THIS IS A BOOK PREVIEW

Samarth Agrawal
LL.M, NET/JRF
Former Judge (U.P. Judicial Service)

Samarth Agrawal Books 1

First Edition : 2020
Second Edition : 2021

Published by
Samarth Agrawal Books
7R/5, Kailashpuri Colony, Tashkant Marg
Civil Lines, Prayagraj-211001
e-mail : samarthagrawalbooks@gmail.com
website : www.samarthagrawalbooks.com

 All Rights Reserved with Publisher

MRP : Rs. 240 (Rupees Two Hundred Forty Only)

By :
Samarth Agrawal
LL.M, NET/JRF
Former Judge (U.P. Judicial Service)

Disclaimer
Due care has been taken while compiling, editing and printing this book to avoid any error or omissions. Neither the author nor the
publisher of the book holds any responsibility for any mistake that may have inadvertently crept in. They also take no responsibility
for any loss or damage caused to any person on account of any action taken on the basis of the book.
The observations of the courts have been mentioned in this book. They may or may not form the ratio of the case in the given fatual
matrix. Readers are advised to refer to the complete case from relevant source if they want detailed case analysis.
Any mistake or discrepancy noted may be brought to our notice which shall be taken care of in the next edition.
Explanations, guidance and references must not be taken as having authority or having binding nature. For authoritative text kindly
contact the concerned department or official publication.
All disputes are subject to the courts of Prayagraj jurisdiction only.

2 Samarth Agrawal Books

 Contents
 Contents ...............3-6

 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ..............7-41

 Features of Constitution .........................7
 Preamble .........................8
 Union & Territory .........................9
 Citizenship .........................9
 Doctrine of Eclipse, Severability Judicial Review .......................10
 Concept of State .......................11
 Fundamental Rights : General .......................12
 Proportionality .......................13
 Right to Equality .......................14
 Article 15 .......................15
 Article 16 .......................16
 Article 17-18 .......................18
 Right to Freedoms .......................18
 Article 20 .......................21
 Various Facts of Right to Life and Liberty .......................22
 Right Against Exploitation .......................26
 Right to Freedom of Religion .......................26
 Cultural and Educational Rights .......................27
 Right to Constitutional Remedies and Public Interest Litigation .......................29
 Directive Principles .......................30
 Executive .......................31
 Legislature .......................33
 Judiciary .......................34
 Legislative Relations .......................37
 Freedom of Trade and Commerce .......................39
 Emergency .......................39
 Amendment .......................40
 Miscellaneous .......................41

Samarth Agrawal Books 3

 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ............42-77
 General Principles .......................42
 Power of Courts .......................42
 Arrest .......................43
 Maintenance .......................45
 Preventive Action .......................47
 Investigation .......................48
 First Information Report .......................48
 Section 156 .......................51
 Statements made to Police .......................52
 Statements under Section 164 .......................52
 Remand and Default Bail .......................53
 Police Report, Further Investigation .......................55
 General Diary and Case Diary .......................56
 Jurisdiction .......................56
 Cognizance .......................56
 Complaints to Magistrate .......................59
 Issue of Process .......................60
 Charge .......................61
 Trial .......................64
 Inquiries & Trial : General Principles .......................65
 Legal aid .......................65
 Section 300 .......................66
 Section 313 .......................66
 Section 319 .......................67
 Others .......................68
 Bail .......................69
 Regular Bail : General .......................69
 Anticipatory Bail .......................71
 Cancellation of Bail .......................74
 Appeal .......................74
 Miscellaneous .......................74
 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ...........78-104
 General Principles .......................78
 Definitions .......................79
 Jurisdiction & Suits of Civil Nature .......................80
 Jurisdiction .......................80
 Suits of Civil Nature .......................82
 Transfer of Suits .......................83
 Res Sub Judice & Res Judicata .......................84
 Res Sub Judice .......................84
 Res Judicata .......................84
 Foreign Judgments .......................87
 Parties to Suit .......................87
 Order 2 Rule 2 .......................89
 Pleadings .......................89
 General Principles .......................89

4 Samarth Agrawal Books

  Amendment/Striking out Pleading .......................90
 Plaint .......................91
 Written Statement .......................93
 Appearance & Non-Appearance of Parties .......................94
 Execution .......................94
 Special Suits .......................95
 Temporary Injunctions .......................96
 Appeals, Review & Revision .......................97
 Appeals .......................97
 Review .....................100
 Revision .....................100
 Miscellaneous .....................101
 Withdrawal & Compromise .....................101
 Substitution .....................101
 Others .....................102
 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT .........105-124
 General Principles .....................105
 Relevant Fact .....................106
 Relevancy & Admissibility .....................110
 Direct & Circumstantial Evidence .....................110
 Admission & Confession .....................111
 Admission .....................111
 Confession .....................112
 Dying Declaration .....................115
 Expert Evidence .....................116
 Documentary & Oral Evidence .....................118
 Presumption & Burden of Proof .....................119
 Privileged Communications .....................121
 Witnesses .....................122
 INDIAN CONTRACT ACT .........125-135
 General Principles .....................125
 Offer .....................126
 Acceptance .....................127
 Consideration .....................128
 Privity of Contract .....................128
 Capacity to Contract .....................129
 Free Consent .....................130
 Void & Voidable Contract .....................131
 Quasi Contract .....................132
 Damages .....................133
 Miscellaneous .....................135
 INDIAN PENAL CODE .........136-147
 General Principles, Mens Rea .....................136
 Punishments .....................136
 General Exceptions .....................136
 Conspiracy .....................140
 Offences Against the State .....................141

Samarth Agrawal Books 5


  Common Intention and Common Object .....................141
 Offences Against Human Body .....................143
 Offences Against Property .....................146
 Offences Against Marriage .....................146
 Attempt .....................147
 HINDU LAWS ..........148-161
 General Principles .....................148
 Conditions of Marriage, Void & Voidable Marriages .....................149
 Restitution of Conjugal Rights, Judicial Separation & Divorce .....................151
 Maintenance .....................154
 Adoption .....................158
 Guardianship .....................158
 Joint Family Property & Coparcenary .....................159
 MUSLIM LAWS .........162-163
 TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT .........164-168
 Preliminary .....................164
 Transfer of Property by Act of Parties .....................164
 LAW OF TORTS .........169-176
 General Principles .....................169
 General Defences .....................170
 Remoteness of Damage .....................171
 Vicarious Liability .....................172
 Strict & Absolute Liability .....................173
 Negligence .....................173
 Nuisance .....................174
 Defamation .....................175
 Malicious Prosecution .....................176
 Liability of State .....................176
 False Imprisonment & Trespass .....................176
 THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT .........177-180
 THE SALES OF GOODS ACT .........181-182
 INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT ...............183
 THE ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT .........184-188
 LIMITATION ACT .........189-194
 Preliminary .....................189
 Limitation of Suits, Appleals & Application .....................190
 Computation of Period of Limitation .....................191
 Acquisition of Ownership by Possession .....................193
 THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT .........195-197
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW .........198-202
 General .....................198
 Rule of Law and Separation of Powers .....................199
 Delegated Legislation .....................200
 Natural Justice .....................202
 MISCELLANEOUS .........203-208



6 Samarth Agrawal Books

 Recent and Landmark Case Laws

1 The Constitution of India

FEATURES OF CONSTITUTION
 Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State of Punjab, Our Constitution has adopted the system of Parliamentary
AIR 1955 SC 549 government of England. Basic principle is that the President
is the Constitutional Head of the executive while the actual
executive powers are vested in the Council of Ministers.
 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, Secularism is the basic structure of the Constitution.
AIR 1994 SC 1918 Supreme Court held that the secularism has a positive
Aruna Roy v. Union of India, meaning and it means to develop understanding and
AIR 2002 SC 3176 respect towards different religion.
 Excel Wear v. Union of India, Courts would give more weightage to the nationalization
AIR 1979 SC 25 and state ownership but the principles of socialism should
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, not be interpreted and implemented to the extent it totally
AIR 1983 SC 130 ignores the interest of private ownership. Further, Supreme
Court held that the basic purpose of socialism is to provide
decent standard of life and social security to people.
 L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, Supreme Court has held that exclusion of jurisdiction of courts
AIR 1997 SC 1125 is unconstitutional. Judicial review is the basic structure of
the Constitution and it can never be excluded.
 S.R.Bommai v. Union of India, Supreme Court has expressed in majority opinion that
AIR 1994 SC 1918 Indian Constitution is federal.
 Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, The federal principle or doctrine of separation of power is
AIR 1955 SC 549 not incorporated in the Constitution in the strict and rigid
form.
 State of West Bengal v. Union of India, Indian Constitution is not truly federal and States are not
AIR 1963 SC 1241 sovereign. Political sovereignty is distributed between Union
and States with greater weightage in favour of the Union.
 State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, Indian Union is federal but the extent of federalism is largely
AIR 1977 SC 1361 watered down by the needs of progress and development of
a country which has to be nationally, politically and economi-
cally coordinated and socially, intellectually and spiritually
uplifted.
 Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, Though the federal principle is dominant in our
AIR 2006 SC 3127 Constitution and that principle is one of its basic features, but,
it is also equally true that federalism leans in favour of
a strong centre or unitary power.

Samarth Agrawal Books 7

 Recent and Landmark Case Laws

 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat,
AIR 1995 SC 142
 K. Lakshminarayanan v. Union of India,
(2020) 14 SCC 664
Supreme Court held that right to property under Article
300-A is not the basic feature of the Constitution.
The constitutional conventions are born and recognized in
working of the Constitution. The purpose and object of
constitutional convention is to ensure that the legal framework
of the Constitution is operated in accordance with
constitutional values and constitutional morality. The
conventions are not static but change with the change in the
constitutional values and constitutional interpretations.

PREAMBLE
 In Re Berubari Union case, The Supreme Court held that the Preamble is not the part of
AIR 1960 SC 845 the Constitution.
 Kesavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala, The Supreme Court held that the Preamble is the part of the
AIR 1973 SC 1461 Constitution. The court held that the Preamble of the
Constitution is of extreme importance and the Constitution
should be read and interpreted in the light of the Preamble.
The court further held that the Preamble can be amended
without altering the basic structure of the Constitution.
 Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Supreme Court held that Preamble is the sum and substance
AIR 1965 SC 845 of the features of the Constitution.
 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, Supreme Court reiterated the view held in Keshavananda Bharti
AIR 1994 SC 1918 case and held that Preamble is an integral part of the
Constitution.
 K.K. Baskaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, Supreme Court held that the Constitution should be
AIR 2011 SC 1485 interpreted in such manner so as to secure the goal of social,
economic and political justice.
 Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh, Supreme Court said that promise to provide social, economic
AIR 2011 SC 2839 and political justice given in the Preamble cannot be forgotten
or neglected.
 Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Preamble represents the quintessence, the philosophy, the
AIR 1965 SC 845 ideals, the soul or spirit of the entire Constitution.
 Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, One of the objectives of the Preamble of our Constitution is
(2020) 5 SCC 421 ‘fraternity assuring the dignity of individual and the unity
and integrity of the nation’. ‘Fraternity’ means a sense of
common brotherhood of all Indians. In a country like ours it
is necessary to emphasize and reemphasize that the unity and
integrity of India can be preserved only by a spirit of
brotherhood.

8 Samarth Agrawal Books

 Recent and Landmark Case Laws

(1) Financial resources of the State is the chief funding source

 Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487
 Naresh v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 1967 SC 1
 Riju Prasad Sharma v. State of Assam,
(2015) 9 SCC 461
of the body.
(2) Existence of deep and pervasive State control.
(3) Functional character of the body is governmental in
essence.
(4) Department of government is transferred to the
corporation.
(5) Whether the Corporation enjoys monopoly status which
is State conferred or State protected.
Supreme Court held that a Society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1898, is an agency or instrumentality
of the State and hence a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article
12. The court observed that the test is not how a juristic
person is created but why it has been brought into existence.
The question whether the judiciary comes under the word
‘State’ or not was considered by Supreme Court.
Supreme Court did not express any definitive opinion on the
matter. It said that even if the court is considered within the
meaning of ‘State’ a writ under Article 32 cannot be issued to
a High Court against its judicial orders. The Supreme Court
opined that such judicial orders cannot be said to violate the
fundamental rights.
Supreme Court categorically held that courts while acting on
judicial side, are not ‘State’ under Article 12 of the
Constitution. When the courts act in purely administrative
capacity then they may attract the writ jurisdiction against their
administrative actions. Thus, after this decision, the
position is amply clear that courts while acting on judicial side
are not ‘State’ but they may attract the trappings of ‘State’
when they act in administrative capacity.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: GENERAL

 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, The Supreme Court observed that fundamental rights
(1978) 1 SCC 248 represent the basic values cherished by the people of India
and they protect the dignity of an individual and create
conditions in which every human being can develop his
personality to the fullest extent.
 M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution has
AIR 2007 SC 71 confirmed the existence of fundamental rights and given
them protection. Individuals possess certain basic human
rights independently of any Constitution by reason of the
fact that they are humans.

12 Samarth Agrawal Books

 Recent and Landmark Case Laws
 Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694
 Behram v. State of Bombay,
AIR 1955 SC 123
Bashesher Nath v. Income Tax Commissioner,
AIR 1959 SC 149
Proportionality
 Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India,
(2020) 3 SCC 637
 Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India,
(2020) 3 SCC 637
 Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. State of Gujarat,
(2020) 10 SCC 459
 K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India,
(2017) 10 SCC 1
Samarth Agrawal Books
Supreme Court held that fundamental rights represent
basic values enriched by the people of India. It is to preserve
and protect certain basic human rights against the interference
of the State. The object is to ensure inviolability of certain
essential rights against political vicissitudes.
Supreme Court clarified that person cannot waive his Funda-
mental Rights. This option is not available to him. These
rights have not only been enshrined in the Constitution
for personal interest but also for benefits of entire society.
A decision which curtails fundamental rights without
appropriate justification will be classified as disproportionate.
The concept of proportionality requires a restriction to be
tailored in accordance with the territorial extent of the
restriction, the stage of emergency, the nature of urgency,
duration of such restrictive measure and nature of such
restriction.
Substantive justice under the fundamental rights analysis is
important, procedural justice cannot be sacrificed on the altar
of substantive justice. There is a need for procedural justice in
case relating to restrictions which impact individuals’
fundamental rights.
The principle of proportionality envisages an analysis of the
following conditions in order to determine the validity of
State Action that could impinge on fundamental rights:-
1. A law interfering with fundamental rights must be in
pursuance of legitimate State aim;
2. It must be based on existence of a rational connection
between those measures, the situation in fact and the
object sought to be achieved;
3. The measures must be necessary to achieve the object
and must not infringe rights to an extent greater than is
necessary to fulfill the aim;
4. Restrictions must not only serve legitimate purpose; they
must also be necessary to protect them;
5. The State must provide sufficient safeguard against the
abuse of such interference.
Proportionality is an essential facet of the guarantee against
arbitrary State action because it ensures that the nature and
quality of the encroachment on the right is not dis-
proportionate to the purpose of the law.
13
 Recent and Landmark Case Laws
 Christian Medical College, Vellore Association
v. Union of India, (2020) 8 SCC 705
RIGHT TO EQUALITY
 State of M.P. v. Amit Shrivas,
(2020) 10 SCC 496
 State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar,
AIR 1952 SC 75
 Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan,
AIR 1975 SC 2299
 R.K. Garg v. Union of India,
AIR 1981 SC 2138
 State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar,
AIR 1952 SC 75
 Chirinjit Lal v. Union of India,
AIR 1951 SC 41
14 Samarth Agrawal Books
In examining the reasonableness of a statutory provision
one has to keep in mind the following factors:-
1. The directive principles of State policy.
2. Restrictions must not be arbitrary or of an excessive
nature so as to go beyond the requirement of the general
public.
3. A just balance has to be struck between the restrictions
imposed and the social control.
4. Prevailing social values and social needs which are intended
to be satisfied by the restrictions.
5. There must be direct and proximate nexus or reasonable
connection between the restrictions imposed and the
object sought to be achieved.
Right to equality under Article 14 is not negative equality. If
some persons are given benefit wrongly, the same cannot
form basis for claiming similar relief. It cannot be relied upon
to perpetuate illegality or irregularity.
Supreme Court held that the expression 'equal protection of
laws' is a corollary to the expression 'equality before law' and
it is difficult to imagine a situation in which the violation of
the equal protection of law will not be violation of equality
before law.
Supreme Court held that Rule of Law embodied in Article 14
of the Constitution is the basic feature of the Constitution
and it cannot be destroyed by the amendment of the
Constitution.
Supreme Court held that Article 14 forbids class-legislation
but it does not prohibit reasonable classification.
Supreme Court held that differentia which is the basis of
the classification and the object of the Act are two different
things. It is important to have nexus between the basis of
classification and the object of the Act.
Supreme Court held that law may be constitutional even
though it applies to a single individual on account of special
circumstances. That single individual may be treated as a class.
The presumption of constitutionality is always in favour of
the statute and the person who challenges the constitutionality
has to show that law is arbitrary and unreasonable.
 Recent and Landmark Case Laws
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,
(2019) 17 SCC 490
RIGHT AGAINST EXPLOITATION
 People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union
of India, AIR 1982 SC 1943
 Deena v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1155
 People’s Union for Democratic Rights v.
Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1943
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 699
RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION
 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India,
AIR 1994 SC 1918
26 Samarth Agrawal Books
* Right to privacy as a fundamental right is not limited to
Article 21. It resonates through the entirety of Part III of
the Constitution. Privacy is also recognized as a natural
right which inheres in individual and is thus, inalienable.
* Privacy is both negative and positive concept. As a
negative concept it restrains the State from committing an
intrusion upon life of personal liberty of citizens. As a
positive obligation it imposes an obligation on the State
to take all necessary measures to protect the privacy of an
individual.
* Good and just social order is one which respects dignity.
Dignity is to be treated as ‘empowerment’ or right to
development.
It is an established principle of law that the right to life, as
envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the
right to a decent environment. The right to live in an
environment free from smoke and pollution follows from
the quality of life which is an inherent part of Article 21 of the
Constitution. The right to live with human dignity becomes
illusory in absence of a healthy environment.
Supreme Court held that a person who provides labour or
service to another for less than minimum wage also amounts
to forced labour.
Supreme Court held that labour taken from prisoners
without paying proper renumeration is violative of Article 23.
Supreme Court held that construction work is a dangerous
work and employment of children in construction industry
amounts to violation of Article 24.
Supreme Court held that children below the age of 14
years cannot be employed in any hazardous industry, mines
or other works. The court laid down guidelines to protect
economic, social and humanitarian rights of children.
Supreme Court held that secularism is the basic feature of
the Constitution. Indian Constitution embodies positive
concept of secularism. In matters of religion, the State is
neutral and treats every religion equally.
 Recent and Landmark Case Laws
 Aruna Roy v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 3176
 Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India,
(1994) 6 SCC 360
 Church of God (Full Gospel) of India v.
K.K.R.M.C. Welfare Association,
AIR 2000 SC 2773
 S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1
 Indian Young lawyers Association v. State
of Kerala (Sabarimala Temple Case),
(2019) 11 SCC 1
CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS
 Frank Anthony Public School Employees
Association v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 311
 T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka,
(2002) 8 SCC 481
Samarth Agrawal Books
Supreme Court held that study of religion in school is not
against secular philopshy of the Constitution. Secularism is
susceptible to positive meaning i.e. developing understanding
and respect towards different religions.
Supreme Court held that offer of prayer or worship is a
religious practice but offering at every location where such
prayers can be offered would not be an essential religious
practice.
Supreme Court held that no person can be allowed to
create noise pollution or disturb the peace of others while
exercising religious freedom. Religious prayers through
loudspeakers are not an essential element of any religion.
Supreme Court held that religious denominations must
satisfy the following requirements:-
(1) It must be a collection of individuals who have a system
of beliefs which they regard as conducive to their
spiritual well being.
(2) It must have a common organization.
(3) It must be designated by a distinctive name.
Right to freedom of religion is not absolute and must be
harmonized with other liberties and freedoms, and is subject
to constitutional morality.
Deity may be a juristic person for purpose of religious laws
and capable of asserting property rights. However, deity is
not a ‘person’ for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution.
Supreme Court held that idea of giving special rights to
minorities is to give them a sense of security and feeling of
confidence.
It was held that regulatory measures aimed at making
minority institutions effective instruments for imparting
education, without nullifying management’s right are
permissible.
Supreme Court laid down the following:-
(1) State is to be regarded as a unit for determining linguistic
as well as religious minority.
(2) Institutes which receive aid from the State could be
subject to government rules and regulations.
(3) In respect of unaided institutions only regulation which
the government may put is regarding the qualifications
and minimum conditions of eligibility of teachers and
principal.
27
 Recent and Landmark Case Laws

2 Code of Criminal Procedure

GENERAL PRINCIPLES
 Shivjee Singh v. Nagendra Tiwari,
AIR 2010 SC 2261
 (1) Mowu v. Superintendent Special Jail,
Nowgong, Assam, (1971) 3 SCC 936
(2) Saptawana v. State of Assam, (1972)
4 SCC (N) 945
(3) Naga People’s Movement of Human
Rights v. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 109
 Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families
Assn. v. Union of India, (2016) 14 SCC 536
Provisions of the Code are to be interpreted in light
of recognized principles of construction that procedural laws
are meant for doing substantial justice.
Supreme Court held that though the provisions of Cr.P.C.
are not applicable in certain districts of the State of Nagaland,
it only means that the rules of Cr.P.C. would not apply but
the authorities would be governed by the substance of these
rules.
Other enactments which prescribe procedure would not be
affected by the CrPC if such statute specifically provides for
the applicable procedure and derogates from the Code.

POWER OF COURTS
 Sharad Hiru Kolambe v. State of Maharashtra, Default sentence must be in excess of or in addition to the
(2018) 18 SCC 718 substantive sentence. Concurrent running of default sentence
inter se or with substantive sentence is not permissible.

 Gagan Kumar v. State of Punjab, The Supreme Court held that it is a mandatory legal require-
(2019) 5 SCC 154 ment to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused
convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently
or consecutively.

 Premnath v. State of Rajasthan, A civil judge cannot be invested with the powers of
AIR 1967 SC 1599 Additional Sessions Judge unless he is appointed as
Additional Sessions Judge under Section 9 of the Code.

 Gokarau v. Rangaraju, AIR 1981 SC 1473 Judgments pronounced by Sessions Judge cannot be
challenged on the ground that his appointment was
subsequently held to be invalid.

 Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana,
(2020) 10 SCC 92
In case of trial of offences under special law, the offences shall
be tried by the court specifically mentioned in the special law.
If the special law is silent about the court by which it can be
tried, then such an offence may be tried either by the High
Court or by any other court by which such offence is shown in
the First Schedule of Cr.P.C. to be triable.

42 Samarth Agrawal Books

 Recent and Landmark Case Laws
ARREST
 Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v.
Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 443
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273
 State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar,
(2008) 3 SCC 222
 Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.,
(1994) 4 SCC 260
 Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra,
(1983) 2 SCC 96
 Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar,
(2014) 8 SCC 273
 Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal,
(2007) 12 SCC 1
Samarth Agrawal Books
* The law of arrest is one of balancing individual rights,
liberties and privileges, on one hand and individual
duties, obligations and responsibilities on the other hand.
* No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere
allegation of commission of an offence made against a
person.
* No arrest should be made without reasonable satisfaction
reached after some investigation as to the genuineness
and bona fide of a complaint and a reasonable belief
both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the
need to effect arrest.
* A person accused of offence punishable with imprison-
ment for a term which may be less than seven years or
which may extend to seven years with or without fine,
cannot be arrested by the police unless conditions
mentioned in Section 41(1)(b) have been fulfilled.
Custody and arrest are not synonymous terms. In every arrest
there is custody but not vice-versa. Custody may amount to
arrest in certain cases but not in all cases. Custody is physical
control or presence of accused in court coupled with
submission to the jurisdiction of the court. A person can be
in custody when police arrests him or when he surrenders
before the court.
The registration of FIR and arrest of accused person are two
different things. It is not correct to say that merely because
FIR is registered the accused can be arrested.
Supreme Court held that accused person must be informed
by Magistrate about his right to be medically examined.
Police officers were directed not to automatically arrest where
a case is registered under Section 498-A IPC and also in cases
where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may be less than seven years or which may extend to 7.
They have to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest
under the parameters laid down in Section 41, Cr. P.C.
Arrest and imprisonment means deprivation of the most
precious right of an individual. Therefore, the courts have to
be extremely careful before issuing non-bailable warrants. Just
as liberty is precious for an individual so is the interest of the
society in maintaining law and order. Both are extremely
important for the survival of a civilized society. Non-bailable
43
 Recent and Landmark Case Laws
MAINTENANCE
 Nanak Chandra v. Chandra Kishore, (1969)
3 SCC 802
 Yamunabai v. Anantrao, AIR 1988 SC 644,
Savitaben v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2005 SC 1089
 Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee v. State of West
Bengal and Anr ,
Cr. Appeal No. (s) 232-233 of 2015
decided on 19.09.19
 D. Velusamy v. D Patchaiammal,
(2010) 10 SCC 469
 Vijay Manohar v. Kashi Rao Raja Ram,
AIR 1987 SC 1100
Samarth Agrawal Books
(c) The fact of the arrest should be immediately
communicated to the District and Sessions Judge and
the Chief Justice of the High Court.
(d) The judicial officer shall not be taken to the police station,
without the prior order or directions of the District and
Sessions Judge of the concerned district.
(e) Ordinarily, there should be no handcuffing of the judicial
officer.
(f) Immediate facilities should be provided to the judicial
officer for communication with his family members, legal
advisers and judicial officers.
(g) No statement of judicial officer who is under arrest
should be recorded nor any panchnama be drawn up
nor any medical tests be conducted except in the presence
of the legal advisor of the judicial officer.
Provisions contained in Sections 125-128 are applicable to all
persons belonging to all religions and have no relationship
with personal law of the parties.
The term ‘wife’ means legally wedded wife. Second wife can-
not claim maintenance.
Supreme Court held that a wife, who has been divorced by
the husband, on the ground that the wife has deserted him,
is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
Woman who is in marriage like relationship, though not
legally married, can claim maintenance. The court held that
not all live-in-relationships will amount to relationships in
nature of marriage. ‘Relationship in nature of marriage’ must
fulfil following conditions:-
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as akin
to spouses;
(b) They must be of legal age to marry;
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal
marriage;
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited for a significant
period of time.
Daughter whether (married or not) would also be liable to
pay maintenance.
45
 Recent and Landmark Case Laws
 State of M.P. v. Chhaakki Lak, (2019) 12 SCC 326
Satpal v. State of Haryana, (2018) 6 SCC 610
Latesh v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 3 SCC 66
 Sunil Khergade v. State of Maharashtra,
(2016) 15 SCC 773
 Motiram Padu Joshi v. State of Maharashtra,
(2018) 9 SCC 429
 Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat, (1973) 3 SCC 114
 Patai alias Krishna Kumar v. State of
Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 2254
 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335
 Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh,
2013 (13) SCALE 559
 Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v.
Union of India,
(2018) 10 SCC 443
 Gajanan Dashrath Kharate v. State of
Maharashtra, (2016) 4 SCC 604 & Mukesh v.
State of NCT of Delhi, (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 673
 Damodarprasad Chandrikaprasad v. State of
Maharashtra, (1972) 1 SCC 107
Samarth Agrawal Books
FIR is not an encyclopedia requiring every minute details of
occurrence to be mentioned therein.
First information report need not necessarily contain details
of each and every injury sustained by the deceased.
Omission as to the names of assailants or witnesses may not
at all times be fatal to the prosecution if the FIR is lodged
without delay.
Even a telephonic message if it discloses a cognizable offence
may constitute FIR.
In order for the information to be qualified as an FIR there
must be something in the nature of complaint or accusation
regarding commission of a cognizable offence. A cryptic mes-
age recording an occurrence cannot be termed as an FIR.
The word ‘information’ in Section 154 is not qualified by the
term ‘reasonable’. By omitting the word ‘reasonable’ and
‘credible’ the intent of legislature is clear that no discretion is
given to the police to lodge the FIR.
Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 if the
information discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence and no preliminary inquiry is needed in such
situation. However, in certain types of cases preliminary
inquiry can be conducted before registration of FIR. These
cases are:-
1. Matrimonial/family disputes
2. Commercial offences
3. Medical negligence cases
4. Corruption cases
5. Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating
criminal proceedings.
Preliminary inquiry before registration of FIR may be held in
cases relating to matrimonial/family disputes. Preliminary
inquiry does not mean to verify the veracity of information
but to ascertain whether the information discloses any
cognizable offence.
The object of insisting upon prompt registration of FIR is
to obtain early information not only regarding the accused
but also about the part played by the accused, nature of
incident and name of witnesses.
FIR is an important document and it sets the criminal
law in motion. It is not a substantive piece of evidence
i.e. evidence of the facts recorded in it.
49
 Recent and Landmark Case Laws
Section 156
 H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196
 Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi,
(2007) 12 SCC 641
 Srinivas Gundluri v. SEPCO Electric Power
Construction Corpn., (2010) 8 SCC 2006
 Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2008) 2 SCC 409
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant
Yashwant Dhage,
(2016) 6 SCC 277
 A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak,
(1992) 1 SCC 225
P. Ramchandra Rao v. State of Karnataka,
(2002) 4 SCC 578
 Suresh Chandra Jain v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2001(42) ACC 459
 Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat,
(2019) 17 SCC 1
 Ahmad Quraishi v. State of U.P.,
(2020) 13 SCC 435
Samarth Agrawal Books
Section 156(2) makes it clear that any irregularity in investiga-
tion will not vitiate the trial.
Even if an FIR has been registered and even if the police has
made the investigation, or is actually making the investigation
which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person
can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) and if the
Magistrate is satisfied, he can order a proper investigation and
take suitable steps.
Even if a complaint is filed then also Magistrate instead of
taking cognizance on complaint can order investigation
under Section 156(3).
The Magistrate also has the implied and incidental
powers to make any express power effective. When the
Magistrate orders investigation under Section 156(3) and
police officer does not investigate or investigates improperly
then there is no need to approach High Court under Section
482 of the Code or under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Magistrate himself has incidental power to pass another
order of investigation or proper investigation under Section
156(3). This does not mean that the Magistrate will interfere
in the investigation.
The court shall not interfere in the investigation proceedings
as that is the prerogative of the executive.
Supreme Court held that the Magistrate has the authority to
treat application under Section 156(3) as a complaint.
Magistrate’s power under Section 156(3) is very wide. All
powers necessary which may also be incidental or implied are
available to the Magistrate to ensure a proper investigation in
the matter. The power includes ordering of further
investigation after submission of police report under Section
173(2) Cr.P.C.
Magistrate can invoke power under Section 156(3) CrPC even
at post-cognizance stage.
Rejection of application under Section 156(3) does not preclude
the complainant from filing complaint under Section 200.
51
 Recent and Landmark Case Laws
 Gurbachan Singh v State of Punjab,
AIR 1957 SC 623
 Prabhu Dutt Tiwari v. State of U.P.,
(2018) 13 SCC 609
 P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala,
2019 Supreme (SC) 1306
 P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala,
(2020) 9 SCC 161
 K. Sitaram v. CFL Capital Financial
Service Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 725
 State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed
Hasanfatta, 2019 (2) JT 212
 A. v. State of U.P., (2020) 10 SCC 505
CHARGE
 Birichh Bhuian v. State of Bihar,
AIR 1963 SC 1120
Samarth Agrawal Books
The object of furnishing the accused person with copies of
the statements and documents as mentioned above is to put
him on notice of what he has to meet at the time of inquiry
or trial and to prepare himself for his defence.
At the stage of summoning accused on the basis of a private
complaint, all that is required is satisfaction by Magistrate,
that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused
in the light of the records made and the evidence adduced by
the accused.
The Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate cannot
withhold any document submitted by the investigating
officer along with the police report except when it is
voluminous. In case of voluminous documents, the accused
can be permitted to take inspection of the concerned
document either personally or through his pleader in court.
Furnishing of documents required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
is a facet of right of accused to a fair trial under Article 21 of
the Constitution. Magistrate’s duty under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
is in nature of administrative work whereby he is required to
ensure full compliance with that section.
Unless magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground to
proceed or sufficient material to justify the issue of process,
he should not order issue of process. Wide discretion given
under the law to Magistrate with respect to grant or refusal of
process should be exercised with proper care and caution.
Supreme Court explained the procedure to be adopted by a
Magistrate in a case instituted upon a Police Report. The court
observed that in summoning the accused, it is not necessary
for the Magistrate to examine the merits and demerits of the
case and whether the materials collected is adequate for
supporting the conviction. Magistrate is not required to record
reasons for summoning accused in cases instituted on Police
Report
Right to receive the copy of the statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. will arise only after cognizance is taken at a stage
contemplated under Section 207 and 208 Cr.P.C.
Charge can be defined as a precise formulation of specific accusa-
tion made against a person of an offence alleged to have been
committed by him.
61
 Recent and Landmark Case Laws
 Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar
AIR 2009 SC 1013
 Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajivbhai
Dudabhai Patel, (2018) 7 SCC 743
 State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav,
(2017) 8 SCC 1
 State v. S. Selvi, (2018) 13 SCC 455.
 Mala Singh v. State of Haryana,
(2019) 5 SCC 127
 Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy v. State of A.P.,
(2020) 12 SCC 467
 Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam, (2020) 2 SCC 217
Samarth Agrawal Books
There is no scope for the accused to produce any evidence in
support of the submissions made on his behalf at the stage
of framing of charge and only such material as are indicated
in S. 227 Cr. PC. can be taken into consideration by the
Magistrate at that stage.
Erroneous, irregular or absence of specific charge does not
render conviction invalid unless failure of justice has
occasioned.
Separate trial is a rule and joint trial is an exception. Joint trial
would be improper if the court allows innumerable offences
spread over long period of time and committed by large
number of persons to be tried jointly under the protective
wings of an all-embracing conspiracy.
At the time of framing of charge probative value of material
on record has to be gone into which proceeds on presumption
that materials produced by prosecution is true but the court is
not expected to go deep into the matter. If two views are
equally possible and the judge is satisfied on the basis of
evidence produced that there is some suspicion but not grave
suspicion then he will be justified in discharging the accused.
A combined reading or Sections 216, 386 and 464 of CrPC
would reveal that an alteration of charge where no prejudice is
caused to the accused or the prosecution is well within the
powers and jurisdiction of the court including appellate court.
It is only when any omission to frame charge initially or till
culmination of the proceedings or at the appellate stage results
in failure of justice or causes prejudice, the same may result in
vitiating the trial in appropriate case.
The alteration and addition of a charge may be done, if in the
opinion of the court there was omission in the framing of
charge or if upon prima facie examination of the materials
brought on record, it leads the court to form a presumptive
opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients constituting
the offence. The test to be adopted by the court is that the
material brought on record needs to have a direct link or
nexus with the ingredients of alleged offence.
At the time of framing of charge only prima facie case is to be
seen. Whether the case is beyond reasonable doubt is not to
be seen at this stage. Court has to see if there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. Judge is not
required to write detailed reason as to why such charge is
framed.
63
 Recent and Landmark Case Laws

3 Code of Civil Procedure

GENERAL PRINCIPLES
 Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal,
AIR 1955 SC 425
 Salem Advocates Bar Association (II) v. Union
of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353
 Westarly Dkhar v. Sehekaya Lyngdoh,
(2015) 4 SCC 292
 Mahohar Lal v. Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527
 Ram Lal and others v. Salig Ram and others
AIR 2019 SC 729
 Jai Jai Ram Manohar v. National Building
Material Supply, AIR 1969 SC 1267
 Prem LalaNahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria,
AIR 2007 SC 1247
 State of Madras v. C.P. Agencies,
AIR 1960 SC 1309
 State of U.P. v. C.B. Mishra, AIR 1980 SC 591
Code is designed to facilitate justice and hence too technical
construction of provisions should not be made. Provisions
should be construed liberally and technical objections should
not be taken up.
The Preamble of the Code states that the object of the Code
is two fold; (1) to consolidate and (2) to amend the laws
relating to the procedure to be followed in civil courts. It is a
procedure designed to facilitate justice and further its ends;
not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties.
In the areas to which the Code does not extend, the courts
in such areas shall be guided by spirit of the Code.
Code is exhaustive on the matters specifically dealt in it. How-
ever, the legislature is incapable of contemplating all possible
circumstances that may arise in civil litigation therefore, with
regard to those circumstances the court has inherent powers
to act according to principles of justice, equity and good
conscience. Such inherent powers of the court is saved under
Section 151 of the Code.
The Supreme Court has observed that irregularity in the
report of the Local Commissioner appointed for local
investigation cannot be a ground for dismissal of a civil suit.
A party cannot be refused relief merely because of some
mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the
rules of procedure.
The Code consolidates and amends the laws relating to the
procedure of the courts of civil judicature. No doubt it also
deals with certain substantive rights. But its essential object is
to consolidate the law relating to civil procedure.
The term ‘cause of action’ connotes all categories of facts
which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in
order to entitle him to a decree in suit.
The word ‘Code’ includes not only sections but also rules in
the First Schedule and Rules made by High Courts amending
the Rules in First Schedule.

78 Samarth Agrawal Books

 Recent and Landmark Case Laws
 Shivnarayan (D) by LRs v. Maniklal (D) by LRs
2019 (1) RCR (Civil) 985
 Abdulla Bin Ali v. Galappa, AIR 1985 SC 577
 M.S. Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 1979 SC 404
 LIC v. India Automobiles, AIR 1991 SC 884
 Official Trustee v. Sachindra, AIR 1965 SC 823
 Union of India v. Ladlu Lal Jain,
AIR 1963 SC 1681
 Om Prakash Agrawal v. Vishan Dayal Rajpoot,
(2019) 14 SCC 526
 Sneh Lata Goel v. Pushplata, (2019) 3 SCC 594
Samarth Agrawal Books
The Supreme Court interpreted Section 17 of the Code of
Civil Procedure and observed that, a suit in respect to
immovable property or properties situate in jurisdiction of
different courts may be instituted in any court within whose
local limits of jurisdiction, any portion of the property or
one or more properties may be situated. The interpretation
of word "portion of the property" in Section 17 cannot only
be understood in a limited and restrictive sense of being
portion of one property situated in jurisdiction of two courts.
The jurisdiction of the court has to be decided on the
allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint and not on the
allegations made by the defendant in the written statement.
Every court or tribunal is not only entitled but bound to
determine whether the matter in which it is asked to exercise
its jurisdiction comes within its jurisdiction or not.
When a court of limited jurisdiction has jurisdiction to
decide only a particular dispute, it has jurisdiction to consider
collateral issue only prima facie and the jurisdiction of a civil
court to decide such issue finally is not taken away.
Court laid down following principle with regard to the deter-
mination of jurisdiction:-
1. A court can be held to have jurisdiction to decide a particular
matter if the court is competent to try the suit and at the
same time it has jurisdiction to pass the order sought.
2. Jurisdiction of a court must include the power to hear
and decide the question in issue.
Section 20 is designed to ensure that the defendant should
not be put to trouble and expense of travelling long distance
in order to defend himself. Section 20 is a residuary section
and covers all the cases not dealt in by Sections 15-19.
The policy underlying Section 21 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is that when the case has been tried by a court on
merits and the judgment has been rendered, it should not be
liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it has
resulted in failure of justice. If the objections as to territorial
or pecuniary jurisdictions are not taken at the earliest possible
opportunity then it cannot be allowed to be taken at a
subsequent stage.
Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it clear that
an objection as to the want of territorial jurisdiction does not
go to the root of the jurisdiction. It does not constitute
inherent lack of jurisdiction.
81
 Recent and Landmark Case Laws
 Asgar v. Mohan Verma
2019 (2) Supreme 53
 Asgar v. Mohan Verma, (2020) 16 SCC 230
 Sulochana Amma v. Narayana Nair, JT
(1993) (5) SC 450
 Pandurang v. Shantabai, AIR 1989 SC 2240
 Vithal Yeshwant v. Shikandarkhan,
AIR 1963 SC 385
 Sheodhan Singh v. Daryo Kumar,
AIR 1966 SC 1332
 Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal,
AIR 1986 SC 391
 State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain,
AIR 1977 SC 1680
Samarth Agrawal Books
 There must be a conflict of interest between co-plaintiffs
and co-defendants;
 It must be necessary to decide such conflict in order to
give relief to the plaintiff;
 The questions between co-defendants and co-plaintiffs
must be finally decided;
 Co-defendants/plaintiffs were necessary or proper
parties in the former suit.
Liberty granted by court to avail 'appropriate remedies' to a
party does not bar application of principle of constructive res
judicata when the person invokes such a remedy.
In deciding as to whether a matter might have been urged in
the earlier proceedings, the court must ask itself as to whether
it could have been urged in the earlier proceedings. The court
must have due regard to the ambit of the earlier proceedings
and the nexus which the matters bears to the nature of the
controversy.
Rule of res judiciata would apply to all judicial proceedings
whether civil (including arbitration, taxation etc.) or criminal.
It equally applies to all quasi judicial proceedings of the
tribunal’s administrative order.
A matter in respect of which no relief is claimed cannot
become ‘directly and substantially’ in issue, even if a decree is
passed by a competent court.
Where there are findings on several issues or where the court
rests decision on more than one points, the findings on all
issues or points will be res judicata.
Decision on the former suit must have been on merits and so
matter cannot be said to be finally decided when the former
suit was dismissed by trial court for want of jurisdiction or
for default of plaintiff’s appearance, or on the ground of
non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties etc.
The words ‘might and ought’ have wide amplitude. The word
‘might’ conveys the idea of possibility of joining all grounds
of attack or defence and ‘ought’ carries the idea of propriety
of so joining. The test is whether the parties had the
opportunity of raising the plea and if they had, the matter
will be treated as actually raised and decided.
The general principles of res judicata and constructive res
judiciata will be applicable to writ petitions.
85
 Recent and Landmark Case Laws
 Vaijinath v. Afsar Begum, (2020) 15 SCC 128
 M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1
FOREIGN JUDGMENTS
 Sardar Maloji, Nar Singh Roa v. Sankar Saran,
AIR 1962 SC 1767
 Vishwanathan v. Abdul Wajid,
AIR 1963 SC 21
 Narsimha Rao v. Venkata Lakshmi,
(1991) 3 SCC 451
 Satya v. Teja Singh, AIR 1975 SC 105
PARTIES TO SUIT
 Swapna Mohanty v. State of Odisha,
(2018) 17 SCC 621
Globe Ground (India) Employees Union v.
Lufthansa German Airlines, (2019) 15 SCC 273
Samarth Agrawal Books
Binding character of judgments pronounced by courts of
competent jurisdiction has always been treated as essential
part of rule of law. Even erroneous decision on question of
law operates as res judicata. A wrong decision of a competent
court is as much binding as a right one.
Section 11, Explanation VI is not confined to cases covered
by Order 1 Rule 8. It extends to include any litigation in which
apart from Order 1 Rule 8 parties are entitled to represent
interested persons other than themselves. Provisions of Order
1 Rule 8 do not control applicability of Section 11, Explanation
VI.
Rules laid down in Section 13 are rules of substantive law and
not merely procedural law.
Judgment pronounced must be by a competent foreign court
both by law of the State which constituted it and in inter-
national sense. It must also directly adjudicate upon the
matter which is pleaded as res judiciata.
Foreign judgments in matrimonial matters will be recognized
by Indian courts, if the jurisdiction assumed by the foreign
court as well as the grounds on which the relief is granted is in
accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties
are married.
The rules of private international law of each State vary on
different things in different sense but by the comity of
nations certain rules are recognized as common to civilized
jurisdiction. Such recognition is accorded on the
considerations of justice, equity and good conscience.
It is well established principle of Public International Law
that if a foreign judgment is obtained by fraud, it will not
operate as res judiciata. Fraud vitiates all judicial acts.
Necessary party is a person whose presence is necessary in
order to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle
all issues raised in a dispute. It is a party in absence of whom
no effective order can be made. A proper party is one in whose
absence effective order can be made, but whose presence is
necessary for complete and final decision.
87
 Recent and Landmark Case Laws
 Samir Narayan Bhojwani v. Aurora Properties
and Investment, (2018) 17 SCC 203
 Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G.
Cricket, 2003(1) SCALE 388
 U.C. Surendranath v. Mambally’s Bakery,
(2019) 20 SCC 666
APPEALS, REVIEW & REVISION
Appeals
 Gujarat Agro Industries Ltd. v. Municipal
Corporation, AIR 1999 SC 1818
 Bhivchandra Shankar More vs. Balu
Gangaram, (2019) 6 SCC 387
 R.S. Anjayya Gupta v. Thippaiah Setty,
(2019) 7 SCC 300
 Thulasidhara v. Narayanappa, (2019) 6 SCC 409
 Thulasidhara v. Narayanappa, (2019) 6 SCC 409
 Gurnam Singh v. Lehna Singh, (2019) 7 SCC 641
Samarth Agrawal Books
Interim mandatory injunction can only be granted in circum-
stances which are clear and the prima facie material clearly
justify a finding that the status quo has been altered by one of
the parties and the interest of the justice demands that the
status quo ante be restored.
The moulding of relief can be considered at the time of
consideration of final relief and not at the interlocutory stage.
When a court restrains a party to a suit or proceedings before
it from instituting or prosecuting a case in another court
including a foreign court it is called ‘anti-suit injunction’.
For finding a person guilty under Order 39 Rule 2-A there has
to be not mere ‘disobedience’ but ‘wilful disobedience’.
Allegation of willful disobedience has to be proved to the
satisfaction of the court.
Appeal is a creature of statute and it is not an inherent right.
Supreme Court held that the right of appeal under Section
96(2) CPC is a statutory right and the defendant cannot be
deprived of the statutory right of appeal merely on the ground
that the application filed by him under Order IX Rule 13 CPC
has been dismissed.
In first appeal the parties have the right to be heard on both
question of law as well as on facts. The court is required to
address itself to all the aspects and decide the case by ascribing
reasons.
Interference with the concurrent findings of facts by High
Court in second appeal is permissible when the material or
relevant evidence not considered or when the findings are
arrived at by relying on inadmissible evidence by the first
appellate court.
Formulation of substantial question of law is sine qua non
for exercising jurisdiction in Second Appeal.
In Second Appeal the High Court cannot substitute its own
opinion for that of the first appellate court, unless it finds
that the conclusions drawn by the lower court were erroneous
being:-
97
 Recent and Landmark Case Laws
 Chunnilal Mehta v. Century Spinning and
Mgf. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314
 Triloki Nath Singh v. Aniruddh Singh,
(2020) 6 SCC 629
 U. Manjunath Rao v. U. Chandrashekhar,
(2017) 15 SCC 309
 A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A Subbaraj Chettiar,
(2015) 17 SCC 713
 Sugandhi (dead) v. P. Rajkumar,
Civil appeal no. 3427 of 2020
 Vaijinath v. Afsar Begum, (2020) 15 SCC 128
Samarth Agrawal Books
Supreme Court laid down the following principles regarding
‘substantial question of law’-
1. If the question is of general public importance, or it
directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties.
2. It is an open question, that is to say it is not finally
settled by Supreme Court or Privy Council or Federal
Court.
Where a party to the compromise denies execution of such
compromise, right has been given under Order 43. R. 1-A(2)
to raise a challenge. Section 96(3) will not bar such appeals.
Section 96(3) is applicable where factum of compromise is
not disputed. Civil suit filed by the stranger to the compromise
challenging the legality of compromise is not maintainable.
In the first appeal parties have right to be heard both on the
question of facts and on question of law. The first appellate
court is required to address itself to all aspects and decide the
case by ascribing reasons. First appellate court has defined role
and its judgment should show application of mind and
reflect reasons on the basis of which it agrees with the trial
court. There must be ‘expression of opinion’ in the proper
sense.
Generally parties are not entitled to produce additional evidence
at the appellate stage unless the conditions mentioned in
Order 41 Rule 27 are fulfilled. The words ‘requires any
document to be produced or any witness to be examined to
enable it to pronounce judgment’ appearing in Order 41 Rule
27(1)(b) needs to be understood to mean ability to pronounce
judgment satisfactorily.
Courts should take a lenient view when an application is made
by defendant for production of the document which he was
not able to produce along with the written statement.
Where a decision is given on merits by trial court and matter
is taken in appeal and appeal is dismissed on some preliminary
ground, it must be held that such dismissal when it confirms
the decision of trial courts on merits itself amounts to appeal
being heard and finally decided on merits whatever may be
the ground for dismissal of appeal.
99