Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: May 13 – May 17, 2024
|1) S 102(3) CrPC| Non-reporting of seizure forthwith by police officer to jurisdictional magistrate would not vitiate seizure order
The Court held that non-reporting of a seizure forthwith by a police officer to a jurisdictional magistrate would not vitiate the seizure order. The court said that the obligation to report a seizure to the Magistrate was neither a jurisdictional pre-requisite for exercising the power to seize nor was the exercise of such power made subject to compliance with the reporting obligation.
The Court clarified that if the Magistrate finds that there is no reasonable explanation for the delay or that the official has acted with deliberate disregard/ wanton negligence, then it may direct for appropriate departmental action to be initiated against such erring official.
Cause Title- Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 407)
Date of Judgment- May 13, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar
2) Section 11(2) Foreign Trade Act is a penal provision which must be strictly construed: SC sets aside penalty imposed on a pharma company
The Court said that Section 11(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FT Act) is a penal provision and the same must be strictly construed.
The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by a company against the Director General of Foreign Trade.
Cause Title- M/s. Embio Limited v. Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 408)
Date of Judgment- May 13, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
3) Professionals are not businessmen/traders; clients/patients are not consumers: Supreme Court doubts its 3 decades old 'IMA vs VP Shantha' judgment
The Court observed that its three decades old judgment in Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha [1995] Supp. (5) S.C.R. 110 deserves to be ‘revisited’ by a larger bench. In VP Shantha, a three-Judges Bench had held that service rendered to a patient by a medical practitioner (except where the doctor renders service free of charge to every patient or under a contract of personal service), by way of consultation, diagnosis and treatment, both· medicinal and surgical, would fall within the ambit of 'service' as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.
The Bench referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India for consideration stating that in their opinion, neither a ‘Profession’ could be treated as a ‘business’ or ‘trade’ nor the services provided by the ‘Professionals’ could be treated at par with the services provided by a businessmen or traders, so as to bring them within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now Consumer Protection Act, 2019) [the Act].
Cause Title- Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 410)
Date of Judgment- May 14, 2024
Coram- Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal
4) Execution of decree by sale of judgment debtor's immovable property is not to penalise him; but only to provide relief to decree holder
The Court observed that the execution of a decree by sale of the entire immovable property of the judgment debtor is not to penalise him but the same is provided to grant relief to the decree holder and to confer him the fruits of litigation. It said that the right of a decree holder should never be construed to have bestowed upon him a bonanza only because he had obtained a decree for realisation of a certain amount.
The Court observed thus in an appeal concerning the restitution of a judgment debtor on a decree being varied, reversed, set aside or modified as it is statutorily recognised in Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Cause Title- Bhikchand S/o Dhondiram Mutha (Deceased) Through LRs. v. Shamabai Dhanraj Gugale (Deceased) Through LRs. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 411)
Date of Judgment- May 14, 2024
Coram- Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
5) Seizure/confiscation of sandalwood u/s 52 & 61A Kerala Forest Act requires authorities to conclude there is ‘reason to believe’ that ‘forest offence’ is committed
The Court observed that Sections 52 and 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, dealing with seizure and confiscation of sandalwood etc., required an officer concerned to come to the conclusion that there was a ‘reason to believe’ that a ‘forest offence’ had been committed.
The Bench reiterated that the formation of an opinion under Sections 52 and 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (the Forest Act) as to the expression ‘reason to believe’, may be subjective and it must be based on material on the record and cannot be "arbitrary, capricious or whimsical."
Cause Title- The Divisional Forest Officer, Munnar, Kerala & Anr. v. P.J. Antony & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 412)
Date of Judgment- May 14, 2024
Coram- Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar
6) Any person arrested has fundamental right to be informed about the grounds of arrest 'in writing' at the earliest
The Court while allowing an appeal of Prabir Purkayastha, the founder and Editor-in-Chief of Newsclick, held that a person arrested has fundamental right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing at the earliest.
The Court observed that the ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature. Prabir had challenged his arrest in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) on the allegations of promoting fake narratives and jeopardizing national interests on behalf of foreign-funded entities.
Cause Title- Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 414)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
7) Property deals were benami transactions; criminal prosecution of accused impermissible: SC quashes FIR lodged by govt. teacher
The Court quashed FIR lodged by a Government teacher against some accused after noticing that the property deals he had entered into were benami transactions.
The Court observed thus in a criminal appeal filed against the judgment of the Madras High Court by which it dismissed a plea seeking quashing of proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Sections 120B, Section 294(b), Section 506(ii) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Cause Title- C. Subbiah @ Kadambur Jayaraj and Others v. The Superintendent of Police and Others
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
8) "Offences are personal to them': SC acquits man accused of stalking & intimidating woman after they married each other
The Court acquitted an accused of charges under 354D and 509 IPC after his marriage with the complainant, observing that the offences are personal to the accused and the complainant.
The Court said that their marriage with each other during the pendency of the appeal gives rise to a reasonable belief on existence of some kind of relationship even when offence was alleged.
Cause Title- Dasari Srikanth v. State of Telangana
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
9) Land owner's right to make objections akin to fundamental right; Non-compliance of mandatory requirement u/s 15 RFCTLARR Act vitiates land acquisition
The Court said that a land owner's right to make objections under Section 15 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is akin to fundamental right.
The court added that compliance of this mandatory requirement would vitiate the acquisition. The Court was dealing with civil appeals preferred against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a batch of writ petitions by which the same were dismissed.
Cause Title- Dinesh and Others Etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Etc.
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, and Justice Sandeep Mehta
10) ‘FIR after 39 days without any date or time of incident; seems to be a tool to wreak vengeance’: SC quashes criminal case for trespass and demolition
The Court quashed an FIR while noting the delay of 39 days in approaching the police in a case of trespass, house demolition and stealing of construction materials.
The Court was hearing a special leave against the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court which refused to quash the FIR.
Cause Title- Shivendra Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, and Justice Sandeep Mehta
11) Mere presence in second marriage ceremony not sufficient to prosecute them: SC quashes criminal case against relatives & friends
The Court observed that to bring the charge of common intention in the offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC not only the presence, but the overt act or omission of the relatives and friends in the second marriage ceremony has to be proved.
The Court said that awareness of the subsisting marriage should also be established.
Cause Title- S. Nitheen v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 420)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2024
Coram- Justice B R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
12) Absence of injuries on victim no ground to infer her 'consent': SC upholds conviction in 35 year old gang rape case
The Court, while upholding the conviction of accused in a 35 year old gang rape case, observed that the absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix is by itself no ground to infer consent on the part of the prosecutrix.
The Court was deciding an appeal against the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court by which the accused persons were convicted.
Cause Title- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 421)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
13) Credible dying declaration devoid of any tutoring can form the sole basis for conviction
The Court reiterated that a credible dying declaration which is devoid of any tutoring could form the sole basis for a conviction.
The Bench explained that once a dying declaration is found to be authentic inspiring confidence of the Court, then the same can be relied upon and can be the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration.
Cause Title- Rajendra v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 422)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
14) ‘Right of several workmen are at stake’: SC remands matter related to employment status of workmen of Solapur Municipal Corporation to Bombay HC for document verification
The Court remanded the matter related to the employment status of workmen of Solapur Municipal Corporation to the Bombay High Court for document verification.
The main issue for consideration in this case was related to the employment status of Shankarrao Govindrao Patil and others who were in the service of Majarewadi Gram Panchayat.
Cause Title- Solapur Municipal Corporation v. Shankarrao Govindrao Patil (Neutral Citation 2024 INSC 423)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2024
Coram- Justice A S Bopanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar
15) 'Ignoring a Constitution Bench judgment amounts to material error': Supreme Court recalls its 2014 judgment
The Court recalled its 2014 judgment which ignored the law laid down by a Constitution Bench in the case of Bhagat Ram & others vs. State of Punjab & others.
The original respondent in the appeal filed a review petition seeking to review the judgment of the Court which had allowed the civil appeal filed by the State of Haryana, against the judgment and order of the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The case arose from the State of Haryana's notification dated February 11, 1992, which amended the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, by adding sub-clause (6) to Section 2(g). This amendment defined "shamilat deh" to include lands reserved for common village purposes and explained that certain lands, despite their recorded ownership, were to be considered as "shamilat deh."
Cause Title- Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 424)
Date of Judgment- May 16, 2024
Coram- Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
16) Proprietary rights cannot be infringed upon mere pendency of writ appeal: SC asks authority to decide plea for resort construction near Pachmarhi wildlife sanctuary
The Court directed the authorities to decide an application filed by Shewalkar Developers Limited for the construction of a health/eco-resort near Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary.
The Court said that the proprietary rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution cannot be infringed merely on account of a pending writ appeal. The Bench directed that the authorities should ‘bear in mind’ the fact that a large number of resorts of Madhya Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation and Special Area Development Authority (SADA) existed on areas abutting the land owned by the applicant, M/s Shewalkar Developers Limited (Developers).
Cause Title- T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 16, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
17) Even if plea of limitation is not set up as defence, court has to dismiss suit if it is barred by limitation
The Court reiterated that even if the plea of limitation is not set up as a defence, the court has to dismiss the suit if it is barred by limitation.
The Court reiterated thus in a batch of appeals preferred against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by which the Division Bench allowed the plea of the plaintiff.
Cause Title- S. Shivraj Reddy (Died) Thr His LRs. and Another v. S. Raghuraj Reddy and Others
Date of Judgment- May 16, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
18) Hindu female must not only be possessed of the property but she must have acquired it for establishing full ownership u/s 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act
The Court held that for establishing full ownership on the undivided joint family estate under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act the Hindu female must not only be possessed of the property but she must have acquired the property. It added that such acquisition must be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at a partition or “in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance” or by gift or be her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription.
The Court held thus in an appeal challenging the final judgment and order of the Rajasthan High Court by which the appeal questioning the legality and validity of the judgment of the Single Judge was dismissed.
Cause Title- Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (D) Through LRs. and Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 16, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
19) Writ petition against Air India not maintainable as it ceased to be 'state' after take over by private company
The Court held that writ petition against Air India Limited is not maintainable as it ceased to be the 'State' or its instrumentality after its take over by private company. The Court observed that once the erstwhile government/public company has been taken over by a private entity and is not performing any public duty, therefore, such company cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
A group of appeals were filed assailing the common impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court thereby dismissing four writ petitions instituted by the Appellants being the former employees of one of the Respondents i.e. Air India Limited (‘AIL’) as members of its cabin crew force. Appellants came to be employed in AIL in the late 1980s and all of them retired between 2016 and 2018.
Cause Title- R.S. Madireddy and Anr. Etc. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 425)
Date of Judgment- May 16, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
20) ‘Unsettling poor rustic villagers would result in heaping injustice’: SC sets aside collector’s order cancelling land allotment under UPZALR Act
The Court set aside the Collector's suo moto order of cancellation of land allotments under Section 122-C of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in absence of fraud, occurring 13 years after the initial allotment.
The Court held thus while stating that the power of the Collector is available to initiate suo moto action for cancellation of allotment under sub-section (6) of Section 122-C in case of fraud and if such foundational facts would disclose the same, it would suffice to initiate the proceedings.
Cause Title- Shyamo Devi v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 430)
Date of Judgment- May 16, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravi Kumar and Justice Aravind Kumar
21) Sufficient evidence to justify repudiation by invoking exclusion clause: SC allows insurance company's appeal against NCDRC judgment in 2009 Chambal bridge collapse case
The Court allowed the appeal filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors., challenging the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which allowed the consumer complaint and directed the insurance company to release and pay an insurance claim of Rs. 39,09,92,828/-.
The Court said that the NCDRC fell into a clear error of law and fact in allowing the consumer complaint and that there is sufficient evidence to justify repudiation of the claim on the basis of the exclusion clause.
Cause Title- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 431)
Date of Judgment- May 16, 2024
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar
22) Constitutional Right to Property as a net of intersecting sub-rights: Supreme Court elucidates
The Court remarked that the Right to Property must give way to more meaningful renditions where the larger right to property is seen as comprising intersecting sub-rights, each with a distinct character but interconnected to constitute the whole.
The Court was deciding an appeal preferred by Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) which claimed to have acquired a property under Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
Cause Title- Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 435)
Date of Judgment- May 16, 2024
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar
23) Second appeal can be entertained by Punjab & Haryana HC even without framing substantial question of law: SC recalls its earlier judgment
The Court reiterated that a second appeal under Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act, 1918, can be entertained by the Punjab and Haryana High Court even without framing a substantial question of law.
The Court recalled its 2019 judgment which wrongly decided that the Punjab and Haryana High Court travelled beyond its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by interfering with the First Appellate Court’s orders without framing a substantial question of law.
Cause Title- Lehna Singh (D) v. Gurnam Singh (D) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 429)
Date of Judgment- May 16, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
24) Arbitration proceedings cannot be terminated merely because claimant failed to request Arbitral Tribunal to fix a date for hearing
The Court observed that the power under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) can be exercised only if, for some reason, the continuation of proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible. It said that the failure of the claimant to request the Arbitral Tribunal to fix a date for hearing, per se, is no ground to conclude that the proceedings have become unnecessary.
The Court observed thus in an appeal filed by a corporation in which the issue was about the legality and validity of the order of termination of the arbitral proceedings passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
Cause Title- Dani Wooltex Corporation & Ors. v. Sheil Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 433)
Date of Judgment- May 16, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
25) ED has no power to arrest accused after special court takes cognizance of PMLA offence
The Court held that once cognizance of an offence of money laundering is taken for a complaint under Section 44 (1)(b) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 then the Directorate of Enforcement would be ‘powerless’ to exercise its power under Section 19 to arrest.
The Bench explained that if the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) wanted custody of an accused who appeared after service of summons for conducting further investigation in the same offence, the ED would have to seek custody of the accused by applying to the Special Court. After hearing the accused, the Special Court must pass an order on the application by recording brief reasons. While hearing such an application, the Court may permit custody only if it is satisfied that custodial interrogation at that stage is required, even though the accused was never arrested under Section 19 PMLA.
Cause Title- Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 434)
Date of Judgment- May 16, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
26) "Both merit & seniority are considered & merit plays dominant role": SC upholds promotions of judicial officers in Gujarat
The Court upheld that Select List made by the Gujarat High Court in 2023, for the promotion quota of District Judges on the basis of the 'Merit-cum-Seniority' principle.
In this case, the petitioners raised concerns about the promotion process for District Judges, challenging the High Court’s selection list. The respondents, judicial officers who had been promoted based on seniority, faced scrutiny over the application of the ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ principle.
Cause Title- Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. vs High Court of Gujarat & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 436)
Date of Judgment- May 17, 2024
Coram- CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
27) SC-ST Act| Cognizance of offence of neglect of duties by public servant cannot be taken without recommendation of administrative enquiry
The Court held that the cognizance of an offence by public servant for neglect of duties under Section 4(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, cannot taken without the recommendation of the administrative enquiry.
In this case, on April 29, 2018, Prashant filed a complaint with the Station House Officer (SHO), alleging offenses under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against four individuals. When no action was taken, he submitted an application on May 9, 2018, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South Saket Court, requesting an FIR be registered based on his complaint.
Cause Title- The State of GNCT of Delhi & Ors. vs Praveen Kumar @ Prashant (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 437) [Priti Agarwalla and Others v. The State of GNCT of Delhi and Others]
Date of Judgment- May 17, 2024
Coram- Justice MM Sundresh and Justice SVN Bhatti
28) Bail order must reveal factors considered by court for granting relief to accused: SC sets aside bail granted to accused in double murder case
The Court while directing men to surrender in double murder case, emphasised that the bail order must reveal factors being considered by the court for granting relief to the accused.
The Court was deciding a batch of appeals preferred against four different orders of the Allahabad High Court in applications moved by the accused persons seeking bail.
Cause Title- Ajwar v. Waseem and Another (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 438)
Date of Judgment- May 17, 2024
Coram- Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
29) BPMEL is non-operational & undergoing winding-up proceedings: SC upholds Odisha govt. order refusing to renew 'Kolha-Roida' mining lease
The Court upheld the order of the State of Odisha rejecting the request for renewal of Kolha-Roida mining lease after it noticed that the Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineers Limited (BPMEL) is non-functional and is undergoing winding up proceedings. Considering that BPMEL had been non-operational for the last thirty years, the Bench noted that “entertaining any notion” of lease renewal would be devoid of any practical or tangible benefit owing to the liabilities of the company.
The Court accordingly directed that the renewal of the lease would no longer be examined by the Company Court for which a High Powered Committee (Committee) was formed by the Calcutta High Court.
Cause Title- Chief Secretary Government of Odisha v. Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineers Limited (In Liquidation) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 440)
Date of Judgment- May 17, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta
30) Conferment of deemed licensee status on SEZ developers does not exclude requirement of obtaining licence u/s 14 Electricity Act
The Court observed that the conferment of deemed licensee status on SEZ (Special Economic Zone) Developers does not exclude the requirement of obtaining licence under Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It said that reading up a provision of subordinate legislation in a manner that it militates against the primary legislation is not permissible.
The Court was dealing with an appeal preferred by a company against Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (TSERC) under Section 125 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. The challenge was to the judgment and order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity by which it dismissed an appeal under Section 111 of 2003 Act and upheld the judgment of TSERC.
Cause Title- M/s Sundew Properties Limited v. Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 439)
Date of Judgment- May 17, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta
31) Supreme court sets aside Allahabad HC judgment that held that employees of 'Nagar Nigam Allahabad' are not covered under ESI Act
The Court set aside an Allahabad High Court judgment which held that the employees of Nagar Nigam, Allahabad are not covered under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948.
The issue for determination before the Supreme Court was whether the employees of Nagar Nigam’s Central Workshop were covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (the Act). The workshop, responsible for repairing and maintaining various vehicles, was argued by Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) to be a ‘factory’ as defined under the Act, which required mandatory contributions under Section 40 of the Act.
Cause Title- The Employees State Insurance Corporation Ltd. v. Nagar Nigam Allahabad & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 441)
Date of Judgment- May 17, 2024
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta
32) Supreme Court upholds APTEL order holding that 'reliability charges' cannot be imposed on JSW Steel Ltd.
The Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Tribunal of Electricity (APTEL) which held that Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. was not entitled to impose a reliability charge on JSW Steel Ltd.
The Court held thus while observing that the large consumers like the steel company were subjected to higher tariffs than consumers on non-express feeders. The Court was hearing an appeal by the Company which was aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Tribunal which set aside the order imposing reliability charges.
Cause Title- Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. M/s JSW Steel Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 442)
Date of Judgment- May 17, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
33) State should not ordinarily rely on technicalities while dealing with a citizen: SC allows refund of stamp duty paid towards an un-executed conveyance deed
The Court allowed the refund of stamp duty paid towards an un-executed conveyance deed stating that the said refund should not be denied merely on technicalities.
The Bench noted that the appellant had been “pursuing her remedies in law” and “was not lax” in her approach towards seeking a refund of the said stamp duty paid by her and yet she was denied the same only on the ground of limitation.
Cause Title- Bano Saiyed Parwaz v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 443)
Date of Judgment- May 17, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
34) Mesne profits can become payable on continuation of possession by tenant after expiry, determination, forfeiture or termination of lease
The Court observed that mesne profits can become payable on continuation of possession after ‘‘determination’, ‘expiry’, ‘forfeiture’ and ‘termination' of lease.
The Court was considering some interim applications in Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by an HUF i.e., Hindu Undivided Family challenging the judgment of the Calcutta High Court.
Cause Title- Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar HUF v. Ashwin Bhanulal Desai (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 445)
Date of Judgment- May 17, 2024
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol
35) Power of attorney holder cannot give evidence about readiness & willingness of plaintiff in specific performance suit
The Court held that in a suit for specific performance in which the plaintiff is required to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract, a Power of Attorney Holder is not entitled to depose in place and instead of the plaintiff (principal).
The Court held thus in an appeal filed against the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court by which it allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Trial Court.
Cause Title- Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 444)
Date of Judgment- May 17, 2024
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
36) TN Medical Services Corporation Not Allowed To Wash Its Hands Off Responsibilities: SC Upholds Regularization Of Workmen
The Court dismissed the appeal filed by Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation and upheld the regularization of service of workmen under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981.
The Bench explained that simply because construction was one of the activities undertaken by the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited (Corporation), it would not take all the workers out of the purview of the Act, especially, when some of the workers, like the members of the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Employees Welfare Union (Union), were not even undertaking construction work.
Cause Title- Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited v. Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Employees Welfare Union & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 446)
Date of Judgment- May 17, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
37) CrPC 1973 shall be pressed into service from 31 October 2019 in J&K; It has no retrospective application
The Court observed that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be pressed into service from 31.10.2019 onwards in Jammu & Kashmir, and thus has no retrospective application.
The Court observed thus in an appeal preferred by the National Investigating Agency (NIA), New Delhi against the judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court by which the judgment of the Special Judge, NIA was confirmed in part while remitting the issue pertaining to the charges framed under Sections 306 and 411 of RPC along with Section 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) for taking cognizance afresh.
Cause Title- National Investigating Agency New Delhi v. Owais Amin @ Cherry & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 447)
Date of Judgment- May 17, 2024
Coram- Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
38) "Sentencing policy cannot be judge-centric": Supreme Court urges Centre to consider introducing comprehensive sentencing policy
The Court urged the Central Government to consider introducing a comprehensive sentencing policy. The Court said that it should never be judge-centric as the society has to know the basis of a sentence.
In a case involving the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the trial was completed in a single day, and the judgment was delivered on the same day. The accused was not given sufficient time to prepare a defense. Two days after the judgment, a sentencing hearing was held, and the accused was awarded the death penalty.
Cause Title- Sunita Devi v. The State of Bihar & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 448)
Date of Judgment- May 17, 2024
Coram- Justice MM Sundresh and Justice SVN Bhatti
39) SC upholds termination of a dealership agreement by HPCL based on contravention of its terms by dealer
The Court upheld the termination of a dealership agreement by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited observing that such termination was based on contravention of the terms of the said agreement by the dealer.
The Bench observed that for a party to be prosecuted for violating the search and seizure provisions of an agreement clause, the party must be held accountable, particularly for breaching the Control Order, as established in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. R.M. Service Centre, (2019) 19 SCC 662.
Cause Title- M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors v. Dharamnath Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 449)
Date of Judgment- May 17, 2024
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol
40) ‘There's no limitation period prescribed to do substantial justice’: SC sets aside Patna HC order in a 5 decades old land acquisition case
The Court set aside the order of Patna High Court in a five decades old land acquisition matter. It said that the High Court failed to ask State some important questions including why it did not give the compensation amount in the same year in which the land acquisition happened and made the appellant run from pillar to post.
The Court was hearing an appeal that arose from the order passed by the High Court by which the High Court disposed of the Letters Patent Appeal by asking the appellant to file an appropriate application before the concerned authority for disbursement of the value of the land that was assessed by the authorities.
Cause Title- Dharnidhar Mishra v. State of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 415)
Date of Judgment- May 13, 2024
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
41) SC upholds ICAI Rule limiting number of tax audits Chartered Accountants can accept in a year; declares it to be operative from April 1, 2024
The Court upheld the validity of a rule by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India which limits Chartered Accountants from accepting more than a specific number of tax audit assignments in a financial year.
The compulsory tax audit regime was introduced in 1984 with the addition of Section 44AB to the Income-tax Act, 1961, which became effective on April 1, 1985. This section required individuals running a business or profession with total sales, turnover, or gross receipts exceeding a certain threshold to have their accounts audited by a Chartered Accountant. Compliance was achieved only if the assessee obtained an audit report in the prescribed form, signed and verified by the Chartered Accountant before a specified date.
Cause Title- Shaji Poulose vs Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 451)
Date of Judgment- May 17, 2024
Coram- Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih