In Lachmeshwar v. Keshwar Lal, A.I.R. 1941 F.C. 5 is an authority for holding that the hearing of appeal under the procedural law of India is in the nature of re-hearing and therefore in moulding the relief to be granted in a case on appeal, the appellate court is entitled to take into account even facts and events which have come into existence after the decree appealed against. Consequently, the appellate court is competent to take into account legislative changes since the decision under appeal was given and its powers are not confined only to see whether the lower court’s decision was correct according to the law as it stood at the time when its decision was given. Once the decree of the High Court has been appealed against, the matter became sub judice again and thereafter this court had seisin of the whole case, though for certain purposes e.g., execution, the decree was regarded as final and the courts below retained jurisdiction in that regard. This was followed in Shyabuddinsab v. The Gadag-Betgeri Municipal Borough,  1 S.C.R. 1268 where after the judgment of the High Court and after grant of special leave by this court the legislation was passed, and it was applied by this Court. Their lordships, referring to The King v. The General Com- missioner of Income Tax,  2 K.B. 249 and Mukharjee Official Receiver v. Ramratan Kaur,  L.R. 63 I.A. 47 rejected the contention that unless there are express words in the amending statute to the effect that the amendment shall apply to pending proceedings, it cannot affect the proceedings. In Dayawati v. Inderjit,  3 S.C.R. 275 it has been held that the word ‘suit’ includes an appeal from the judgment in the suit. The only difference between a suit and an appeal is that an appeal only reviews and corrects and proceedings in a cause already constituted but does not create the cause. In Mohanlal Jain v. His Highness Maharaja Shri Man Singh,  1 S.C.R. 702 it was observed that “A person is “sued” not only when the plaint is filed against him, but is “sued” also when the suit remained pending against him. The word “sued” covers the entire proceeding, in an action.” In Amerjit Kaur v. Pritam Singh,  1 S.C.R. 605 it has been held that an appeal is a reheating and in moulding relief to be granted in a case on appeal, the appellate court is entitled to take into account even facts and events which have come into existence after the passing of the decree appealed against. [Mithilesh Kumari & Anr vs Prem Behari Khare] [All SC 1989 February] 1989 AIR 1247
SUPREME COURT UPDATES
A. GOSWAMI VS UOI: SC upheld Press Rights, stayed FIRs except one while restraining coercive action, allowed three weeks for Bail-24/04/2020April 24, 2020
Only 50% Job Reservation is Permissible: SC said in CHEBROLU LEELA PRASAD RAO VS STATE OF A.P – 22/04/2020April 23, 2020
- April 15, 2020
- April 6, 2020
SC quashed reassessment Notice demanded Rs 405.09 cr by IT from NDTV but allowed to send a fresh Notice U/S 147 of IT ACTApril 5, 2020
SC issued notice to States Prison Depts, to show cause why directions should not be issued for dealing Corona virus crisisMarch 17, 2020
- February 18, 2020
Political parties must publish on party websites and other media about candidates with criminal background: SCFebruary 13, 2020
Despite not providing for anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act, however Court can quash FIRs for want of Prima facie case: SCFebruary 11, 2020
SC can`t direct Govt to provide reservation and States are not bound to make reservation for ST and SC in matters of promotions.February 10, 2020
Current Supreme Court Judgments
- May 9, 2020
QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT-The learned counsel for the accused No. 5 was at pains to persuade us that the said accused is now about 70/75 years of age and at this distance of time, it may not be appropriate to send him back to jail. Taking overall view of the matter, we are not impressed by this submission. Even in case of offence under Section 326, IPC, which commended to the High Court, the same was punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten years and also liable to fine. Had it been a conviction under Section 326, as aforesaid, the sentence of only about five months in the facts of the present case, by no stretch of imagination, was adequate.
- May 9, 2020
Whether the decree passed on a compromise can be challenged by the stranger to the proceedings in a separate suit?
The appellant could file a suit for protection of his right, title or interest devolved on the basis of the stated sale deed dated 6th January, 1984, allegedly executed by one of the party (Sampatiya) to the proceedings in the partition suit, which could be examined independently by the Court on its own merits in accordance with law.
- May 8, 2020
The common parlance test”, “marketability test”, “popular meaning test” are all tools for interpretation to arrive at a decision on proper classification of a tariff entry. These tests, however, would be required to be applied if a particular tariff entry is capable of being classified in more than one heads.