Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: January 1 – January 5, 2024
|1) Registered sale deed where entire consideration is paid operates from date of its execution; unilateral corrections made by seller after execution has to be ignored
The Court held that a sale deed executed with entire consideration will be operative from the date of execution per application of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 (Act) and any unilateral interpolations made after the date of execution has to be ignored.
The Court dismissed a Civil Appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court that restored the Trial Court’s decision which upheld the original sale deed’s validity. It held that, in this instance, the operative document is the sale deed as it was during its execution.
Cause Title- Kanwar Raj Singh (D) Th. Lrs. v Gejo. (D) Th.Lrs & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1)
Date of Judgment- January 2, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
2) Writ court has power to mould relief; justice cannot be forsaken on the altar of technicalities
The Court observed that a writ court has the power to mould the relief and justice cannot be forsaken on the alter of technicalities.
The Court observed thus in an appeal filed by a man whose candidature for the post of Police Constable got cancelled due to the technical error with respect to his date of birth.
Cause Title- Vashist Narayan Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 2)
Date of Judgment- January 2, 2024
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
3) Adani-Hindenburg Row | Supreme Court refuses to transfer investigation from SEBI; says allegations against expert committee unsubstantiated
The Court refused to transfer the investigation into the Adani-Hindenburg case from SEBI to Special Investigation Team. The bench said that the allegations of conflict of interest against the court-appointed members of the Expert Committee were unsubstantiated and accordingly were rejected.
The Court had reserved its judgment in the batch of petitions seeking an investigation against SEBI by an expert committee constituted by the Court into the allegations made by the Hindenburg alleging stock price manipulation by the Adani group. The hearing of the batch of cases had witnessed sharp accusations against members of the Expert Committee constituted by the Court in the matter.
Cause Title- Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 3)
Date of Judgment- January 3, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
4) Supreme Court frames Standard Operating Procedure on personal appearance of government officials in court proceedings
The Court framed the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on the personal appearance of the Government Officials in the court proceedings. It said that the use of the power to summon the presence of government officials must not be used as a tool to pressurize the government, particularly, under the threat of contempt.
The Court was deciding the appeals filed by the Uttar Pradesh State against the Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges, Allahabad that arose out of the two orders of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The said orders gave rise to significant questions about the separation of powers, the exercise of criminal contempt jurisdiction, and the practice of frequently summoning government officials to court.
Cause Title- The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 4)
Date of Judgment- January 3, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
5) Exception u/s. 27 Evidence Act applies even if accused is not formally arrested at the time of giving information
The Court observed that even if the accused was not formally arrested at the time of giving information, the accused is, for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police and the bar vide Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and accordingly exception under Section 27 of the Evidence Act would apply.
The Court reiterated thus in an appeal filed by a man against the judgment of the Madras High Court by which his conviction was affirmed under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Cause Title- Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 13)
Date of Judgment- January 3, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
6) Supreme Court grants relief to UP school teachers who were not paid salary for alleged manipulation in securing appointment
The Court allowed appeals filed by some teachers of a school in Uttar Pradesh whose salaries were halted in 2005. It overturned the High Court's decision to cancel their selection in 2013 due to alleged manipulation.
The Court ordered the State to pay full salaries from June 25, 1999, to January 2002, and 50% of back wages from October 2005 onwards, affirming the validity of their appointments in continuous service with associated benefits.
Cause Title- Radhey Shyam Yadav & Anr. Etc. v State Of U.P. & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 7)
Date of Judgment- January 3, 2024
Coram- Justice J. K. Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
7) Terrorist activities have impact on India & other enemy states: Supreme Court sets aside default bail granted to UAPA accused
The Court set aside a Delhi High Court Order granting bail to an accused who allegedly had links with Pakistan-based terrorists and had been planning to go to Pakistan for weapons training.
The Government of Delhi had filed an appeal against an Order of the Delhi High Court granting default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 to the accused.
Cause Title- State of NCT of Delhi v. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 11)
Date of Judgment- January 3, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal
8) Date of issuance of insurance policy is relevant instead of date of proposal or issuance of receipt
The Court held that the date of issuance of insurance policy is relevant date for all the purposes, instead of date of proposal or the date of issuance of the receipt.
The Court held thus in a batch of two appeals filed by the Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. that raised a common question of law in which the challenge was to the orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
Cause Title- Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. v. Jaya Wadhwani (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 10)
Date of Judgment- January 3, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal
9) "Perverse finding", "ignored material evidence": SC sets aside HC judgment in property dispute
In a property dispute case, the Court set aside a High Court judgment observing that it was perverse on appreciated evidence and also ignored material evidence.
In this case, the plaintiff sought to nullify a sale deed, alleging an oral partition and bequeathal whereas the Defendants asserted legitimate ownership, challenging the suit. The High Court had relied on certain documents, including two sale deeds and a mortgage deed related to different pieces of land, to support the existence of an oral partition.
Cause Title- Rajendhiran v Muthaiammal @ Muthayee & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 12)
Date of Judgment- January 3, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal
10) Supreme Court clears air on right to claim set-off in corporate insolvency resolution process under IBC
The Court, in a recent judgment, cleared air on right to claim set-off in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The Court noted that provisions of statutory set-off or insolvency set-off permitted by the Liquidation Regulations cannot be applied to a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. But it carved out two exceptions to this rule: contractual set-off and equitable set-off/transactional set-off.
Cause Title- Bharti Airtel Limited & Anr. v. Vijaykumar V Iyer & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 15)
Date of Judgment- January 3, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti
11) Tenant cannot claim adverse possession against landlord
The Court set aside a Judgment of Allahabad High Court that allowed a suit for claiming rights by adverse possession and held that ownership and possession of land cannot be claimed through permissive possession arising from tenancy.
Additionally, there was no possibility of asserting adverse possession in this context. The disputed land in question was claimed by the appellant through a sale deed registered in 1966. The respondents claimed that their continued possession at the time of the abolition of Zamindari established their ownership. A suit for injunction and relief for possession was filed by the appellant.
Cause Title- Brij Narayan Shukla v. Sudesh Kumar Alias Suresh Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 9)
Date of Judgment- January 3, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal
12) Suit for possession must describe property in question with accuracy & all details of measurement & boundaries
The Court observed that the suit for possession must describe property in question with accuracy and all the details of measurement and boundaries.
The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the plaintiff who assailed the correctness of the judgment of the Madras High Court by which the second appeal filed by the defendant was allowed.
Cause Title- Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 8)
Date of Judgment- January 3, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal
13) Lower or subordinate courts should not contradict decisions of higher courts: Supreme Court emphasizes 'judicial discipline'
Emphasizing the rule of ‘Judicial Discipline and Propriety’, the Court observed that the lower or subordinate courts do not have the authority to contradict the decisions of higher courts.
The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the plaintiff who assailed the correctness of the judgment of the Madras High Court by which the second appeal filed by the defendant was allowed.
Cause Title- Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 8)
Date of Judgment- January 3, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal
14) Offence u/s 364A is not attracted if abduction or kidnapping is without demand of ransom
The Court held that an offence under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is not attracted if abduction or kidnapping is without any demand of ransom.
The Court disposed of an Appeal challenging the order of the High Court affirming the convection order of the Trial Court under Sections 307, 120B, 364-A, 392 and 397 of the IPC. It noted that the prosecution was unable to prove the existence of a ransom call and therefore the accused could not be held liable under Section 364A IPC.
Cause Title- Neeraj Sharma v State Of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 6)
Date of Judgment- January 3, 2024
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
15) 'Consensual relationship culminated in marriage': supreme court quashes FIR against man accused of rape by giving false promise to marry
The Court quashed an FIR against man accused of raping a woman by giving false promise of marriage as it found that it was a consensual relationship which culminated in the marriage.
An FIR was filed by the complainant against the appellant on the accusations of rape (Section 376 IPC) and criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC). Subsequently, the appellant filed a petition before the High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR, which was dismissed.
Cause Title- Ajeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 5)
Date of Judgment- January 3, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
16) Is dissenting financial creditor entitled to be paid minimum value of its security interest?: Supreme Court refers matter to larger bench
Whether Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as amended in 2019, entitles the dissenting financial creditor to be paid the minimum value of its security interest? The Supreme Court has referred this issue to a larger bench. The Court noted that the perceived conflict with Section 30(2)(b)(ii) applies to the minimum payment for operational or dissenting financial creditors who do not vote in favour of the scheme, with operational creditors lacking the right to vote.
The Court expressed disagreement with certain aspects of the views presented in the case of India Resurgence ARC Private Limited v. Amit Metaliks Limited & Another [2021 SCC Online SC 409]. While acknowledging that voting is a matter of the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and that a dissenting secured creditor cannot demand a higher amount, the Court noted that this does not negate the right of such a creditor to receive payment equal to the value of the security interest under Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the Code.
Cause Title- DBS Bank Limited Singapore v Ruchi Soya Industries Limited And Another (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 14)
Date of Judgment- January 3, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
17) SC upholds Bombay HC order cancelling bail of cheque bounce convicts for violating undertaking given before it
The Court upheld the cancelling the order of suspension of sentence and bail granted to cheque bounce convicts for violating the previous undertakings.
The case involved a petitioner who, despite multiple directives from the court, exhibited a nonchalant attitude towards fulfilling financial obligations, leading to the cancellation of bail and suspension of sentence.
Cause Title- Satish P Bhatt v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 16)
Date of Judgment- January 3, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal
18) A court cannot modify arbitral award u/s. 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act
The Court observed that a court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has no jurisdiction to modify an arbitral award.
The Court was deciding an appeal against the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) was challenged.
Cause Title- S.V. Samudram v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 17)
Date of Judgment- January 4, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol
19) Prosecution witnesses' statement during trial regarding involvement of accused cannot be relied upon if they had failed to mention it in their statements u/s 161 CrPC
The Court held that witnesses' testimonies during trial proceedings regarding an accused's involvement cannot be relied upon if the same was not previously stated in their statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
The Court acquitted a murder convict and allowed a Criminal Appeal filed by him challenging concurrent convictions. It emphasized that the introduction of new facts during the trial is impermissible.
Cause Title- Darshan Singh v State Of Punjab (Neutral Citation 2024 INSC 19)
Date of Judgment- January 4, 2024
Coram- Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar
20) Duty of detaining authority & right of detenue u/article 22(5) of Constitution: Supreme Court explains
The Court, in a recent judgment, explained the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution that deals with duty of the authorities in serving the grounds of detention to detenue and detenue's right to make a representation.
The Court dismissed an appeal challenging the detention order of an individual apprehended for attempting to smuggle gold and foreign currencies without customs detection.
Cause Title- Sarfaraz Alam v Union Of India & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 18)
Date of Judgment- January 4, 2024
Coram- Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar
21) Appellate court should grant benefit of doubt to accused when evidence doesn't conclusively prove guilt and alternative view is plausible
The Court held that the Appellate Court should extend the benefit of the doubt to the accused when the evidence fails to conclusively establish guilt, and an alternative plausible view exists.
The Court allowed a Criminal Appeal challenging a conviction in a murder case which was upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Court also noted that the victim's dying declaration lacked specific evidence and had no corroborating material, raising doubts about its reliability.
Cause Title- Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 20)
Date of Judgment- January 5, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
22) Evidence adduced raise doubts, improbabilities & inconsistencies: Supreme Court acquits accused in a 20 year old murder case
The Court set aside a murder conviction, emphasizing that the evidence adduced in the case give rise to doubts, improbabilities, and inconsistencies.
The Court noted that a significant disparity exists between the charges against the Appellant and the evidence presented, failing to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Cause Title- Pradeep Kumar v. State Of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 21)
Date of Judgment- January 5, 2024
Coram- Justice B R Gavai and Justice P S Narasimha
23) Supreme Court upholds summoning order against police officers in a corruption case
The Court affirmed the summoning order passed by the Trial Court against police officers entangled in a paddy misappropriation and corruption case, asserting the sufficiency of prima facie evidence.
The case, originating from allegations of misappropriation by a police inspector, led to a High Court order dismissing a revision plea against the Trial Court’s decision to summon the accused officers.
Cause Title- Gurdev Singh Bhalla v State Of Punjab & Ors. (2024 INSC 22)
Date of Judgment- January 5, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal