Supreme Court Cases

Latest Supreme Court Judgments


The appellants expressly consented to a voice sample being drawn in their response to the application that was filed by the investigating officer before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. This was reiterated before the High Court. In the submissions which have been urged in these proceedings, the learned counsel has specifically stated that the appellants would abide by the consent which they had furnished to their voice samples being drawn. That being the position, the only surviving issue for this Court is to ensure that the underlying process for drawing the voice samples is fair and reasonable, having due regard to the mandate of Article 21. On the other hand, it is not open to the accused to dictate the course of investigation. Hence, we do not find substance in the submission that the text which is to be read by the appellants in the course of drawing their voice samples should contain no part of the inculpatory words which are a part of the disputed conversation. A commonality of words is necessary to facilitate a spectrographic examination.

Sudhir Chaudhary and Others  v. State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal Nos. 700-701 of 2016, decided on July 29, 2016; [Dr. T.S. Thakur , CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. ChandraChud, JJ.]

ARBITRATION LAW: Claim time-barred

That a Service Provider Agreement was executed between the parties is admitted. That Article 7 of the said agreement provides for settlement of the dispute in relation to the agreement by way of arbitration is also not in dispute. That disputes have actually arisen between the parties in relation to the agreement is also evident from the averments made in the pleadings. The only method for determination of such disputes is by way of arbitration. Whether or not the petitioner has provided the services envisaged under the agreement and, if so, whether the said services were adequate and satisfactory are matters that can be examined only by the arbitrator. So also the question whether the claim made by the petitioner is time-barred cannot be examined in the present proceedings and shall have to be left open to be raised before the arbitrator. There is, in that view, no gainsaying that the present petition under Sections 11(5) and 11(12) shall have to be allowed with appropriate directions, particularly when this Court is concerned primarily with the question whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties and if so whether the disputes falling within the scope of the agreement have arisen for determination. Our answer to both these questions being in the affirmative, the petitioner has made out a case for appointment of an arbitrator and for reference of the disputes for adjudication to him/ her.

Wexford Financial Inc. Panama v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Arbitration Petition (C)  No. 19 of 2015, decided on July 13, 2016; [Dr. T.S. Thakur, CJI, R. Banumathi and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.]

ARTICLE 136: Scope

No effort should be made to restrict the powers of this Court under Article 136 because while exercising its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, this Court can, after considering facts of the case to be decided, very well use its discretion. In the interest of justice, it would be better to use the said power with circumspection, rather than to limit the power forever.

Mathai alias Joby v. George and Another, SLP (C) No. 7105 of 2010, decided on January 11, 2016; [Anil R. Dave, Kurian Joseph, Shiva Kirti Singh, Adarsh Kumar Goel and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.]


It is too well settled that a prosecution cannot continue proceedings against a dead person. A fortiori a criminal court cannot continue proceedings against a dead person and find him guilty. Such proceedings and findings are contrary to the very foundation of criminal jurisprudence. In such a case the accused does not exist and cannot be convicted. Consequently, the learned District Judge committed a gross error of law in acting upon such a finding and treating R as guilty of such offences while making the order of attachment and while confirming the said order of attachment of properties.

Subhadramma and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh represented By Public Prosecutor and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 1596 of 2011, decided on July 4, 2016; [S.A. Bobde and Amitava Roy, JJ.]

CONTRACTUAL APPOINTMENT: Estoppel against challenge

The above terms of the agreement further reiterate the stand of the State that the appointments were purely contractual and that the respondents shall not be entitled to claim any right or interest of permanent service in the government. The appointments of the respondents were made initially for eleven months but were renewed twice and after serving the maximum contractual period, the services of the respondents came to an end and the government initiated a fresh process of selection. The conditions of the respondents’ engagement are governed by the terms of the agreement. After having accepted the contractual appointment, the respondents are estopped from challenging the terms of their appointment. Furthermore, the respondents are not precluded from applying for the said posts afresh subject to the satisfaction of other eligibility criteria.

State of Maharashtra and Others v. Anita and Another, Civil Appeal Nos. 6132–33 of 2016; [T.S. Thakur, CJI, R. Banumathi and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.]



Leave a Comment