1) Restrictive scope of appellate jurisdiction u/s 125 Electricity Act is to enable freedom to statutory regulator & APTEL to develop sectorial laws
The Court held that the restrictive scope of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 125 of the Electricity Act is a necessary measure to enable freedom to the statutory regulators and Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) to develop sectorial laws.
The Court upheld the decision of the APTEL granting the extension of the Scheduled Commissioning Date (SCD) under the Force Majeure clause of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) signed with the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM). This decision overturns the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission's (KERC) earlier order that reduced the tariff payable to the respondents from Rs. 8.40 per unit to Rs. 4.36 per unit.
Cause Title- Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited v. Hirehalli Solar Power Project LLP & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 622)
Date of Judgment- August 27, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal
2) Benefit of proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA cannot be denied to woman merely because she is highly educated or sophisticated or MP or MLA
The Court observed that the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA cannot be denied to a woman merely because she is highly educated or sophisticated or a Member of Parliament or a Member of Legislative Assembly.
The Court observed thus while allowing Criminal Appeals challenging the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Bail Application where the learned Judge refused to grant bail to the Appellant K. Kavitha.
Cause Title- Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate Of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 632)
Date of Judgment- August 27, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan
3) Interests of the victims of scam have also to be factored in: SC sets aside bail granted to co-operative society President accused of misappropriating funds
The Court set aside bail granted to a co-operative society’s President accused of misappropriation of funds.
The Court was dealing with a criminal appeal preferred against the judgment of the Bombay High Court by which the accused was released on bail.
Cause Title- Manik Madhukar Sarve & Ors. v. Vitthal Damuji Meher & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 636)
Date of Judgment- August 28, 2024
Coram- Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
4) Rule 47 of Delhi Education Rules cannot be invoked to shift burden of payment of staff salaries to NDMC when school closure was unlawful
The Court held that the Rule 47 of the Delhi Education Rules cannot be invoked to shift the responsibility of re-employing and paying the salaries of surplus teachers and non-teaching staff to NDMC when the school's closure was not carried out in accordance with the law. It said that the question of absorption only arises when the closure of the school is done in accordance with law, which requires a full justification and prior approval of the Director as per Rule 46.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal filed by New Delhi Municipal Council and Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee arising out of a common judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal.
Cause Title- New Delhi Municipal Council and Another v. Manju Tomar and Others (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 635)
Date of Judgment- August 28, 2024
Coram- Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta
5) Neither State Governments nor Courts have the authority to modify the list of Scheduled Castes as promulgated by the Presidential Order
The Court reiterated that neither the State Government nor the Courts have the authority to modify the list of Scheduled Castes as promulgated by the Presidential order.
The Court noted this while dealing with an appeal in which the issue arose was whether a person who joined the services of a Nationalized Bank/Government of India undertaking based on a certificate that identified him/her as belonging to a Scheduled Caste(‘SC’)/Scheduled Tribe(‘ST’) in the State of Karnataka, pursuant to the State Government's notifications, would be entitled to retain the position after the caste/tribe has been de-scheduled.
Cause Title- K Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 634)
Date of Judgment- August 28, 2024
Coram- Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta
6) Incriminatory statement made by accused while in custody of ED inadmissible in another PMLA case
The Court held that an incriminatory statement made by an accused under Section 50 of the PMLA while in custody, and under investigation by the same agency, is inadmissible in another money laundering case in which his arrest is not yet shown.
In this case, the allegations centred on the fraudulent acquisition of one acre of land in Ranchi, where several accused, including Rajesh Rai, Imtiaz Ahmad, and others, were implicated in forging documents and selling the property to various parties. The appellant was accused of conspiring with these individuals and benefiting from the proceeds of the crime through transactions involving the firm Jamini Enterprises, which was alleged to be under his control.
Cause Title- Prem Prakash vs Union of India Through Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 637)
Date of Judgment- August 28, 2024
Coram- Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan
7) Father has no right to pursue cause of recovery of ‘stridhan’ given to daughter if she is alive, well & entirely capable of making decisions
The Court observed that a father has no right to pursue the cause of recovery of 'stridhan’ given to his daughter when she is alive, well, and entirely capable of making such decisions. The Bench pointed out the consistent position of law since 1985 regarding the sole authority of the woman in respect of her ‘stridhan.’
The Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the in-laws (appellants) accused of dishonest misappropriation of the 'stridhan' belonging to their former daughter-in-law. The father (complainant) of the former daughter-in-law lodged an FIR under Section 406 of the IPC and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 alleging that the appellants had not returned the jewellery and other items given to his daughter at the time of her marriage.
Cause Title- Mulakala Malleshwara Rao & Anr. v. State Of Telangana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 639)
Date of Judgment- August 29, 2024
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol
8) Facts pleaded require evidence to substantiate; mere statements or bald averments takes a case nowhere
The Court observed that fact pleaded requires either oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the same since bald averments or mere statements by parties will cake a “case nowhere.”
The Court set aside the order of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court while explaining that an agreement to mortgage by depositing title deeds does not require registration as the said agreement does not create any rights and liabilities.
Cause Title- A.B. Govardhan v. P. Ragothaman (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 640)
Date of Judgment- August 29, 2024
Coram- Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
9) Appointment on contract basis under compassionate appointment application does not make it to be one under Dying in Harness Rules
The Court held that the mere fact that an individual was appointed on a contract basis under the application for compassionate appointment would not make his appointment to be one under the Dying in Harness Rules.
The Court was hearing an appeal by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) that challenged the decision of the High Court. The case originated from a Writ Petition filed by the respondent, in which a Single Judge had set aside the UPSRTC’s order terminating the respondent’s services and allowed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Brijesh Kumar & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 638)
Date of Judgment- August 28, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal
10) High Court totally misdirected itself while examining Nagaland Engineering Service Rules: SC upholds final seniority list of junior engineers
The Court upheld the final seniority list of Junior Engineers circulated in 2018 showing the seniority position of incumbents manning the posts from two different sources.
The Court was deciding civil appeals in which the issue was regarding inter se seniority of the incumbents appointed to the post of Junior Engineer on a direct recruitment basis and those whose posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, were upgraded to Junior Engineer.
Cause Title- Mhabemo Ovung & Ors. v. M. Moanungba & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 641)
Date of Judgment- August 28, 2024
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal
11) Section 216 CrPC does not give any right to accused to file fresh discharge application after charge is framed
The Court held that Section 216 CrPC does not grant the accused the right to file a fresh discharge application after charges have been framed, particularly when a discharge application under Section 227 of the CrPC has already been dismissed.
The Court set aside the order of the Madras High Court that allowed an application under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. by calling it “an absolutely extraneous consideration and in utter disregard of the settled legal position.” It said that the powers of revision under Section 397 (1) of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised very sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous or when there is non-compliance with the provisions of law.
Cause Title- K. Ravi v. State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 642)
Date of Judgment- August 29, 2024
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma