some important cases by Supreme Court

Adverse possession - Person claiming adverse possession is required to establish (1) the date on which he came in possession; (2) nature of possession; (3) the factum of possession; (4) knowledge to the true owner; (5) duration of possession and (6) possession was open and undisturbed. 2011(1) Civil Court Cases 699 (S.C.)

Arbitrator - Can itself decide the issue as to existence of arbitration agreement when proceedings are initiated before a nominated arbitral Tribunal. 2011(1) Civil Court Cases 800 (S.C.)

Arbitrator - Existence of an arbitration agreement questioned - If answer is in the affirmative only then an Arbitrator can be appointed. 2011(1) Civil Court Cases 800 (S.C.)

Court while exercising power u/s 482 or exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 397 Cr.P.C. can look into uncontroverted documents, placed on record by accused, which on the face of it are beyond suspicion or doubt. 2011(1) Criminal Court Cases 740 (S.C.)

Dishonour of cheque - Exemption from person appearance - It is discretion of Court to exempt an accused from personal appearance. 2011(1) Criminal Court Cases 697 (S.C.)

Dishonour of cheque - Exemption of personal appearance - It is discretion of Magistrate to dispense with the rigour of personal examination of the accused u/s 313 of the Code as well. 2011(1) Civil Court Cases 729 (S.C.)

Dishonour of cheque - Personal examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. can be dispensed with whose personal appearance has been dispensed with. 2011(1) Criminal Court Cases 697 (S.C.)



Hindu Law - No evidence that property was inherited or joint - Same has to be held to be self acquired property. 2011(1) Civil Court Cases 641 (S.C.)

Inherent power of Court - Every procedure is permitted to the Court for doing justice unless expressly prohibited and not that every procedure is prohibited unless expressly permitted. 2011(1) Civil Court Cases 717 (S.C.)

Jurisdiction - A case cannot be transferred when filed in a Court having no jurisdiction at all to hear it. 2011(1) Apex Court Judgments 424 (S.C.)

Notice - Sent under postal certificate - No allegation that postal certificate was procured - Presumption is that notice was duly served. 2011(1) Civil Court Cases 650 (S.C.)



Specific performance - Ready and willing - Words "ready" and "willing" imply that the person was prepared to carry out the terms of the contact - Distinction between the two is that the former refers to financial capacity and the latter to the conduct of the plaintiff wanting performance - Generally, readiness is backed by willingness. 2011(1) Civil Court Cases 846 (S.C.)



Withdrawal of withdrawal application to withdraw the suit is maintainable. 2011(1) Civil Court Cases 717 (S.C.)

Accused in criminal case has constitutional right to be defended: SC

The Supreme Court has ruled that an accused in a criminal case has a constitutional right to be represented and defended by a lawyer.

A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra while allowing the appeal of Sukur Ali noted, 'The founding fathers of our Constitution were freedom fighters themselves who had seen civil liberties of our people trampled under foreign rule, and who had themselves been incarcerated for long period under the formula 'na wakil, na dalil, na appeal' (No lawyer, no hearing, no appeal).

'Many of them were lawyers by profession and knew the importance of counsel, particularly in criminal cases.

'It was for this reason that they provided for assistance by counsel under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and that provision must be given the widest construction to effectuate the intention of the founding fathers.' The apex court directed the Gauhati High Court to rehear the case again either after hearing a counsel to be engaged by the accused or through a counsel practicing on the criminal side as amicus curie to be appointed by the court and decide the case after fixing another date.

The court ruled that an accused cannot be made to suffer for the lapse/absence of his lawyer.

It also relied on the judgements of the US Supreme Court and quoted from the speech of honourable Srinivasa Sastri who while speaking in the Imperial Legislative Council at the introduction of the Rowlatt Bill on February 7, 1919 opposing the ban on the appearance of counsel said, 'When government undertakes a repressive policy, the innocent are not safe.

'Man like me would not be considered innocent. The innocent then is he who forswears politics, who takes no part in the public movements of the time, who retires into his house, mumbles his prayers, pays his taxes, and salaams all the government officials all round.

'Much better that a few rascals should walk abroad than that the honest man should be obliged for fear of the law of the land to remain shut up in his house, to refrain from the activities which it is in his nature to indulge in, to abstain from all political and public work merely because there is dreadful law in the land.' UNI