SC Judgments

32 Years of Litigation and Yet to Arrive at Final Determination
Ishwaragouda & Ors. v. Mallikarjun Gowda & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 5878 of 2002. Date of Judgment 7-11-08

A cause of action that arose as a result of the operation of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Two close relatives are claiming occupancy right on the same property. The issue has been handled by multiple forums and finally reached SC, interestingly, not for final determination, but to decide whether the HC was right in its holding about the jurisdiction. The road hasn't ended for the parties to reach a final decision, they have miles to go.

Electiricity - a 'Good' and the Nature and Freedom of the Supplier for Entering into a Contract for Supply of Electricity
Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s. DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No.6565 of 2008 . Date of Judgment 7-11-08

Relevant Portion of the Judgment

"9. The supply of electricity by a distributor to a consumer is `sale of goods'. The distributor as the supplier, and the owner/ occupier of a premises with whom it enters into a contract for supply of electricity are the parties to the contract. A transferee of the premises or a subsequent
occupant of a premises with whom the supplier has no privity of contract cannot obviously be asked to pay the dues of his predecessor in title or possession, as the amount payable towards supply of electricity does not constitute a `charge' on the premises. A purchaser of a premises, cannot be foisted with the electricity dues of any previous occupant, merely because he happens to be the current owner of the premises. The supplier can therefore neither file a suit nor initiate revenue recovery proceedings against a purchaser of a premises for the outstanding electricity dues of the vendor of the premises, in the absence of any contract to the contrary.

10. ... When the purchaser of a premises approaches the distributor seeking a fresh electricity connection to its premises for supply of electricity, the distributor can stipulate the terms subject to which it would supply electricity. It can stipulate as one of the conditions for supply, that the arrears due in regard to the supply of electricity made to the premises when it was in the occupation of the previous owner/occupant, should be cleared before the electricity supply is restored to the premises or a fresh connection is provided to the premises. If any statutory rules govern the conditions relating to sanction of a connection or supply of electricity, the distributor can insist upon fulfillment of the requirements of such rules and regulations. If the rules are silent, it can stipulate such terms and conditions as it deems fit and proper, to regulate its transactions and dealings. So long as such rules and regulations or the terms and conditions are not arbitrary and unreasonable, courts will not interfere with them."

Restatement of the Principles to be Followed While Superior Court Sit in Appeal over the Acquital Order of the Lower Court

State of Haryana v. Krishan Criminal Appeal No. 915 of 2003. Date of Judgment 7-11-08

1. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based.

2. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal.

3. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.

4. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented

5. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not

6. The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are substantial reasons for doing so.

7. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and irrelevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a substantial reason for interference.