Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: December 11 – December 15, 2023
1) Multiplicity of proceedings not in larger public interest: SC partly allows a plea seeking consolidation of FIRs
The Court partly allowed a plea seeking consolidation of FIRs saying that the multiplicity of proceedings is not in the larger public interest.
The Court was dealing with a writ petition seeking to consolidate or club all the FIRs registered against a man in different States at various police stations to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Guna, Madhya Pradesh.
Cause Title- Amanat Ali v. State of Karnataka and Others
Date of Judgment- December 11, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Aravind Kumar
2) Principle of 'reasonable time' applicable when no limitation period is prescribed
The Court observed that the principle of ‘reasonable time’ will apply when no limitation period is prescribed. It held that the Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990, is not governed by the prescription of limitation under Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The Court held thus in a civil appeal against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court by which the Civil Revision Petition against the order of the District Judge was allowed.
Cause Title- M/s North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd. & Anr.
Date of Judgment- December 11, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol
3) Kashmiri Pandits Exodus- Apex Court Proposes Truth And Reconciliation Commission, Expresses Hope That Those Compelled To Migrate Will Return To Valley With Dignity
The Court unanimously upheld the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India which had bestowed special status on the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. The five-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, and Justice Surya Kant held that Article 370, a temporary provision, was a feature of asymmetric federalism and not sovereignty.
By a separate, concurring judgment, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul proposed the establishment of a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission." This commission, as per Justice Kaul's recommendation, would be tasked with conducting an in-depth inquiry into human rights violations committed by both State and non-state actors in the Kashmir valley, particularly focusing on incidents dating back to the 1980s.
Cause Title- In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution
Date of Judgment- December 11, 2023
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, and Justice Surya Kant
4) Accused cannot be held guilty merely for absconding & remaining untraceable for long time
The Court held that mere abscondence by a person after the alleged commission of crime and remaining untraceable for a long time cannot establish his/her guilt or guilty conscience.
The Court said that, in certain cases, abscondence could constitute a relevant piece of evidence, but its evidentiary value depends upon the surrounding circumstances.
Cause Title- Sekaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Date of Judgment- December 12, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar
5) '24 years have gone by': SC dismisses plea against 'merger of cadres' order passed in 1999
The Court dismissed plea challenging an order passed in 1999 vide which the staff in Adult Education Department was merged in Education Department and category-wise seniority was provided.
The Court dismissed appeals filed against the Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had dismissed writ petitions filed against the 1999 order.
Cause Title- Prafful Shukla and Others v. Government of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Date of Judgment- December 12, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
6) Eye-witnesses cannot be disbelieved merely because they made no attempt to save deceased or resist accused
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court observed that eye-witnesses in a murder case cannot be disbelieved merely because they did not save the deceased or resist the accused.
The Court observed thus while it affirmed the conviction of two accused under Sections 34 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Cause Title- Maheshwari Yadav & Anr. v The State of Bihar
Date of Judgment- December 13, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
7) Sports officer/physical training instructor also a ‘teacher’ under JNKVV statute
The Court held that a sports officer/physical training instructor is also a 'teacher' under Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Statute, 1964. The court said that the definition ‘teacher’ is inclusive in nature and not just confined to a Professor, Associate Professor, or Assistant Professor under Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Act, 1963 (JNKVV Act).
The Court held thus in an appeal filed by a man who was aggrieved by the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench). The Division Bench had set aside the order of the Single Judge in which it was held that the said man working as a sports officer/physical training instructor in JNKVV (University) falls under the definition of a ‘teacher’ and entitled to retire at the age of 62 years.
Cause Title- P.C. Modi v. The Jawaharlal Nehru Vishwa Vidyalaya and Another
Date of Judgment- December 13, 2023
Coram- Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rajesh Bindal
8) Unstamped arbitration agreements not void: Supreme Court seven judges bench overrules 'N.N. Global Mercantile' judgment
In an unanimous judgment, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court observed that unstamped or inadequately unstamped arbitration agreements do not become void or void ab initio or unenforceable.
The Court in NN Global case, had observed that the opinion in SMS Tea Estates (P) Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. (P) Ltd., as followed in Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. Coastal Marine Constructions and Engineering Limited, (2019) 9 SCC 209 and by the Bench in Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur as to the effect of an unstamped contract containing an arbitration agreement and the steps to be taken by the Court, is the correct law.
Cause Title- In Re: interplay between Indian Stamp Act and Indian Arbitration Act
Date of Judgment- December 13, 2023
Coram- Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
9) No difference between party to suit as a witness and witness simpliciter; both can produce documents at cross examination stage
The Court held that there is no difference between a party to suit acting as a witness and a witness simpliciter in the suit proceedings. The Court thus held that production of documents for both a party to the suit and a witness as the case may be, at the stage of cross-examination, is permissible.
The Court held thus in an appeal preferred against the judgment of the Bombay High Court by which the Division Bench had answered three questions framed by the Single Judge in view of the two conflicting decisions i.e., Vinayak M Dessai v. Ulhas N. Naik and Ors. (2017 SCCOnLine Bom 8515) and Purushottam v. Gajanan (2012 SCCOnLine Bom 1176).
Cause Title- Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer & Anr.
Date of Judgment- December 14, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol
10) Guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt: SC upholds acquittal of six in murder case
The Court upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision that set aside the conviction of six accused in a murder case. The Court emphasized that the conviction must be evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In this case, six out of ten accused persons were initially convicted by the trial court for offenses under Sections 148, 201,149, and 302,149 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court, however, set aside the conviction and sentence in its judgment in 2008. The complainant appealed against the acquittal of the six accused.
Cause Title- Chhote Lal v. Rohtash & Ors.
Date of Judgment- December 14, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
11) Very high standard of professionalism & legal acumen expected from designated Senior Advocates
The Court said that very high standard of professionalism and legal acumen is expected from the designated Senior Advocates appearing before it.
The Court was deciding a PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering) case in which a woman being the Deputy Secretary in the office of the Chief Minister, Chhattisgarh was arrested and remanded to Enforcement Directorate (ED) custody. She had filed an appeal against the order of the Chhattisgarh High Court which had dismissed her bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Cause Title- Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement
Date of Judgment- December 14, 2023
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
12) Supreme Court (2:1) suspends conviction of MP Afsal Ansari; dissenting judge warns of 'unnavigable sea of generalisation'
With a 2:1 majority, the Court suspended the conviction of BSP MP Afzal Ansari under the UP Gangster Act, which has paved the way for restoring his membership in the Lok Sabha.
Towards suspending the conviction, the majority, i.e., Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, observed that the Courts must construe the law in its extant state instead of delving into considerations pertaining to the ethical character of actions.
Cause Title- Afjal Ansari vs State of UP
Date of Judgment- December 14, 2023
Coram- Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice Dipankar Datta
13) Tribunals cannot direct framing of policy by government
The Court held that a Tribunal cannot direct the framing of policy by the government.
The Court held thus in an appeal filed by the Union of India under Section 31(1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 against the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi (Principal Bench).
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. AIR Commodore NK Sharma (17038) ADM/LGL
Date of Judgment- December 14, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol
14) Nominee of deceased share holder does not get absolute ownership; nomination process under companies act does not override succession laws
The Court observed that a nominee of a deceased share holder does not get absolute ownership.
In this case, the appellants were the legal heirs of Jayant Shivram Salgaonkar, contested a suit filed by respondent no. 1 seeking administration of the deceased's properties, including fixed deposits (FDs) and mutual fund investments (MFs). The deceased had made nominations for FDs and MFs.
Cause Title- Shakti Yezdani & Anr. vs Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar & Ors.
Date of Judgment- December 14, 2023
Coram- Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Pankaj Mithal
15) Employee's Failure To Challenge Transfer Order Means He Accepted It
The Court observed that an employee's failure to challenge a Transfer Order means that he had accepted the order and was duty-bound to comply with the same.
The Court said that at a later stage, he could not take a plea that the order being erroneous, no consequence would follow for its non-compliance.
Cause Title- UP Singh v Punjab National Bank
Date of Judgment- December 14, 2023
Coram- Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rajesh Bindal
16) Violator indulging in misbranding liable to pay penalty under Food Safety and Standards Act
The Court held that a violator who has indulged in misbranding cannot be punished under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA), rather he will be liable to pay penalty under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 1954 (FSSA).
The Court held thus in a criminal appeal filed by the Director of Bharti Retail Limited, a company that was engaged in the business of operating retail stores under the name ‘Easy Day’ having outlets all over the country.
Cause Title- Manik Hiru Jhangiani v. State of M.P.
Date of Judgment- December 14, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol
17) Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules | Relevant date for determining candidate’s eligibility U/Rule 9(1)(a)(iii) “is the date of consideration”
The Court observed that, for the purpose of Rule 9(1)(a)(iii) of Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008, the relevant date for determining if there was any disciplinary action contemplated or pending against a candidate “is the date of consideration,” (date on which the Committee had recommended names to the Commission under Rule 9(2)).
The court noted that the officers of the Haryana Civil Service must be free from both ongoing and contemplated disciplinary proceedings to be eligible funder Rule 9(1)(a)(iii). The Court allowed a Civil Appeal filed by the State, contesting the decision of the High Court, which had directed the State to review one Dinesh Singh's eligibility for appointment from Register A-1. The Court noted the dual requirement to be eligible for promotion under Rule 9(1)(a)(iii) of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 (Rules).
Cause Title- State of Haryana and Others v Dinesh Singh and Another
Date of Judgment- December 14, 2023
Coram- Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar
18) Plea of fraud must be serious in nature to oust arbitrator's jurisdiction
The Court reiterated that a plea of fraud must be serious in nature in order to oust the jurisdiction of an Arbitrator.
The Court was dealing with an appeal seeking declaration that the Conveyance Deed be declared null and void and the registered Development Agreements stand validly terminated.
Cause Title- Sushma Shivkumar Daga & Anr. v. Madhurkumar Ramkrishnaji Bajaj & Ors.
Date of Judgment- December 15, 2023
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
19) Private agreements cannot be enforced in slum rehabilitation schemes
The Court held that private agreements cannot be enforced in Slum Rehabilitation Schemes as it is against the mandate of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). The Court upheld the power and responsibility of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to prioritize established policies and public trust over private agreements for flat allocation in a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
A Civil Appeal challenging the Slum Rehabilitation Authority's (SRA) decision on flat allocation in a Mumbai slum project was dismissed by the Apex Court. The dispute arose from a developer's attempt to bypass legal requirements by excluding the SRA from a lawsuit and entering a private agreement with a minority resident group for specific towers. This private agreement, deemed invalid by the SRA, sought to circumvent the established lottery-based system for flat allocation.
Cause Title- Sayunkta Sangarsh Samiti & Anr. v The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.
Date of Judgment- December 15, 2023
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
20) PMLA | Written grounds of arrest to be furnished within 24 hours of arrest; 'Pankaj Bansal' judgment not retrospective
The Court held that written grounds of arrest has be furnished to a person arrested in a money laundering case within 24 hours of his arrest. The court also clarified that the judgment in Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India has no retrospective application.
Non furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing till the date of pronouncement of judgment in Pankaj Bansal case could neither be held to be illegal nor the action of the concerned officer in not furnishing the same in writing could be faulted with, it said. The Court was deciding an appeal against the judgment of the Delhi High Court by which it dismissed the petition seeking declaration that the arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) was illegal and violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 20, and 21 of the Constitution.
Cause Title- Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement.
Date of Judgment- December 15, 2023
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma