Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: November 4 – November 8, 2024
|1) Kerala Public Service Commission should desist from trifling with the lives, hopes & aspirations of candidates who seek public employment
The Court observed that a State instrumentality responsible for public service selections must maintain "a high standard of probity and transparency," and avoid resorting to falsehoods before the court.
The Court upheld the Kerala High Court's decision to exclude candidates with a Diploma in Computer Applications (DCA) or other higher qualifications from eligibility for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Kerala Water Authority (Authority).
Cause Title- Anoop M. & Ors. v. Gireeshkumar T.M. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 828)
Date of Judgment- November 4, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sanjay Kumar
2) Mistake-based exemption from limitation requires evidence of reasonable diligence; Suit time barred if mistake could have been discovered earlier
The Court observed that a litigant may claim exemption from limitation due to a mistake, but if reasonable diligence could have revealed the mistake earlier, limitation counts from that date, possibly barring the suit.
The Court set aside the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which quashed a show cause notice issued to Bapuna Alcobrew Private Limited (respondent) regarding minimum guarantee charges for electricity consumption. The Court held that the respondent’s liability to pay these charges was “judicially crystallised” in prior proceedings, and this issue could not be reagitated.
Cause Title- The Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited & Ors. v. Bapuna Alcobrew Private Limited & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 829)
Date of Judgment- November 4, 2024
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Pankaj Mithal
3) Constitutional validity of a statute cannot be challenged for violation of basic structure of Constitution
The Court reiterated that the constitutional validity of a statute cannot be challenged for the violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Court held that a statute can only be struck down only for the violation of Part III or any other provision of the Constitution or for being without legislative competence.
Cause Title- Anjum Kadari & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation No. 2024 INSC 831)
Date of Judgment- November 5, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
4) There must be notification issued as per Customs Act & duly published in official gazette for an exemption
The Court emphasised that for an exemption, there must be a notification issued as per the Customs Act, 1962 and duly published in the Official Gazette.
The Court was dealing with a civil appeal preferred by a company against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) and assailed the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL).
Cause Title- Nabha Power Limited & Anr. v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 833)
Date of Judgment- November 5, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
5) Candidates selected after producing qualification certificate during interview cannot be terminated: SC orders reinstatement of UPPCL employees
The Court ordered the reinstatement of the UPPCL employees holding that candidates selected after producing the required qualification certificate during the interview cannot be terminated.
The Court allowed the appeal filed by the applicants and directed their reinstatement for the post of Technician Grade-II (Electrical) with the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL). The applicants were terminated on grounds that they possessed the Certificate in Computer Concepts (CCC) after the application deadline despite submitting the certificate at the time of their interviews, as per the advertisement requirements.
Cause Title- Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 832)
Date of Judgment- November 5, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
6) Not all private property can be considered material resource of the community
The Court held that the phrase “material resources of the community” in Article 39(b) of the Constitution does not include all property that is privately held with potential to be taken over by the State to "subserve the common good".
A nine-judge Bench delivered three Judgments in the case. The Bench was dealing with three questions: One, whether Article 31C as upheld in the Keshavananda Bharati case survives in the Constitution after the amendment of the provision by the 42nd Amendment was struck down in the Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980). Second, whether the interpretation of Article 39(b) adopted in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1977) case and followed in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing v. Bharat Coking Coke (1982) must be reconsidered. Third, whether the phrase "material resource of the community" can be interpreted to include resources which are owned privately.
Cause Title- Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 835)
Date of Judgment- November 5, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Satish Sharma, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
7) Second complaint on almost identical facts as first complaint not maintainable; If core of both complaints is same, second complaint ought not to be entertained
The Court reiterated that a second complaint on "almost identical facts" as the first complaint would not be maintainable, emphasising that "if the core of both complaints is same," the second complaint ought not to be entertained.
The Court set aside the Gauhati High Court’s judgment which had previously allowed the second complaint, upholding the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s (CJM) original dismissal of the second complaint. The Bench held that a second complaint on identical facts was not maintainable.
Cause Title- Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury & Ors. v. The State of Assam & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 834)
Date of Judgment- November 5, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal
8) Minimum wages payable to skilled workman to be adopted for quantifying notional loss of earnings of child: SC enhances motor accident compensation
The Court while increasing compensation to ₹34L in a motor vehicle accident case observed that minimum wages payable to skilled workmen are more acceptable as compared to that payable to unskilled Labour as the victim was a school-going child.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal claiming that the compensation determined by the High Court was still on the lower side.
Cause Title- Miss Rushi @ Ruchi Thapa v. M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 837)
Date of Judgment- November 5, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar
9) Prosecution failed to indicate his involvement: SC acquits man accused of killing woman using coconut scrapper in 1989
The Court acquitted a man who was accused of killing a woman by grabbing coconut scrapper from kitchen and hitting on her head multiple times.
The Court was deciding a criminal appeal filed by the accused against the judgment of the Kerala High Court which upheld the order of conviction and sentence.
Cause Title- Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. The State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 838)
Date of Judgment- November 5, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
10) Resolution plan approved by committee of creditors prevails over SEZ Act & statutory dues claims: SC dismisses Noida Special Economic Zone Authority’s appeal
The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the NOIDA Special Economic Zone Authority observing that an approved resolution plan prevails over the Special Economic Zone Act and statutory dues claims.
The Court dismissed the appeals challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) decision which upheld the approval of a Resolution Plan that prioritised the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and pointed out the overriding effect of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC 2016) over other statutory provisions, including the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 (SEZ Act, 2005).
Cause Title- Noida Special Economic Zone Authority v. Manish Agarwal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 839)
Date of Judgment- November 5, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
11) A decision is per incuriam only when overlooked statutory provision or legal precedent is central to legal issue
The Court observed that a decision is per incuriam only when the overlooked statutory provision or legal precedent is central to the legal issue in question and might have led to a different outcome if those overlooked provisions were considered.
The Court observed thus in a civil appeal preferred by M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. A Constitution Bench clarified in this case that a person holding a license to drive a ‘light motor vehicle’ (LMV) would be automatically entitled to drive a light transport vehicle with an unladen weight of 7500 kilograms.
Cause Title- M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 840)
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra
12) Possibility of commission of offence in heat of passion cannot be ruled out: SC alters conviction u/s 302 IPC to one u/s 304 IPC
The Court altered the conviction of an individual under Section 302 to one under Part I of Section 304 IPC while observing that the possibility of an offence being committed by the Appellants without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the High Court where the High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal preferred by the present Appellants and upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Cause Title- Devendra Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 841)
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2024
Coram- Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan
13) Section 197(1) CrPC applicable to complaint u/s 44(1)(b) PMLA
The Court held that the provisions of Section 197(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) are applicable to a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The Court held thus in a criminal appeal preferred by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the judgment of the High Court by which it quashed the orders of taking cognizance against the accused persons.
Cause Title- Directorate of Enforcement v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya, etc. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 843)
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
14) Acquittal order further enhances presumption of innocence: SC upholds AFTs decision that acquitted army officials
The Court, while upholding the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal that overturned the conviction of Air Force Officers under Section 304 Part II IPC, observed that an order of acquittal further enhances the presumption of innocence.
The Court said that there is absolutely no evidence of the Respondent or any other accused assaulting the deceased and there is no evidence to show that any act was done by the Respondent to cause death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury to the deceased as is likely to cause death.
Cause Title- Union of India v. Wing Commander M.S. Mander (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 842)
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
15) Compromise between parties not a ground to terminate investigation by quashing FIR: SC in school student’s sexual assault case
The Court in a case involving sexual assault of a student in school, emphasised that the compromise between the parties in such cases cannot be a ground to terminate investigation by quashing FIR.
The Court was dealing with a criminal appeal preferred against the order of the High Court by which the FIR was quashed against the accused.
Cause Title- Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 846)
Date of Judgment- November 7, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar
16) Candidate placed in selection list gets no indefeasible right to be appointed even if vacancies are available
The Court reiterated that a candidate placed in the selection list gets no indefeasible right to be appointed even if vacancies are available.
The Constitution Bench considered whether the recruitment rules could be altered after the recruitment process had begun. This issue arose in relation to the Rajasthan High Court's recruitment for translator posts, where a cut-off of 75% marks was introduced after the examination had already taken place. This led to a challenge by candidates who argued that the cut-off change violated the principle against altering the “rules of the game” once the recruitment process is underway.
Cause Title- Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 847)
Date of Judgment- November 7, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Manoj Misra
17) Supreme Court directs Govt. to take final decisive call regarding cascading impact of “royalty on royalty” in calculating average sale price of minerals
The Court directed the Government to take a final decisive call regarding the cascading impact of “royalty on royalty” in the calculation of the average sale price of minerals.
The Court heard arguments from Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited (KFIL) and its shareholder, who have contested the methodology used by the government to calculate royalties on extracted minerals. KFIL challenged specific explanations within the Mineral (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (MCR), and the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 (MCDR), claiming they result in an unjust "cascading effect" on royalty calculations effectively imposing “royalty on royalty.”
Cause Title- Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited & Anr. v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 848)
Date of Judgment- November 7, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
18) Arbitral Tribunal can direct party found to have caused unnecessary harassment to other party to bear costs of arbitration
The Court held that the arbitral tribunal may direct the party found to have abused the process of law and caused unnecessary harassment to the other party to bear the costs of the arbitration.
The Court allowed the petition filed by a petitioner under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) seeking appointment of an arbitrator for the adjudication of disputes and claims in terms of a Shareholders Agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondents.
Cause Title- Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. Asap Fluids Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 849)
Date of Judgment- November 7, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
19) Seat of arbitration not determined by formulaic & unpredictable application of choice of law based on abstract connecting factors to underlying contract
The Court held that the seat of arbitration cannot be determined by formulaic and unpredictable application of choice of law based on abstract connecting factors to the underlying contract.
The Court held thus in an arbitration petition filed under Section 11(6)(a) read with Section 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), seeking a referral of the disputes between the parties and consequent appointment of an Arbitrator.
Cause Title- M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. M/s Micromax Informatics FZE (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 850)
Date of Judgment- November 7, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
20) A&C Act| Court must exercise its discretion u/s 5 Limitation Act only in exceptional cases where very strong case is made for condonation of delay
The Court observed that the Court must exercise its discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 only in exceptional cases where a very strong case is made for the condonation of delay in filing a Section 11(6) application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Court observed thus in a civil appeal preferred against the judgment of the Bombay High Court by which it allowed the petition under Section 11(6) of A&C Act and appointed a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties.
Cause Title- M/s HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. M/s. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 851)
Date of Judgment- November 7, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala
21) Judicial scrutiny at stage of Section 11 A&C Act limited solely to prima facie determination of existence of arbitration agreement
The Court ruled that the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 limits the judicial scrutiny at the stage of Section 11 solely to the prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.
The Court set aside an order of the Bombay High Court in light of the fact that it undertook a detailed examination of the factual matrix.
Cause Title- Goqii Technologies Private Limited vs. Sokrati Technologies Private Limited (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 853)
Date of Judgment- November 7, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
22) DRI Officers can issue show-cause notice under Customs Act: SC allows Review Petition against 2021 Canon India Judgment
While allowing a review petition against the 2021 Canon India judgment, the Court held that DRI officers have the power to issue show-cause notice under the Customs Act.
The decision came in response to a review petition filed by the Customs Department following the Court’s prior decision in M/s Canon India Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (2021), which had questioned whether DRI officers were “proper officers” to undertake such actions. By allowing the review petition against the said judgment, the Bench clarified that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers have the authority to issue show-cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act).
Cause Title- Commissioner Of Customs v. M/s Canon India Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 854)
Date of Judgment- November 7, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
23) Persons with high ideals & impeccable integrity must be appointed as members in NCLT & NCLAT; There shouldn’t be any political appointment
The Court brought into light certain deficiencies in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and also gave suggestions regarding the functioning of the NCLTs (National Company Law Tribunal) and NCLATs (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal).
The Court emphasised that the persons with high ideals and impeccable integrity must be appointed as Members in NCLT and NCLATs and there should not be any political appointment. It was deciding civil appeals filed against the judgment of NCLAT by which it dismissed an appeal and upheld the order of NCLT.
Cause Title- State Bank of India & Ors. v. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 852)
Date of Judgment- November 7, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
24) Supreme Court Seven Judges Bench overrules 'Azeez Pasha' Judgment that held that AMU cannot claim minority status
The Court pronounced its judgment in a batch of petitions seeking 'minority status' for the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). The Bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra held the majoirty opinion. However, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dissented.
The majority (4:3) overruled its 1967 decision, whereby it held that AMU cannot claim minority status as it was created by a statute.
Cause Title- Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 856)
Date of Judgment- November 8, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Surya Kant, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manoj Misra, and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
25) Unilateral arbitrator appointment clauses in public-private contracts are violative of Article 14 of Constitution
The Court held that the unilateral arbitrator appointment clauses in public-private contracts are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Constitution Bench held thus in civil appeals in which the Court had to decide the contours defining the independence and impartiality of Arbitral Tribunals under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
Cause Title- Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 857)
Date of Judgment- November 8, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
26) 'Recommendatory guidelines under the garb of mandatory rules': SC directs Govt. to prescribe mandatory accessibility standards to implement Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act
The Court held a rule in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 prescribing standards for accessibility for persons with disabilities to be ultra vires of the RPwD Act concluding that several of its provisions appear to be recommendatory guidelines under the garb of mandatory rules. This, the Court said, is contrary to the legislative intent of the Act which creates a mechanism for mandatory compliance.
The Judgment arose from a Writ Petition filed in 2005 by one Rajive Raturi, a visually challenged person who works with a human rights organisation. The petition sought directions to the to take certain measures towards ensuring safety and accessibility in public spaces, such as roads, public transport and other facilities for visually challenged persons.
Cause Title- Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 858)
Date of Judgment- November 8, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
27) Outgoing partner can seek for accounts & share in profits derived from his share in assets of firm till final settlement is made
The Court noted that as per section 37 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, if a partner is carrying on business with the assets of the firm, till a final settlement is made, the outgoing partner can seek for accounts and a share in the profits which might be derived from his share in the assets of the firm.
The Court was considering two appeals assailing the judgment of the Madras High Court passed in First Appeal and Cross Objection preferred against a final decree arising out of an Original Suit instituted by the first respondent for dissolution of a partnership firm.
Cause Title- M/S Crystal Transport Service v. A Fathima Fareedunisa (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 859)
Date of Judgment- November 8, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
28) Court has to confine itself to examination of existence of arbitration agreement while considering prayer u/s 11(6) of A&C Act
The Court clarified that, at the stage of consideration of a prayer under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court has to confine itself to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.
The petitioner, a company duly incorporated under the laws of the United States of America had invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under sub-sections (6) and (12) of Section 11 for appointment of a sole arbitrator in terms of arbitration clause stipulated in the agreements to adjudicate upon the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents.
Cause Title- Lifeforce Cryobank Sciences Inc v. Cryoviva Biotech Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 860)
Date of Judgment- November 8, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra
29) Doctrine of Lis Pendens applies where petition is lying in registry in defective state
The Court held that the Doctrine of Lis Pendens applies where the petition for review was lying in the registry in a defective state.
The Court held thus in review petitions seeking review of the judgment of the three-Judge Bench passed in August 2022 by which it allowed the appeal against the judgment of the Telangana High Court.
Cause Title- M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 861)
Date of Judgment- November 8, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
30) Attempt to make distinction between HC judges for determining their conditions of service or any form of retiral dues is unconstitutional
The Court held that attempt to make a distinction between Judges either for the purpose of determining their conditions of service while in service or any form of retiral dues is unconstitutional.
The Court held thus in two Writ Petitions preferred by eight Judges of the Patna High Court who were aggrieved by a communication issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Justice of the Union Ministry of Law and Justice.
Cause Title- Justice Shailendra Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 862)
Date of Judgment- November 5, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
31) Land Acquisition Act| Grant of cumulative increase in market value of land not absolute rule
The Court reiterated that, in Land Acquisition matters, the grant of cumulative increase in the market value of the land is not an absolute rule.
The Court was considering an appeal which raised issues related to determination of fair and adequate compensation for the acquired land, the fruit trees existing thereon and the borewell.
Cause Title- Manik Panjabrao Kalmegh vs. Executive Engineer Bembla Project Division Yavatmal (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 844)
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2024
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan
32) 'Bulldozer Justice' simply unacceptable under rule of law: SC directs UP Govt to pay ₹25L compensation for illegal demolition of senior journalist's house
The Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to pay compensation of Rupees 25 lakhs to a senior journalist for unlawful demolition of his ancestral residential house. It remarked that 'bulldozer justice' is simply unacceptable under the rule of law.
A senior journalist, Manoj Tibrewal, had approached the Court complaining of the unlawful demolition of his ancestral residential house and shop situated in Maharajganj District of Uttar Pradesh.
Cause Title- In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 863)
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
33) Every endeavour must be made to dispose of matter even in rare cases where orders for keeping college seats vacant are made
The Court observed that, every endeavour must be made by the Court to dispose of the matter before the counselling for admissions are over even in rare cases where Orders for keeping College seats vacant are made.
The Court observed thus in Civil Appeals filed by two Colleges to whom the Director, Medical Education issued Orders, directing them to keep one MBBS seat vacant in the Colleges with a direction that the said seat will not be included in the College Level Counselling (CLC) Round for the academic year 2023-24.
Cause Title- Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 845)
Date of Judgment- November 7, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan