Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: February 26 – March 1, 2024
1) SC registry cannot dismiss curative petition merely because review petition was dismissed in open court hearing
The Court held that its Registry cannot dismiss a curative petition merely because the Review Petition was dismissed in the open court hearing. The Court explained the procedure in a case where curative petition arises from an order dismissing a review petition. It said that in such a case, the curative petition must contain a plea or prayer seeking excuse from compliance of making averment under Order XLVIII Rule 2(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
The Court was deciding a batch of pleas filed by the firms who were aggrieved by an order of a Registrar of the Apex Court, declining registration of a set of petitions labelled as ‘curative petitions’.
Cause Title- M/s. Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries Etc. Etc. v. The Assam State Electricity Board and Others (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 145)
Date of Judgment- February 26, 2024
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
2) Serious element of prejudice which must be rectified: SC directs reconsideration of grant of permanent commission to Indian navy officer
The Court directed reconsideration for the grant of Permanent Commission (PC) to an Indian Navy officer stating that there was a "serious element of prejudice which has been caused to her."
The petitioner was a Short Service Commissioned Officer (SSC) in the Indian Navy who was recruited before the Policy Letter (PL) was issued. The petitioner was considered for the grant of PC but was denied the same on the ground that there were no vacancies. The PL stipulated that the grant of PC for women would have a prospective effect. However, the same was quashed and set aside by the Supreme Court. The Court had directed that “all SSCOs in the Education, Law and Logistic Cadres” who were “presently in service” would be considered for the grant of PC under Regulation 203 of Chapter IX of the Naval Regulations 1963.
Cause Title- Cdr Seema Chaudhary v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 147)
Date of Judgment- February 26, 2024
Coram- CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli
3) Cellular mobile service providers need not deduct TDS on income/profit component in payments received by distributors/franchisees from customers
The Court held that the cellular mobile telephone service providers are not legally obliged to deduct Tax at source (TDS) on the income or profit component in the payments received by the distributors or franchises from the third parties or customers or while selling or transferring the pre-paid coupons or starter-kits to the distributors under Section 194-H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (ITA).
The Court held thus in an appeal filed by Bharti Cellular Limited (Now Bharti Airtel Limited) against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
Cause Title- Bharti Cellular Limited (Now Bharti Airtel Limited) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 57, Kolkata and Another (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 148)
Date of Judgment- February 28, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
4) How should High Courts deal with prayers for grant of interim relief? SC issues guidelines while overruling Asian resurfacing judgment
The Court, while overruling its judgment in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299, issued guidelines on the procedure to be adopted by High Courts in passing interim order of stay of proceedings and for dealing with the applications for vacating interim stay.
In Asian Resurfacing case, the Supreme Court dealt with the scope of interference by the High Court with an order of framing charge passed by the Special Judge under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The issue was whether an order of framing charge was an interlocutory order and the High Court held that an order of framing charge under the PC Act was interlocutory.
Cause Title- High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 150)
Date of Judgment- February 29, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra.
5) SC lays down important parameters for exercise of powers under Article 142 while overruling Asian resurfacing judgment
Court while overruling its judgment in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299, laid down some important parameters for exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The Court also issued guidelines on the procedure to be adopted by High Courts in passing interim order of stay of proceedings and for dealing with the applications for vacating interim stay.
Cause Title- High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 150)
Date of Judgment- February 29, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra.
6) Will cannot be brushed aside lightly if mandatory requirements u/s 63 Indian Succession Act were duly satisfied by adducing evidence
The Court observed that a Will cannot be brushed aside lightly if mandatory requirements prescribed under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act were duly satisfied by adducing evidence in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
In this case, the Original owner of the property had two wives and the daughter had claimed that she purchased the suit property from the other daughter of the owner and his children. While the other daughter denied selling the property and claimed that her father had executed a will in favour of her son. She asserted that she was misled into signing sale deeds for other properties as she was uneducated and trusted them. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had decreed the possession of the suit property through a registered Sale Deed and declared the will as null and void.
Cause Title- Savitri Bai & Anr. v. Savitri Bai (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 152)
Date of Judgment- February 29, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sanjay Kumar
7) Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Mere pleading of 'oversight' not sufficient to allow amendment of pleadings after the trial has commenced
The Court observed that mere pleading of 'oversight' is not sufficient to allow amendment of pleadings after the trial has commenced. It said that under Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of Code Of Civil Procedure, there has to be pleading to the effect that due diligence was there at the time of filing of the suit in not seeking relief prayed for by way of amendment.
The Court observed thus in an appeal filed against the order of the Karnataka High Court by which an application filed by plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint was allowed, subject to costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
Cause Title- Basavaraj v. Indira and Others (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 151)
Date of Judgment- February 29, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal
8) "3 years is an unduly long period": SC urges parliament to bring amendment prescribing specific limitation period for filing application for arbitrator appointment
The Court observed that the period of three years is an unduly long period for filing an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It suggested that Parliament should bring an amendment to the Act, 1996 prescribing a specific period of limitation within which a party may move the court for making an application for appointment of arbitrators.
The petitioner, based in Afghanistan, engaged in providing computer education, information technology, and English language training, entered into three franchise agreements with the Mumbai-based respondent, which offered similar services. These agreements granted the petitioner-franchisee a non-exclusive license to operate under three trade names. Subsequently, the respondent submitted a proposal to the Indian Council for Cultural Relations for a short-term course, which the petitioner executed at its Kabul center. Disputes arose over royalty fees and agreement renewals. In 2018, the respondent issued a recovery notice for unpaid fees, leading the petitioner to decide not to renew the franchise agreements.
Cause Title- M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. vs M/s Aptech Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 155)
Date of Judgment- March 1, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.
9) A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending any consequences can’t be said to be instigation to attract offence of abetment of suicide
The Court observed that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
The Court observed thus in an appeal against the conviction of a man under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) i.e., abetment of suicide case.
Cause Title- Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 156)
Date of Judgment- March 1, 2024
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
10) FSL report cannot be read in evidence when proceedings u/s 52A NDPS Act was not undertaken in presence of Magistrate: SC acquits accused
The Court acquitted two people accused of carrying contraband since proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act were not undertaken in the presence of a Magistrate. The Court said that the FSL report in this regard “nothing but a waste paper and cannot be read in evidence.”
The appellants were accused of transporting 80 kgs of ganja and were subsequently convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and were sentenced to undergo a rigorous imprisonment of ten years.
Cause Title- Mohammed Khalid & Anr. v. The State Of Telangana (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 158)
Date of Judgment- March 1, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
11) Plaintiff's conduct of making false/incorrect statements in plaint disentitles him to relief of specific performance
The Court observed that plaintiffs' conduct of making false and/or incorrect statements in the plaint disentitles them to relief of specific performance.
In this case, the defendant had executed an agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff for a residential property for a specified consideration. Allegedly, after negotiations, the price was reduced, and a draft sale deed was executed. Despite the plaintiffs' claims of being put in possession of the property and their attempts to register the sale deed, the defendant failed to comply. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance and claimed damages.
Cause Title- Major Gen. Darshan Singh (D) & Anr v. Brij Bhushan Chaudhary (D) (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 157)
Date of Judgment- March 1, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol
12) Legal representatives are not liable to discharge obligation which had to be discharged by deceased person in his personal capacity
The Court held that the legal representatives are not liable to discharge the obligation which had to be discharged by the deceased person in his personal capacity.
The Court held thus in a batch of appeals filed by the legal representatives of a sole proprietor against the common final judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
Cause Title- Vinayak Purshottam Dube (Deceased) Through LRs v. Jayashree Padamkar Bhat & Others (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 159)
Date of Judgment- March 1, 2024
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
13) 'Green energy tariffs have come down substantially': SC says while allowing SECI's appeal against APTEL order
The Court, while allowing an appeal filed by Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited against an order passed by Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), noted that tariffs of green energy have come down substantially. The court said that the purpose of timelines in a project to supply renewable wind power was to ensure the early supply of green energy and the reduction of the carbon footprint.
In this case, Wind Four Renergy Private Limited (WFRPL) and Power Trading Company India Limited (PTC) had entered into five Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) whereby WFRPL had agreed to establish a wind power unit and generate to supply renewable (wind) power to PTC. SECI was the implementing agency for the project.
Cause Title- Solar Energy Corporation Of India Limited v. Wind Four Renergy Private Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 160)
Date of Judgment- February 27, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta
