1) Forfeiture of right to file written statement bars a party from bringing in pleadings & evidence indirectly
The Court observed that the forfeiture of the right to file a written statement should bar a party from bringing in pleadings and evidence to support such case. It explained that the right of such a party was confined to participate in the proceedings without filing a written statement and to cross-examine the witness.
The Bench clarified that such a party could be permitted only to argue the legal questions regarding “lapses or laches and the consequential non-admissibility or otherwise of evidence.” The Court was deciding a consumer case alleging deficiency in service by the builder.
Cause Title- Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel & Ors. v. M/s. S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 542)
Date of Judgment- July 22, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar
2) Court can't impose more than 10 years' imprisonment for attempt to murder if it thought it fit to impose life imprisonment u/s 307 IPC
The Court observed that a Court cannot impose a sentence exceeding the 10-year maximum prescribed under the first part of Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder if it thought it fit not to impose life imprisonment sentence.
The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the concurrent conviction of the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the consequent sentence of 14 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,50,000 each, with a default penalty of six months simple imprisonment.
Cause Title- Amit Rana @ Koka & Anr. v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 543)
Date of Judgment- July 22, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal
3) Stale claims of contempt camouflaged as "continuing breach" should not be entertained
The Court observed that the legislative intent of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act must be given heed, and stale claims of contempt, camouflaged as a “continuing wrong/breach/offence” ought not to be entertained.
In 2014, the first respondent filed a contempt petition due to non-compliance with a 2009 High Court order. The first respondent argued that the contempt petition was not time-barred because the non-compliance was a continuous wrong. This argument was upheld first by a Single Judge and then by a division bench of the High Court upon review.
Cause Title- S Tirupathi Rao v. M Lingamaiah & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 544)
Date of Judgment- July 22, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta
4) Operation of bail order can be stayed only in exceptional cases
The Court held that an order granting a stay to the operation of a bail order during the pendency of the application for cancellation of bail should be passed in exceptional cases.
The Court explained the power of the High Court or Sessions Court to grant an interim order of stay of operation of an order granting bail till the disposal of the application for cancellation of bail under sub¬-Section (2) of Section 439 of the CrPC or the corresponding provision under sub¬-Section (3) of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). In this case, the Delhi High Court in 2023 granted an ex-parte stay order on bail granted under Section 439 of the CrPC without hearing the accused who was arrested under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PMLA).
Cause Title- Parvinder Singh Khurana v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 546)
Date of Judgment- July 23, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
5) SC issues split verdict on GM mustard approval; directs formulation of National GM Crop Policy
The Bench issued a split verdict on petitions challenging the approval given by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee and the Ministry of Environment and Forests to commercially cultivate and release a genetically modified mustard, named 'HT Mustard DMH-11' into the environment.
Justice BV Nagarathna quashed the approval, while Justice Sanjay Karol upheld its validity. Subsequently, the Bench came to a consensus that the Judicial Review of the decision taken by the bodies concerned in the matter of GMOs is permissible. The Bench also directed that a National Policy with regard to GM crops be formulated. Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were filed, challenging the Union government's decision to commercially cultivate and release genetically modified (GM) mustard, named 'HT Mustard DMH-11,' into the environment.
Cause Title- Gene Campaign & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 545)
Date of Judgment- July 23, 2024
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Sanjay Karol
6) Owner of goods has to pay customs duty even after confiscated goods are redeemed after payment of fine & other charges u/s 125 Customs Act
The Court held that the owner of goods has the liability to pay customs duty even after confiscated goods are redeemed after payment of fine and other charges under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The Court held thus in a civil appeal filed by a company which availed the benefit of exemption from payment of customs duty under a notification.
Cause Title- M/s Navayuga Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 547)
Date of Judgment- July 23, 2024
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar
7) IBC| Assets of subsidiary company cannot be part of resolution plan of holding company
The Court held that the holding company is not the owner of assets of the subsidiary company and hence, the assets of subsidiary company cannot be part of the resolution plan of the holding one.
The Court held thus in a civil appeal preferred by a company against the corporate debtor and financial creditor.
Cause Title- BRS Ventures Investments Ltd. v. SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 548)
Date of Judgment- July 23, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
8) Vacancy to post doesn't automatically create valuable right for employee claiming retrospective accelerated promotion
The Court observed that vacancy to a post does not automatically create a valuable right in favour of an employee claiming retrospective accelerated promotion. It explained that an employee cannot lay a claim for being promoted to the next higher post merely on completing the minimum qualifying service.
In this case, the Bihar State Electricity Board (appellant/Board) challenged the order of the Division Bench of Patna High Court which directed the Board to promote the employee (respondent) to the post of Joint Secretary.
Cause Title- Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Dharamdeo Das (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 549)
Date of Judgment- July 23, 2024
Coram- Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
9) Disciplinary proceedings conducted fairly: SC upholds termination of CRPF constable’s services allegedly concealing information of criminal cases against him
The Court upheld the termination of services of the CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force) Constable who was accused of concealing information regarding some criminal cases pending against him.
The Court was deciding an appeal preferred by the Director General, CRPF against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court by which it upheld the order of the Single Judge, setting aside the order of termination of services of the Constable by the Disciplinary Authority duly upheld by the Appellate Authority.
Cause Title- Union of India and Others v. Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 550)
Date of Judgment- July 23, 2024
Coram- Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
10) Property owner collecting rent cannot be absolved from rendering accounts; liable to make good the loss suffered by co-sharers
The Court explained that a purchaser of a property is liable to make good the loss suffered by co-sharers and cannot be absolved from rendering accounts after having collected rent from the same property.
The appellant prayed for partition of the suit property by metes and bounds and in case not possible, sale by open auction and distribution of the sale proceeds amongst the co-sharers. The appellant also sought the accounts of rent collected by the co-sharers from tenants and a direction to the tenants to deposit the rent in the court.
Cause Title- Rajinder Kaur (D) v. Gurbhajan Kaur (D) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 552)
Date of Judgment- July 23, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal
11) Apex Court refuses to cancel NEET UG 2024, says no material to show systemic breach
The Court refused to cancel the National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test-Under Graduate Exam, 2024 (NEET-UG, 2024) and said that cancellation will not be justified.
On July 22, 2024, the Court asked IIT, Delhi to constitute an expert/committee to evaluate the correct answer to the question for which the National Testing Agency has changed the answer according to old NCERT Books. The Court also accepted the report of the IIT Delhi regarding the physics question for which NTA has changed the answer according to the Old NCERT.
Cause Title- Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 553)
Date of Judgment- July 23, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
12) Royalty is not tax, royalty is contractual consideration, States' power to levy mineral tax is not limited: Apex Court holds by 8:1 majority
The 9-Judge Bench of the Court, held by an 8:1 majority that the States have the power to levy tax on mineral rights and that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 ('MMDR Act'), passed by the Union, do not limit such power of the States.
The majority judgment was delivered by Chief Justice and the dissenting judgment was authored by Justice B.V. Nagarathna. The major questions that the Bench examined were whether the royalties on mining leases be considered as tax and whether the States have the power to levy royalty/tax on mineral rights after the enactment of the Parliamentary law MMDR Act.
Cause Title- Mineral Area Development Authority Etc. v. M/S Steel Authority Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 554)
Date of Judgment- July 25, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Augustine George Masih
13) Authorised signatory of company is not "drawer"; cannot be directed to pay interim compensation u/s 143A NI Act
The Court held that an authorised signatory of a company is not a "drawer" under Section 143A of the NI Act, and therefore cannot be directed to pay interim compensation under the said Act.
The Court upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court that held that a signatory of the cheque was not a ‘drawer’ in terms of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) and therefore could not be directed to pay interim compensation under Section 143A of the NI Act.
Cause Title- Shri Gurudatta Sugars Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Prithviraj Sayajirao Deshmukh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 551)
Date of Judgment- July 24, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
14) Roadways employees who did not hold any pensionable post before their absorption or deputation in UPSRTC are not entitled to pension
The Court held that the employees of the Roadways who were not holding any pensionable post prior to their deputation or absorption in the U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation are not entitled to pension.
In this civil appeal, the issue falling for consideration was whether the appellants, who are the former employees of Uttar Pradesh Roadways, a temporary department of the State Government, are holding any pensionable post before or after their absorption in the U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation.
Cause Title- UP Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association vs State of UP & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 555)
Date of Judgment- July 26, 2024
Coram- Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
15) Toll already collected will be impossible to return to road users: SC allows NHAI to utilise toll collected from ‘provisionally completed’ Muzaffarpur-Sonbarsa Highway
The Court allowed NHAI to utilise the toll collected from the provisionally completed Muzaffarpur-Sonbarsa section of National Highway-77 observing that the toll already collected will be impossible to return to the road users.
The Court set aside a High Court's judgment that directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to not levy and collect any fee from the users at Runni Toll Plaza on the Muzaffarpur-Sonbarsa section of National Highway-77. NHAI had challenged the decision to not levy any fee in exercise of its power under Rule 3(1) of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 (Rules) till the completion of the highway project.
Cause Title- Chairman, National Highways Authority Of India & Anr. v. Arvind Kumar Thakur & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 556)
Date of Judgment- July 24, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice R. Mahadevan