the appellate court’s decision.

This decision reinforces the principle that courts must balance procedural compliance with equitable relief in specific performance cases.

Case Name: BALBIR SINGH & ANR ETC VERSUS BALDEV SINGH (D) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS. ETC


3). Supreme Court Explains When 'Sudden & Grave Provocation' Reduces Murder to Culpable Homicide

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan

The Supreme Court observed that not every sudden provocation reduces murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The judgment explained the scope of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and clarified the conditions under which grave and sudden provocation can be invoked.

Case Background:

  • Incident: The appellant and his friends were sleeping under a bridge when the deceased, who was heavily drunk, started an altercation. During the quarrel, the deceased uttered offensive words and slapped the appellant.
  • Appellant’s Reaction: The appellant picked up a cement brick lying nearby and hit the deceased on the head, leading to his death.
  • Lower Courts’ Rulings:
    • The Trial Court applied Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC (grave and sudden provocation) and reduced the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
    • The High Court upheld this decision.
  • The prosecution appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the application of Exception 1.

Arguments of the Parties:

Prosecution’s Arguments:

  1. The incident did not qualify as grave and sudden provocation since the deceased’s actions were not serious enough to deprive the appellant of self-control.
  2. The appellant acted disproportionately by using a cement brick to cause fatal injuries.
  3. The Trial Court and High Court erred in applying Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC.

Appellant’s Arguments:

  1. The deceased’s behavior, including offensive words and slapping the appellant, caused grave and sudden provocation, leading to the appellant’s loss of self-control.
  2. The appellant did not premeditate the act and reacted in the heat of the moment.
  3. The lower courts rightly reduced the offence from murder to culpable homicide under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC.

Observations of the Court:

On Grave and Sudden Provocation (Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC):

  1. For Exception 1 to apply, the provocation must meet two conditions:
    • It must be grave (serious enough to upset a reasonable person).
    • It must be sudden (no time for the accused to regain self-control).
  2. The provocation must be unexpected and must result in an immediate reaction. For instance, if the accused reacts within a minute, it is sudden provocation; if the reaction occurs after hours, it is not.
  3. The Court emphasized the objective test: Would a reasonable person in the accused’s position lose self-control? Factors like social background, education, and circumstances must be considered. However, mere verbal abuse or minor altercations are generally insufficient to meet the criteria of grave provocation.
  4. Judges should avoid imposing their personal standards of patience, as the "reasonable person" is a legal standard that varies based on societal norms.

Application to the Case Facts:

  1. The deceased used offensive language and slapped the appellant, but this alone did not qualify as grave provocation.
  2. Instead, the incident fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC: The act occurred in the heat of the moment without premeditation during a sudden fight.
  3. The appellant’s use of a cement brick was unplanned, and he did not act with undue cruelty or take unfair advantage.

Decision of the Court:

  • The Supreme Court held that Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC was not applicable in this case.
  • However, the incident fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder during a sudden fight).
  • The Court reduced the appellant’s sentence to the period already served in prison.

Significance of the Decision:

  1. Clarification of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC: The judgment clarified that both grave and sudden elements are essential for invoking this exception, and they must occur simultaneously.
  2. Objective Standard of Provocation: The Court reinforced that provocation must be assessed from the perspective of a reasonable person, considering the accused’s social and personal circumstances.
  3. Application of Exception 4: The decision highlights that incidents arising from sudden quarrels or fights may fall under Exception 4 instead of Exception 1.
  4. Reduced Sentence: The ruling provides an example of judicial discretion in balancing legal principles with compassion by reducing the appellant’s sentence.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

  1. Section 300 IPC: Defines murder and provides exceptions.
    • Exception 1: Culpable homicide is not murder if committed under grave and sudden provocation. (Exceptions 1 to Section 101 of BNS)
    • Exception 4: Culpable homicide is not murder if committed during a sudden fight without premeditation and in the heat of the moment. (Exceptions 4 to Section 101 of BNS)
  2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The burden of proof lies on the accused to establish that their case falls under an exception.

This judgment serves as an important precedent for interpreting the scope of provocation and determining the distinction between murder and culpable homicide under Indian criminal law.

Case Name: VIJAY @ VIJAYAKUMAR V. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE


4). Allahabad HC Denies Bail to 'Digital Arrest' Accused, Calls Cyber Crime a Silent Virus

Bench: Justice Ashutosh Srivastava

The Allahabad High Court highlighted the growing threat of cybercrimes in India, referring to it as a "silent virus" that affects innocent victims across various demographics. The court made these observations while denying bail to an accused in a "Digital Arrest" scam, which involved impersonating law enforcement officials to extort money from a senior citizen.

Case Background:

  1. Incident:
    • The victim, Kakoli Das, received a call from someone pretending to be a courier company representative, accusing her of sending illegal materials (MDMA) in a parcel to Taiwan.
    • The call was transferred to a person impersonating a Deputy Commissioner of Police, who digitally "arrested" her and coerced her into sharing her bank details under the pretense of investigation.
    • Over three days (April 23–25, 2024), ₹1.48 crore was fraudulently transferred from her accounts via RTGS by cybercriminals.
  2. FIR and Arrests:
    • The applicant, Nishant Roy, a BBA student, was implicated in the scam under Sections 384, 406, 419, 420, 506, 507 & 34 of IPC, and Sections 66-C & 66-D of the IT Act, 2000.
    • The investigation revealed connections between the accused and other co-accused involved in transferring the stolen funds.

Arguments of the Parties:

Applicant’s Arguments (Nishant Roy):

  1. False Implication: He claimed he was falsely implicated based on a co-accused’s confessional statement.
  2. Fabrication of Evidence: He alleged that the recovery of mobile phones, SIM cards, and a chequebook was fabricated by the police.
  3. No Direct Transactions: He argued no fraudulent transactions were made through his bank account.
  4. Custodial Interrogation Not Needed: He had been in custody since May 7, 2024, and charges against him were yet to be framed.
  5. Maximum Sentence: The offences are triable by a Magistrate and carry a maximum punishment of 7 years.

State’s Arguments (AGA):

  1. Direct Connection to Scam:
    • ₹62 lakh out of ₹1.48 crore siphoned from the victim’s account was transferred to Sandhu Enterprises, run by co-accused Amar Pal Singh and his wife.
    • A SIM card recovered from the applicant was linked to the bank account of Sandhu Enterprises.
  2. Absconding Co-Accused: Other accused in the case, including Amar Pal Singh and his associates, are absconding, and the investigation is still ongoing.
  3. Seriousness of Crime: Cybercrime of this scale affects public confidence and demands strict action.

Observations of the Court:

  1. Growing Cybercrime Threat: The Court observed that while India’s digital transformation under initiatives like Digital India has been significant, it has also exposed vulnerabilities that cybercriminals exploit. Cybercrimes, including phishing scams, ransomware attacks, and data breaches, are on the rise.
  2. Nature of the Offence:
    • Cybercrimes are sophisticated and transcend social, economic, and regional boundaries.
    • The present case involved a meticulously planned scam targeting a senior citizen.
  3. Role of the Applicant:
    • The court found sufficient evidence linking the applicant to the scam.
    • The SIM card recovered from the applicant connected him to the fraudulent bank account.
  4. Pending Investigation: Given the absconding co-accused and the ongoing investigation, the Court was of the view that granting bail at this stage could hamper the investigation process.

Decision of the Court:

The Allahabad High Court denied bail to the applicant, noting:

  • The charges against him were yet to be framed.
  • The investigation against other co-accused was ongoing.
  • There was sufficient evidence to justify his implication in the case.

Significance of the Decision:

  1. Addressing Cybercrime: The judgment underscores the increasing threat posed by cybercrimes and the importance of robust legal action to deter such activities.
  2. Accountability in Digital Fraud: The Court emphasized that individuals involved in complex cyber scams cannot escape liability, especially when there is evidence of their involvement.
  3. Balancing Rights and Public Interest: While recognizing the applicant’s argument of extended custody, the Court prioritized the public interest in curbing cybercrimes.

Legal Provisions Involved:

  1. IPC Sections:
    • 384: Extortion (308(2)-BNS)
    • 406: Criminal breach of trust (316(2)-BNS)
    • 419: Cheating by personation (319(2)- BNS)
    • 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property (318(4)-BNS)
    • 506: Criminal intimidation (315(2)/(3)-BNS)
    • 507: Criminal intimidation by anonymous communication (351(4)-BNS)
    • 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention (3(5)-BNS)
  2. IT Act, 2000:
    • Section 66-C: Identity theft
    • Section 66-D: Cheating by personation using computer resources

This case reinforces the judiciary’s proactive stance in combating cybercrimes and ensuring justice for victims of digital fraud.

Case Name - Nishant Roy vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 26


5). Telangana HC Clarifies: Property Title Claims Under Section 19 Must Be Continuous and Relational

Bench: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarshin

This case highlights the scope of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and addresses whether a suit for specific performance can be enforced against a third party who is not a party to the original contract.

Case Background

  1. The Agreement:
    • In 2018, the plaintiff entered into an Agreement of Sale with one of the respondents for purchasing a property worth ₹4 crores. The plaintiff paid ₹12 lakhs as advance.
    • However, the respondent did not respond for five years. In 2023, the plaintiff issued a legal notice and discovered that the respondent had entered into a compromise decree with third parties, recognizing their ownership of the disputed property.
  2. Plaintiff's Suit:
    • The plaintiff filed a suit before the trial court seeking:
      a. Specific performance of the Agreement of Sale, directing the third parties to transfer the property.
      b. Cancellation of the compromise decree between the respondent and the third parties.
  3. Trial Court Ruling:
    • The trial court rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, stating it lacked necessary pleadings to support the claim.
    • The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Telangana High Court challenging the dismissal.

Issue of the Case

  • Whether specific performance of a contract can be sought against third parties who are not parties to the original contract or do not derive title through the contracting parties.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant/Plaintiff’s Arguments:

  1. Lack of Knowledge: The plaintiff claimed he became aware of the compromise decree only in 2023 after issuing a legal notice.
  2. Challenge to Compromise Decree: The compromise decree should be set aside as it impacted the plaintiff’s contractual rights.
  3. Right to Specific Performance: The plaintiff argued that the suit should not have been dismissed as he sought enforcement of his valid Agreement of Sale.

Respondents’ Arguments:

  1. No Privity of Contract:
    • The respondents argued that the third parties were not parties to the original Agreement of Sale and did not derive their title from the respondent.
    • Thus, no specific performance could be sought against them.
  2. Plaint Lacked Pleadings: The plaint lacked the necessary details to justify a claim for specific performance.
  3. Compromise Decree Cannot Be Challenged: Under Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC, a compromise decree cannot be challenged unless obtained through fraud or coercion, which was not pleaded by the plaintiff.

Observations of the Court

On Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act:

  1. Enforceability of Specific Performance:
    • Section 19 allows specific performance of a contract:
      a. Between contracting parties.
      b. Against non-contracting parties who derive title through one of the contracting parties (except bona fide purchasers for value without notice).
    • The Court explained the relationships through an analogy of concentric circles:
      • Core Circle: Contracting parties who can enforce specific performance against each other.
      • Second Circle: Non-contracting parties deriving title through contracting parties.
      • Outer Circle: Pre-existing titleholders with no link to the contract, who cannot be compelled to perform the contract.
  2. Application to the Present Case:
    • The third parties (respondent Nos. 1–5) did not derive their title through the respondent (contracting party). They had a pre-existing and independent right to the property.
    • Hence, the third parties did not fall within the categories outlined in Section 19, and specific performance could not be enforced against them.

On Challenging the Compromise Decree:

  • Relying on Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC, the Court held that compromise decrees cannot be challenged except on grounds of fraud or coercion, which the plaintiff failed to plead.
  • Reference Cases:
    • Sree Surya Developers & Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad
    • Amro Devi v. Julfi Ram
    • Pushpa Devi Bhagat (Dead) Through LR Sadhna Rai v. Rajinder Singh

Rejection of Plaint:

  • The Court clarified that rejection of a plaint is a serious matter and should be done only on grounds under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
  • While the trial court's reasoning was not entirely satisfactory, the High Court upheld the decision as justified by law.

Decision of the Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s decision to reject the plaint, concluding that:

  • Specific performance cannot be enforced against a third party who is not connected to the original contract.
  • The compromise decree was valid and could not be challenged.

Significance of the Decision

  1. Clarification of Section 19:
    • The Court provided a clear framework for understanding relationships relevant to specific performance.
  2. Protection of Bona Fide Rights:
    • The judgment ensures that parties with pre-existing, independent rights cannot be forced into contracts or deprived of their property.
  3. Judicial Integrity:
    • The decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural laws, such as Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC.

Legal Provisions Involved

  1. Specific Relief Act, 1963:
    • Section 19: Provides who can enforce specific performance of a contract.
  2. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
    • Order 7 Rule 11: Grounds for rejection of a plaint.
    • Order 23 Rule 3A: Bar on challenging a compromise decree except on grounds of fraud or coercion.

This judgment reinforces the limits of specific performance and protects third parties with no connection to the contractual relationship.

Case Name- Boyenepally Srijayavardhan vs. Smt. V. Nirupama Reddy.


Add-On

Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya Takes Oath as Chief Justice of Delhi High Court

Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya was sworn in as the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court on January 21, 2025. The oath was administered by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi in a ceremony attended by Delhi Chief Minister Atishi Marlena Singh and other senior officials.

Before this, Justice Upadhyaya served as the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, a position he held from July 29, 2023.

On January 7, 2025, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended Justice Upadhyaya’s transfer from the Bombay High Court to the Delhi High Court as Chief Justice. The Central Government issued a notification confirming his appointment on January 14, 2025.

Justice Upadhyaya’s appointment is seen as a significant move in the judiciary, further strengthening the functioning of the Delhi High Court.

21st January, 2025