Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: January 29 – February 2, 2024
|1) Supreme Court dismisses CSIR's appeal against P&H HC judgment reversing promotion granted to its two employees
The Court did not interfere with the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had reversed the promotion granted by CSIR to its two employees.
An appeal was filed by the Director General of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court had reversed the promotion of two employees for the post of Under Secretary on the ground that their promotion was in violation of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Administrative Services (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 1982 (Statutory rules).
Cause Title- Director General, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. J.K. Prashar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 65)
Date of Judgment- January 29, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta
2) News article was published in good faith and in exercise of fundamental right of free speech & expression: SC quashes defamation case against newspaper owner
The Court quashed a defamation case against a newspaper owner saying that the news article was published in good faith and in exercise of the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The Court was dealing with an appeal preferred by the newspaper owner i.e., the accused who was facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a complaint filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad.
Cause Title- Sanjay Upadhya v. Anand Dubey (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 66)
Date of Judgment- January 29, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
3) Offending act not done with intention that victim belongs to Scheduled Caste: SC acquits man accused under SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
The Court held that the commission of the offence of outraging modesty under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) should be accompanied by the specific intention that the victim belongs to the Scheduled Caste.
The Court allowed an appeal against the High Court's order acquitting the appellant for IPC offences under Section 320 of the CrPC but rejecting it for the SC/ST Act offence. The Court noted that the accused allegedly attempted to outrage the prosecutrix's modesty but there was no indication, that he intended to target a person from the Scheduled Caste.
Cause Title- Dashrath Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 68)
Date of Judgment- January 29, 2024
Coram- Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sandeep Mehta
4) 'Appellant still claims to be in possession': SC restores writ petition of 1987 challenging land acquisition & directs U'khand HC to decide it on merits
The Court remitted a land acquisition case to the Uttarakhand High Court to expeditiously decide the matter on its merits and provide an opportunity for all concerned parties to be heard. The Allahabad High Court had dismissed a writ petition (in 1992) filed by the appellant challenging the acquisition of his land by the respondents back in 1987.
The appellant claimed that he was in the continuous possession of the land. The appellant later filed an application seeking restoration of the writ petition on two grounds, firstly that the name of his was not printed in the cause list and secondly one of the judges hearing the case had previously served as an advocate and had filed various applications in the writ petition. The restoration application was not taken up for a significant period of time. Subsequently, the appellant filed another application seeking the restoration of the original restoration application and was rejected by the Uttarakhand High Court.
Cause Title- J.N. Puri v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Now State of Uttarakhand) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 64)
Date of Judgment- January 29, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
5) SC upholds ₹2 lakh compensation to 84-year-old man who suffered loss of vision due to medical negligence 20 years ago
The Court granted compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to 84-year-old man who suffered loss of vision in left eye due to the medical negligence committed by the doctor twenty years ago.
The Court was deciding a batch of appeals arising out of proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Cause Title- P.C. Jain v. Dr. R.P. Singh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 67)
Date of Judgment- January 29, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
6) In cheque bounce cases, courts can compare specimen signature maintained by bank with signature on cheque
The Court observed that, in Cheque Bounce cases, the Courts can compare signatures on cheques with certified copies of specimen signatures using powers under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).
The Court dismissed an Appeal challenging the order of the High Court that rejected a plea to introduce additional evidence and involve a handwriting expert opinion. It noted that Section 118(e) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), 1881 (NI Act) presumes that indorsements on the negotiable instrument are genuine and in the order in which they appear. To challenge this presumption, the accused must present evidence.
Cause Title- Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v State Of Gujarat & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 63)
Date of Judgment- January 29, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
7) Supreme Court allows plea of retired BSNL employee's wife seeking maintenance enhancement
The Court allowed an appeal of the wife of a retired BSNL employee seeking enhancement of maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
The wife filed an appeal with allegations of insufficiency and inconsistency in the High Court's order, questioning the accuracy of the financial capabilities of her Husband.
Cause Title- Yagwati @ Poonam v Ghanshyam (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 76)
Date of Judgment- January 29, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
8) Insincere apology cannot be accepted: Supreme Court upholds conviction of Advocate for contempt
The Court dismissed the appeal of an advocate convicted for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act).
The Court noted that an apology should demonstrate genuine remorse for the contemptuous acts and must not be employed as a tool to absolve the guilty of the offence.
Cause Title- Gulshan Bajwa v Registrar, High Court Of Delhi & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 74)
Date of Judgment- January 30, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
9) 'Maintaining sexual relationship with consent is not an offence': Supreme Court quashes 'rape by giving false promise to marry' case
The Court quashed FIR against a man accused of 'rape by giving false promise to marry' and held that the continuation of such prosecution would be a gross abuse of the process of law.
The Court explained that “if it is established that from the inception, the consent by the victim is a result of a false promise to marry, there will be no consent, and in such a case, the offence of rape will be made out.” The complainant, who was the alleged wife of the appellant, had filed an FIR against him stating that the appellant was married to another woman. According to her, the appellant had assured to marry following which their physical relationship started.
Cause Title- Sheikh Arif v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 70)
Date of Judgment- January 30, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
10) Mere commercial disputes over variation of rate cannot give rise to an offence u/s. 405 IPC
The Court observed that the commercial disputes over variation of rate cannot give rise to an offence under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) without presence of any aggravating factor leading to the substantiation of its ingredients.
The Court observed thus in an appeal preferred against the Allahabad High Court that dismissed the accused's plea to quash the criminal proceedings.
Cause Title- Sachin Garg v. State of UP & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 72)
Date of Judgment- January 30, 2024
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar
11) Omission to label a notice with provision under which it is issued won’t make it nugatory if substance is clearly conveyed
The Court held that the omission to label a notice with the provision under which it is issued, would not make it nugatory, if the substance is clearly conveyed.
The Court held thus in the appeals filed by landlords against the judgment of the Bombay High Court that exercised its revisional jurisdiction by invalidating eviction decrees against two tenants in respect of two portions of the same building.
Cause Title- Baitulla Ismail Shaikh and Anr. v. Khatija Ismail Panhalkar and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 71)
Date of Judgment- January 30, 2024
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
12) Contempt Of Court | Courts can issue appropriate directions for remedying & rectifying things done in violation of its order
The Court set aside the Order of Calcutta High Court which vacated a stay order in violation of an order concerning possession of suit premises amounting to civil contempt. The Court discussed the scope and extent of the contempt jurisdiction exercised by a High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Cause Title- Amit Kumar Das v. Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable Trust (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 73)
Date of Judgment- January 30, 2024
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar
13) Supreme Court pulls up police officers for illegally detaining tenants, coercing them to sign documents & getting premises demolished
The Court imposed heavy costs on Police officers who illegally detained tenants, coerced them to sign documents, and got the premises demolished. It imposed a hefty fine, of Rs. 50,000/- per Constable, Rs. 1,00,000/- for the Head Constable, Rs. 1.50 lacs for the Sub-Inspector, and Rs. 2.0 lacs for the Inspector, adding up to a total of Rs. 6.0 lacs for each case, for involvement of police officers in the illegal detention of tenants and unauthorized demolition of premises.
The Court allowed the Petitions challenging the High Court’s affirmation of the Sessions Court order to direct registration and investigation.
Cause Title- Shatrughna Atmaram Patil & Ors. v Vinod Dodhu Chaudhary & Anr. (2024 INSC 75)
Date of Judgment- January 30, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
14) NGT should balance between justice & due process; practice of ex-parte orders imposing damages of crores of rupees counterproductive
The Court said that the National Green Tribunal's practice of ex-parte orders and imposition of damages amounting to crores of rupees is a counterproductive force in the broader mission of environmental safeguarding.
The Court was dealing with a batch of appeals against the orders passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT).
Cause Title- Veena Gupta & Anr. v. Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 89)
Date of Judgment- January 30, 2024
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar
15) Environmental bodies must function vibrantly; must be assisted by robust infrastructure & human resources: SC issues directions
The Court issued several directions to ensure that environmental bodies function vibrantly, and are assisted by robust infrastructure and human resources. It directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to adopt some measures to promote institutional transparency, efficiency, and accountability in its functioning.
The Court ordered CEC to formulate guidelines for conduct of its functions and internal meetings. Its judgment was in the context of institutionalisation and reconstitution of CEC.
Cause Title- In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 78)
Date of Judgment- January 31, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice P.S. Narasimha, and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
16) Protection is to be accorded against unwanted criminal prosecution and from unnecessary trial
The Court observed that in appropriate cases, it is essential to protect against unwarranted criminal prosecution and from unnecessary trials. It allowed the Appeal challenging the High Court’s Judgment that dismissed the plea to quash FIR.
The Court noted that the dispute revolved around the landowners/principals and the Power of Attorney (PoA) holder. It observed that it was unfair to involve the appellant in criminal litigation as he had no role in the PoA's execution and he had already paid the full amount of consideration to the PoA holder.
Cause Title- Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia v State Of Bihar & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 77)
Date of Judgment- January 31, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
17) 'Harshness of a provision is no reason to read it down': SC upholds Rule 9(5) SARFAESI Rules enabling forfeiture of entire earnest money by secured creditor
The Court upheld the validity of Rule 9(5) of SARFAESI Rules which enables forfeiture of earnest-money deposit by the secured creditor. It held that the Madras High Court erred in law by holding that forfeiture of the entire deposit under Rule 9 by the bank after having already recovered its dues from the subsequent sale amounts to unjust enrichment.
It also held that Section(s) 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act will have no application whatsoever, when it comes to forfeiture of the earnest-money deposit under Rule 9 sub-rule (5) of the SARFAESI Rules.
Cause Title- The Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India v. Shanmugavelu (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 80)
Date of Judgment- February 2, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice Dr DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
18) Overt act of some accused in an unlawful assembly with common object to kill deceased is sufficient to charge all u/s 302 r/w 149 IPC
The Court observed that the participation of some accused in an unlawful assembly with the common intent to kill the victim and grievously hurt others is sufficient to charge all under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The Court dismissed the Appeal challenging the order of the High Court affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court under Section 302 read with 149 IPC.
Cause Title- Haalesh @ Haleshi @ Kurubara Haleshi v State Of Karnataka
Date of Judgment- February 2, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
19) Sufficiency of evidence is to be seen in the context of standard of proof, which in civil cases is by preponderance of probability
The Court held that while inquiring into whether a fact is proved or not, sufficiency of evidence has to be be seen in the context of standard of proof, which in civil cases is by a preponderance of probability.
The Trial Court had dismissed a suit for declaration of title and injunction since the respondent was not able not establish her title by way of a clear document of title in her favour, and secondly, the suit was barred by limitation. However, the Bombay High Court referred to the deed evidencing the presence of title in favour of the respondent’s predecessor followed by their continuous possession and concluded that her title over the property was well-established.
Cause Title- Government of Goa v. Maria Julieta D’souza (D) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 88)
Date of Judgment- January 31, 2024
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar
20) If Section 34 IPC is applied, should each accused be convicted under same provision? Supreme Court to examine
The Court, in a criminal appeal, will examine whether each accused should be convicted under the same provision if Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is applied. It noted that the issue pertained to the conviction of Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 under section 304 Part-II IPC, with a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a Rs. 5,000 fine each. The Appellant contended that the same conviction and sentence should apply to Accused No. 1 to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
On December 13, 2023, during the case hearing, the Court reserved orders and requested the appellant to submit a written brief by January 5, 2024. The Appellant complied with this request, and the brief was filed.
Cause Title- Vithal v. The State Of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 79)
Date of Judgment- January 30, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal