Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: September 9 – September 13, 2024
1) PMLA Rules of summoning prevails over CrPC provisions: Supreme Court dismisses TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee's plea challenging ED summons
The Court dismissed the appeal preferred by MP (Member of Parliament) Abhishek Banerjee, TMC (All India Trinamool Congress) seeking quashing of summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The Court held that the procedure prescribed under the Prevention of Money Laundering (Forms, Search and Seizure or Freezing and the Manner of Forwarding the Reasons and Material to the Adjudicating Authority, Impounding and Custody of Records and the Period of Retention) Rules, 2005 for summoning the person under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 50 of PMLA, would prevail over any other procedure prescribed under the Code.
Cause Title- Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 668)
Date of Judgment- September 9, 2024
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
2) An accused can seek anticipatory bail in relation to an offence even while he is in custody in a different offence
The Court held that an accused is entitled to seek anticipatory bail in connection with an offence even while he/she is in custody in a different offence.
The Court held thus in a criminal appeal filed against the judgment of Bombay High Court by which it overruled the objection raised by the complainant regarding the maintainability of the anticipatory bail.
Cause Title- Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 669)
Date of Judgment- September 9, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
3) Police can formally arrest an accused in relation to an offence while he is already in custody in different offence
The Court observed that a police officer can formally arrest a person in relation to an offence while he is already in custody in a different offence. It clarified that such formal arrest doesn’t bring the accused in the custody of the police officer as the accused continues to remain in the custody of the Magistrate who remanded him to judicial custody in the first offence. Once such formal arrest has been made, the police officer has to make an application under Section 267 of the CrPC before the Jurisdictional Magistrate for the issuance of a P.T. Warrant without delay, it added.
The Court observed thus in a criminal appeal filed against the judgment of Bombay High Court by which it overruled the objection raised by the complainant regarding the maintainability of the anticipatory bail.
Cause Title- Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 669)
Date of Judgment- September 9, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
4) Referral Court should leave it for Arbitral Tribunal to decide whether non-signatory is bound by arbitration agreement
The Court reiterated that at the referral stage, the referral court should leave it for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide whether the non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement.
A CJI-led Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. in December, 2023 had upheld the validity of the “group of companies” doctrine in Indian arbitration jurisprudence. In this case, the Court noted the following observation made in the Constitution Bench judgment:
“At the referral stage, the referral court should leave it for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide whether the non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement.”
Cause Title- Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 670)
Date of Judgment- September 9, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
5) While considering rectification application u/s 59 Companies Act, NCLT has to examine factual issues to ascertain the substance of the issue
The Court observed that NCLT exercising its jurisdiction under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 (2013 Act) has to examine the factual issues to ascertain the substance of the issue.
The Bench set aside judgments from both the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) regarding the alleged fraudulent transfer of shares and subsequent mismanagement at M/s Lexus Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Company).
Cause Title- Chalasani Udaya Shankar & Ors. v. M/s. Lexus Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 671)
Date of Judgment- September 9, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar
6) Non-recording of reasons for appointing officer junior in rank as Judge Advocate invalidates Court Martial proceedings
The Court observed that non-recording of reasons for appointment of an officer junior in rank as a Judge Advocate in the convening order invalidates the Court Martial proceedings.
The Court had to determine the legality of the appointment of a Judge Advocate at the General Court Martial (GCM) who was junior in rank to the respondent. The respondent, who was serving as a classified Specialist ENT with the army, was accused under Section 57(c) of the Army Act for altering fitness remarks for an army recruit.
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. Lt. Col. Rahul Arora (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 672)
Date of Judgment- September 9, 2024
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
7) Sovereign nation of Israel is not amenable to our jurisdiction: Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking suspension of military exports to Israel
The Court remarked that the sovereign nation of Israel is not and cannot be made amenable to its jurisdiction.
This observation was made while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by former bureaucrats, senior academics, and activists seeking directions from the Union of India to halt the export of arms and military equipment to Israel during its ongoing military operations in Gaza. The Court was considering the submission of the petitioners in regard to the conduct of Israel in the conduct of its operations in Gaza.
Cause Title- Ashok Kumar Sharma vs Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 674)
Date of Judgment- September 9, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
8) Co-owner cannot transfer entire joint property without getting his share determined & demarcated
The Court held that a co-owner of a non-partitioned property cannot transfer the entire property without getting his share determined and demarcated to bind the other co-owners.
The Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant, a tenant to whom one of the co-owners sold the undivided property. It upheld the decision of the High Court, which restrained the appellant by the decree of injunction in acting in derogation of the propriety rights of the co-owners until and unless the partition takes place.
Cause Title- S.K. Golam Lalchand v. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 676)
Date of Judgment- September 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Pankaj Mithal
9) Supreme Court sets aside HC order granting 30% share in compensation given to possessors of land acquired in metro rail project
The Court set aside an order granting a 30% share in compensation to possessors of land acquired for the metro rail project when no claim with regard to entitlement over it is made.
The Court was hearing two appeals challenging a decision of the High Court which upheld the trial Court's decision declaring the Appellant/Plaintiff as the lawful owner of the suit property and held that the defendants are entitled to 30% of the compensation for ten sites on the suit property.
Cause Title- Lakshmesh M. v. P. Rajalakshmi (Dead by Lrs.) and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 678)
Date of Judgment- September 11, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
10) "Patently erred in interpreting consent order": SC sets aside HC judgment which declared a tenant as land owner
The Court set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment that declared a tenant as land owner observing that the High Court patently erred in interpreting the consent order. It noted that the consent order was only for dismissing and allowing application under Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal after the High Court in the Second Appeal reversed the decision of the first Appellate Court which upheld the decision of the trial Court.
Cause Title- Beena v. Charan Das (D) Thr. Lrs. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 680)
Date of Judgment- September 11, 2024
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan
11) Statutory immunity against self-incrimination to a witness is not "complete & unfettered"
The Court observed that the statutory immunity against self-incrimination to a witness under proviso to Section 132 of the Evidence Act is not “complete and unfettered”. It explained that if the proviso to Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Act) was read to mean “complete immunity,” then a dishonest Investigating Officer would be able to provide a legal shield to an influential person by examining them as a witness even though their complicity in the offence was “writ large” based on the material available in the case.
The Court upheld the summoning order by the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 319 of the CrPC in the alleged forgery and interpolation of a fixed deposit at the District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank (Bank) by the accused who was working as a cashier at the Bank.
Cause Title- Raghuveer Sharan v. District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 681)
Date of Judgment- September 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
12) Detenu’s valuable right to have his representation decided expeditiously can’t be denied merely because there has been casual approach by jail authorities
The Court held that the valuable right of the detenu to have his representation decided expeditiously cannot be denied merely because there has been a casual and negligent approach by the Jail Authorities.
The Court held thus in a criminal appeal filed by the wife of the detenu against the judgment of the Kerala High Court by which it dismissed her habeas corpus petition for production of detenu.
Cause Title- Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 683)
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
13) “Closure would be detrimental to public interest”: SC issues directions for continued operation of Pune Municipal Corporation's garbage processing plant
The Court allowed the continued operation of Pune Municipal Corporation’s Garbage Processing Plant while observing that the closure of the same would be detrimental to the public interest.
The Court quashed the judgment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) which directed the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) to close the Garbage Processing Plant (GPP) operated by Noble Exchange Environment Solution Pune LLP (Concessionaire) and to shift the same to an alternate location in terms of the guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).
Cause Title- Pune Municipal Corporation v. Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 682)
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
14) Only Chairman or any other member of district appropriate authority acting alone cannot authorise search u/s. 30(1) PCPNDT Act
The Court observed that only the Chairman or any other member acting alone cannot authorise search under Section 30(1) of the Pre- Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. It said that if a single member of the Appropriate Authority authorises a search, it will be completely illegal being contrary to sub-section (1) of Section 30.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal after the High Court declined to quash the complaint and the FIR registered against the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 23 of the Pre- Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.
Cause Title- Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 684)
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
15) Disregarding a court's order may seem bold, but shadows of its consequences are long & cold
The Court, while dealing with a contempt case, remarked, “Disregarding a Court's order may seem bold, but the shadows of its consequences are long and cold.”
The Court was dealing with contempt petitions filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant/contemnor from the property belonging to him.
Cause Title- M/s Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 685)
Date of Judgment- September 9, 2024
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal
16) Application for extension of time u/s. 29A A&C Act can be filed after expiry of period for making of arbitral award
The Court held that an application for an extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period.
The Court said that the power of the court to extend the time under Section 29A(5) of the A&C Act must be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient cause for such extension. “Such extension is not granted mechanically on filing of the application. The judicial discretion of the court in terms of the enactment acts as a deterrent against any party abusing the process of law or espousing a frivolous or vexatious application”, the Court remarked.
Cause Title- Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 686)
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice R. Mahadevan
17) SC directs Arvind Kejriwal not to make any public comments on CBI case; notices recent tendency of building self-serving narrative on public platforms
The Court while granting bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the corruption case related to the excise policy scam, directed him not to make any public comments on the merits of the CBI case, till it is subjudice before the Trial Court.
However, the Court clarified that this shall not preclude Kejriwal from raising all his contentions before the trial court. Further, the Court said, "The terms and conditions imposed by a coordinate bench of this Court vide orders dated 10.05.2024 and 12.07.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2493/2024, titled Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, are imposed mutatis mutandis in the present case."
Cause Title- Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Neutral Citation No. 2024 INSC 687)
Date of Judgment- September 13, 2024
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
18) HC cannot overturn finding of fact by first appellate court without framing substantial question of law
The Court observed that a High Court, in second appeal, cannot overturn the finding of fact of the First Appellate Court without framing a substantial question of law. It reiterated the High Court’s duty to frame substantial questions of law before hearing an appeal under Section 100 of the Code Of Civil Procedure.
The Court set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court which overturned the decision of the First Appellate Court qua sub-letting without framing a substantial question of law regarding sub-letting at any stage.
Cause Title- Rashmi Kant Vijay Chandra & Ors. v. Baijnath Choubey & Company (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 688)
Date of Judgment- September 13, 2024
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol
19) Election petition should not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when there is 'substantial compliance' of RP Act provisions
The Court reiterated that Election Petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is a “substantial compliance” of the provisions of Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The Court dismissed MLA Kimneo Haokip Hangshing's appeal, observing that whether the candidate concealed her investments and income, leading to improper acceptance of her nomination, is a triable issue. It upheld the decision of the Manipur High Court which held that an Election Petition disclosing a cause of action that there is “substantial compliance” of the requirements provided under provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Cause Title- Kimneo Haokip Hangshing v. Kenn Raikhan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 689)
Date of Judgment- September 13, 2024
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
20) Courts must be circumspect in entertaining individual grievance over public examinations as it prejudices larger public interest
The Court observed that Courts must be circumspect in entertaining an individual grievance relating to a Public Examination as it delays the finalisation of the result, thereby, seriously prejudicing the larger public interest.
The Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by a student (petitioner) seeking re-examination of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET-UG) 2024 on the grounds of “inconvenience” caused due to the petitioner's medical condition of hyperhidrosis during the examination.
Cause Title- Talluri Srikar (Minor) Through His Father Talluri Srikrishna v. The Director, National Testing Agency & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 694)
Date of Judgment- September 13, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
21) “Resignation was withdrawn before its acceptance”: SC orders reinstatement of Indian Railways employee
The Court ordered the reinstatement of an Indian Railways employee into service after observing that his resignation letter was withdrawn before its acceptance.
The Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, while upholding the decision of the Single Bench. The Single Bench had held that the decision of the Railways (respondent) in accepting the resignation of the employer (appellant) was not sustainable in law and that there was an undue delay in accepting the resignation by the respondents.
Cause Title- S.D. Manohara v. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 693)
Date of Judgment- September 13, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal
22) State dutybound to pay compensation to land losers as otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300a of Constitution
The Court emphasised that the State must pay compensation to the land losers as otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution.
The Court was deciding a batch of civil appeals preferred against three judgments and orders of the Bombay High Court by which the writ petitions were rejected on the ground of delay and latches.
Cause Title- Kukreja Construction Company & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 692)
Date of Judgment- September 13, 2024
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh