Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: February 12 – February 16, 2024
|1) IBC | Claim submitted by creditor cannot be rejected merely because it appears to be in a different form
The Court held that a claim submitted by the Resolution Applicant under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process cannot be rejected or overlooked simply based on the fact that the claim appears to be in a different form from the form in which the claim needed to be submitted.
The dispute revolved around the appellant, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, allocating a plot to M/s. JNC Construction (P) Ltd (the Corporate Debtor) for a residential project through a 90-year lease. The Corporate Debtor defaulted on payment, leading to the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
Cause Title- Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 102)
Date of Judgment- February 12, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.
2) If trial court’s view in a case of acquittal is plausible, appellate court can't convict accused by reappreciating evidence
The Court reiterated that if the trial court's view while acquitting the accused is plausible, the Appellate court cannot convict the accused by reappreciating the evidence.
The Court allowed a Criminal Appeal challenging the conviction judgment of the High Court while the Trial Court had acquitted the accused. It noted the 'two-views theory' and observed that when evidence can be interpreted in two equally plausible ways, the benefit should go to the accused. This approach safeguards the presumption of innocence by favouring interpretations that support the accused's innocence when multiple possibilities exist.
Cause Title- Mallappa & Ors. v State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 104)
Date of Judgment- February 12, 2024
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
3) Section 83 Representation Of People Act | Defects in election petition curable, not fatal
The Court held that non-compliance with Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act of 1951) is not fatal and defects in an election petition that constitutes non-compliance are curable defects.
The parties had contested the election of the 15th Kerala Legislative Assembly. The appellant was declared elected having polled 992 votes more than the respondent. An Election Petition was filed by the respondent before the Kerala High Court under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (the Act of 1951), to declare the election of the appellant as void and, in consequence, to declare him duly elected.
Cause Title- K. Babu v. M. Swaraj & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 103)
Date of Judgment- February 12, 2024
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar
4) Lapse of limitation bars only remedy but does not extinguish title
The Court observed that as per Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the lapse of limitation bars only the remedy but does not extinguish the title.
The Court observed thus in an appeal relating to a property dispute. It said that modern statutes of limitation operate, as a rule, not only to cut off one's right to bring an action for the recovery of property that has been in the adverse possession of another for a specified time but also to vest the possessor with title.
Cause Title- Vasantha (Dead) Thr. LR. v. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Dead) Thr. LRs. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 109)
Date of Judgment- February 13, 2024
Coram- Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Sanjay Karol
5) Inherent powers u/s 482 CrPC do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on High Courts to act according to whims or caprice
The Court held that the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on High Courts to Act according to whims or caprice.
The Court allowed Appeals filed by the Directorate Of Enforcement (ED) challenging the orders of the High Court that stayed proceedings against the accused.
Cause Title- Directorate Of Enforcement v Niraj Tyagi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 106)
Date of Judgment- February 13, 2024
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
6) 'It's unjust to continue prosecution': SC quashes defamation case against Tejashwi Prasad Yadav as he unconditionally withdraws statement against Gujaratis
The Court quashed a defamation case against Tejashwi Prasad Yadav who was accused of defaming “the entire society of Gujarat.”
Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, the petitioner, had made a public statement on 22nd March 2023 which described all Gujarati people as “thugs”. A complaint was filed against Yadav, who was the Deputy Chief Minister of Bihar at that time, for offences under Section 499 and Section 500 of the IPC for defaming the Gujarati people and the entire society of Gujarat.
Cause Title- Tejashwi Prasad Yadav v. Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 108)
Date of Judgment- February 13, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
7) Director who resigned before issuance of cheque by company cannot be held liable for cheque bouncing
The Court observed that a Director of a company who resigned before issuance of cheque cannot be prosecuted for the offence of cheque bouncing under Section 138 and 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
In this case, the Director of a company had resigned in accordance with the Companies Act, 1956 whereby Form 32 was also accepted. The relevant records were rectified and the changes were incorporated accordingly.
Cause Title- Rajesh Viren Shah v. Redington (India) Limited (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 111)
Date of Judgment- February 14, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol
8) Medicines recovered were of small quantity: SC affirms 1 lakh fine but sets aside imprisonment imposed on a doctor convicted under Drugs & Cosmetics Act
The Court affirmed a fine of Rupees One Lakh but set aside an imprisonment order imposed on a doctor in a case related to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Act).
The appeal concerned an order from the High Court which upheld the decision of the Additional District & Sessions Judge. The lower Appellate Court modified the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order, by setting aside the appellant's conviction under certain sections of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Act), while confirming the conviction under other sections.
Cause Title- Palani v. The Tamil Nadu State (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 110)
Date of Judgment- February 14, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol
9) If findings of guilt by inquiry officer are perverse, appellate authority/writ court can interfere
The Court held that if the Inquiry Officer's findings of guilt are perverse or irrational, then the Writ Court/Appellate Authoriity can interfere. It noted that usually the findings of the Inquiry Officer are not interfered with by the Writ Court/Appellate Authority.
The appeal challenged the dismissal of the Writ Petition by the High Court. The appellant, initially appointed as a class IV employee in the Bareilly Judgeship, was transferred to work as a Process Server in Baheri. Despite working in this role, the appellant was paid the salary of his previous position.
Cause Title- Chatrapal v The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 115)
Date of Judgment- February 15, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
10) Doctrine of manifest arbitrariness can be used to strike down laws: Supreme Court reiterates in Electoral Bonds case
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the landmark judgment holding Electoral Bond Scheme to be unconstitutional reiterated that doctrine of manifest arbitrariness can be used to strike down laws. The Court said that doctrine of manifest arbitrariness can be used to strike down a provision where: (a) the legislature fails to make a classification by recognizing the degrees of harm; and (b) the purpose is not in consonance with constitutional values.
The Court clarified that there is a distinction between plenary legislation and subordinate legislation when they are challenged for being manifestly arbitrary. The Union of India had questioned the applicability of the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness for invalidating legislation in this case.
Cause Title- Association For Democratic Reforms And Anr. v. Union Of India And Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 113)
Date of Judgment- February 15, 2024
Coram- CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.
11) Only prima facie existence of offence sought to be quashed is to be examined while exercising inherent powers u/s 482 CrPC
The Court restored an FIR in a forgery while holding that only the prima facie existence of the offence sought to be quashed is to be examined is while exercising inherent powers.
The accused was charged with forging a Power of Attorney (PoA) on the basis of which a transfer of land was made. The appellant, who was the original owner of the said land, had instituted criminal proceedings after learning about the illegal transaction.
Cause Title- Navin Kumar Rai v. Surendra Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 116)
Date of Judgment- February 14, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol