Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: October 14 – October 18, 2024
|1) Minor can be a transferee though not a transferor of immovable property
The Court emphasised that a minor can be a transferee though not a transferor of an immovable property.
The Court emphasised thus in civil appeals preferred by the legal representatives of the defendants in a civil suit against the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court, reversing the concurrent judgments of the Courts and consequently drawn decree.
Cause Title- Neelam Gupta & Ors. v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 769)
Date of Judgment- October 14, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar
2) Once transactions are illegal due to doctrine of lis pendens, defence of being bona fide purchasers has to be rejected
The Court reiterated that the defence of being bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration is liable to be rejected once it is found that the transactions are illegal due to the doctrine of lis pendens.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the High Court allowing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff to set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court which concurrently decreed the suit partially only for the alternative relief of recovery of Rs. 40k along with interest while dismissing the suit in respect of specific performance of the agreement.
Cause Title- Shingara Singh v. Daljit Singh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 770)
Date of Judgment- October 14, 2024
Coram- Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
3) Object of punishment is also to reform & retribute: SC modifies sentence of convict in 1997 murder case
The Court while modifying sentence of convict in a murder case, observed that the object of the punishment is also to reform and retribute.
The Court observed thus in a criminal appeal preferred by the accused against the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court by which it dismissed his appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
Cause Title- Sandeep v. State of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 771)
Date of Judgment- October 14, 2024
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan
4) Pendent lite transferee who is a stranger to suit can seek redelivery under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC
The Court held that a stranger to the suit including a pendent lite transferee can seek redelivery under Order XXI Rule 99 of Code of Civil Procedure after he has been dispossessed.
The Court observed thus while considering an appeal against the order passed by the Kerala High Court.
Cause Title- Renjith K.G. & Ors. v. Sheeba (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 773)
Date of Judgment- October 14, 2024
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan
5) Investigation should not be thwarted by quashing FIR if allegation of dishonest conduct in FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence
The Court observed that when the FIR alleges dishonest conduct on the part of the accused which, if supported by materials, would disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the investigation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal impugning the judgment and order of the High Court where, exercising powers under Section 482 of the CrPC the High Court quashed the order, by which cognizance was taken, and all further proceedings.
Cause Title- Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 772)
Date of Judgment- October 14, 2024
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
6) Quantified disability won't disentitle candidate with benchmark disability for admission to educational institutions: SC issues directions on NMC guidelines
The Court issued some important directions regarding the National Medical Commission (NMC) guidelines for the admission of students with “specified disabilities” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
The Court was deciding a civil appeal filed by a disabled person seeking reliefs for getting admission.
Cause Title- Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. The Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 775)
Date of Judgment- October 15, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
7) Amount of compensation claimed is not a bar for MACT to award more than what is claimed
The Court held that a rough calculation made by a claimant is not a bar or the upper limit for claiming motor accident compensation since it is the duty of the Court to assess fair compensation.
The Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the claimant who suffered serious injuries in a motor accident. The Court, while modifying the order of the Orissa High Court, enhanced the compensation recognising 100% functional disability and loss of future prospects of the claimant.
Cause Title- Chandramani Nanda v. Sarat Chandra Swain & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 777)
Date of Judgment- October 15, 2024
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal
8) "Possibility of reformation": Supreme Court commutes death penalty of man convicted for murdering pregnant daughter over inter-caste marriage
The Court commuted the death sentence of a man convicted of murdering his pregnant daughter over her inter-caste marriage noting that despite the gruesome crime, the accused cannot be presumed to be a hardened criminal beyond reform.
Noting that the accused hailed from a “poor nomadic community” in Maharashtra, the Court upheld his conviction under Sections 302, 316, and 364 of the IPC but stated that the case did not fall in the category of “rarest of rare cases” warranting capital punishment. The prosecution’s case was that the accused had allegedly strangulated his pregnant daughter with a rope after she had an inter-caste marriage against his wishes.
Cause Title- Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar v. State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 779)
Date of Judgment- October 16, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
9) Rule 9(4) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules| Period to deposit balance sale consideration extendable with the consent in writing of the parties
The Court observed that Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 will only come into play when there is a default on the part of the auction purchaser to deposit the amount and will not apply where there is no default or that the default, if any, lies upon the auctioneer.
The Court said that the period to deposit the balance sale consideration is not sacrosanct and is extendable with the consent in writing of the parties. It was hearing two Appeals preferred Appellant-IDBI Bank challenging the judgment and order passed by the High Court and the order passed in Review arising from the Writ Petition.
Cause Title- IDBI Bank v. Ramswaroop Daliya (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 780)
Date of Judgment- October 16, 2024
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R Mahadevan
10) Interest on broken period can’t be considered as capital expenditure where securities are treated as stock-in-trade
The Court held that the interest on the broken period cannot be considered as capital expenditure and will have to be treated as revenue expenditure where the securities are treated as stock-in-trade.
The Court was dealing with the appeals in which the main issue was about the treatment to be given to broken period interest and the question was whether a deduction of the broken period interest can be claimed.
Cause Title- Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 781)
Date of Judgment- October 16, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
11) Subsequent refusal to marry would not be sufficient: SC quashes rape case after it finds prima facie case of long consensual physical relationship
The Court quashed an FIR under Section 376 of the IPC, observing a prima facie case of a long consensual physical relationship between the complainant and the accused.
The Court set aside the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court which dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing an FIR against him for offences under Sections 376 and 313 of the IPC. The Court noted that the complainant referred to the accused as her husband and alleged rape on the pretext of a promise of marriage.
Cause Title- Lalu Yadav v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 782)
Date of Judgment- October 16, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal
12) Only because loan proposal was cleared within short period, no offence is made out: SC dismisses CBI’s appeal in corruption case against bank official
The Court while dismissing the appeal preferred by the Central Bureau of Investigation observed that only because the loan proposal was processed and cleared within a short period, no offence was made out.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal arising out of a charge sheet filed in the First Information Report registered with the Central Bureau of Investigation for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Cause Title- Central Bureau of Investigation v. Srinivas D. Sridhar (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 783)
Date of Judgment- October 16, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
13) Municipal Corporation’s power to charge royalty can’t be interfered on ground that it’s not available in statute or regulations
The Court observed that the power of the Municipal Corporation to charge royalty cannot be interfered with on the ground that the same is not available either in the Act or in the Regulations concerned.
The Court observed thus in a batch of two civil appeals preferred by the Patna Municipal Corporation against the judgment of the Patna High Court by which the Single Bench’s decision was set aside.
Cause Title- The Patna Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. M/s Tribro Ad Bureau & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 784)
Date of Judgment- October 16, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
14) Value of human life can't be assessed in monetary terms; whatsoever is awarded is a matter of solace: SC dismisses plea for enhanced compensation for medical negligence
The Court dismissed an SLP seeking enhancement of compensation awarded on account of alleged medical negligence while observing, “The value of human life cannot be assessed in monetary terms whatsoever is awarded is a matter of solace.”
The Court upheld the compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in a medical negligence case concerning the death of a patient during an Endoscopic Polypectomy procedure.
Cause Title- D.C. Malviya (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs. v. Dr. A.H. Memon (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 786)
Date of Judgment- October 15, 2024
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Rajesh Bindal
15) People who entered Assam from Bangladesh after 25 March 1971 are 'illegal immigrants'; Section 6A Citizenship Act redundant for them
The Court, while upholding the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, held that people who entered Assam from Bangladesh post the cutoff date of March 25, 1971, are 'illegal migrants' and thus Section 6A is redundant for them.
The Court also observed that the directions issued in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665, are required to be given effect to for the purpose of deporting the illegal immigrants.
Cause Title- In Re Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955 (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 789)
Date of Judgment- October 17, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant, Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.
16) Trustworthy witness cannot be disbelieved in motor accident case solely because police have not recorded his statement during investigation
The Court observed that a witness who is otherwise found trustworthy cannot be disbelieved, in a motor accident case, only on the ground that the police have not recorded his statement during investigation.
The Court was hearing an Appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the High Court which dismissed the Appellants’ appeal while affirming the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which the Appellants’ claim was dismissed.
Cause Title- Sajeena Ikhbal v. Mini Babu George (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 787)
Date of Judgment- October 17, 2024
Coram- Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
17) Conviction can’t be based solely on circumstance of motive: SC sets aside death sentence of man accused of killing his mother, wife & daughter
The Court set aside the death penalty imposed on a man who was convicted for killing his mother, wife, and daughter.
The accused preferred an appeal challenging the judgment of the Bombay High Court by which it upheld the separate orders of conviction and death sentence passed by the Trial Court.
Cause Title- Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 788)
Date of Judgment- October 17, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
18) Airports Economic Regulatory Authority's appeal against TDSAT judgment on tariff determination maintainable
The Court held that the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India (AERA) can file an appeal against TDSAT's judgment under Section 31 of the AERA Act regarding tariff determination.
The Court upheld the maintainability of appeals filed by the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) under Section 31 of the Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008 (AERA Act) challenging the judgments of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).
Cause Title- Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India v. Delhi International Airport Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 791)
Date of Judgment- October 18, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
19) It takes away their choice of partner; violates their rights: Supreme Court urges Parliament to consider outlawing child betrothals
The Court suggested the Parliament to consider outlawing child betrothals.
The Court suggested thus in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) highlighting an increase in child marriages across the country and the failure to implement the relevant laws effectively. The Court noticed that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA) does not stipulate on betrothals.
Cause Title- Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 790)
Date of Judgment- October 18, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
20) Auction sale was set aside on equitable considerations & not for being illegal: SC modifies Karnataka HC judgment
The Court modified a judgment of Karnataka High Court after it noticed that the auction was set aside based on equitable consideration and not because of it being illegal.
In this case, in the auction sale, the highest bid, which was offered by the appellant, was accepted. The amount was deposited by the appellant; however, the cheque was returned due to inter se dispute amongst the borrowers.
Cause Title- Salil R. Uchil v. Vishu Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 793)
Date of Judgment- October 18, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
21) Indian citizenship cannot be conferred on foreign citizens by doing violence to plain language of citizenship act: Supreme Court sets aside Madras HC judgment
The Court observed that the Citizenship of India cannot be conferred on foreign citizens by doing violence to the plain language of the Citizenship Act 1955.
The Court set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court which allowed a person to “resume” his citizenship in accordance with Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act.
Cause Title- Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 792)
Date of Judgment- October 18, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
22) Not mandatory to decide application u/s. 319 CrPC before cross-examination
The Court observed that it is not mandatory to decide the application under Section 319 CrPC before cross-examination of witnesses. It said that the complicity of any person sought to be arrayed as an accused can be decided with or without conducting cross-examination of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal where the accused has assailed the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the High Court which allowed the appeal filed by the complainant and after setting aside the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court, remanded the case to proceed in a manner where the Trial Court would first decide the Application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and thereafter proceed to decide the trial.
Cause Title- Asim Akhtar v. State of West Bengal (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 794)
Date of Judgment- October 18, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
23) Challenge to constitutional validity cannot be adjudicated upon in absence of lis & contest between parties: SC recalls its 2022 judgment on Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act
The Court observed that a challenge to the constitutional validity of a statutory provision cannot be adjudicated upon in the absence of a lis and contest between the parties.
The Court was hearing a Review Petition filed by the Union of India seeking a Review of the judgment of a three-judge Bench of the Court in Union of India and Another v Ganpati Dealcom Private Ltd.
Cause Title- Union of India v. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt Ltd (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 799)
Date of Judgment- October 18, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
24) Service tax, when already paid on merchant discount rate, is not separately payable on interchange fee: Supreme Court in Citibank case
The Court, in Citibank case, held that the service tax is not separately payable on the interchange fee when the said tax has been paid on the Merchant Discount Rate (MDR).
In 2021, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (revenue) against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which set aside the directions for the M/S Citibank (Bank) to pay service tax, penalty and interest on the amount of the interchange fee received by it in the context of credit card services. In the present appeal, the Revenue had contended that the acquiring bank should have paid service tax on the Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) minus the interchange fee, and the issuing bank should have paid service tax on the interchange fee.
Cause Title- Commissioner of GST & Central Excise v. M/S Citibank N.A. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 808)
Date of Judgment- October 16, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice R. Mahadevan
25) We do not appreciate such casual averments: SC dismisses review petition challenging judgment cancelling bail in misappropriation of funds case
The Court dismissed a review petition by an accused seeking review of the judgment that set aside his bail, while observing that it did not appreciate casual averments made by the accused.
The Court in August, 2024 cancelled the bail granted to the accused who was convicted of misappropriation of funds under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (the Act). The Court was dealing with a criminal appeal, which was preferred against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, by which the accused was released on bail.
Cause Title- Vitthal Damuji Meher v. Manik Madhukar Sarve & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 785)
Date of Judgment- October 15, 2024
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
26) Non-compliance with procedural requirements on pleadings for relief shouldn't entail automatic dismissal unless relevant statute mandates so
The Court reiterated that non-compliance with any procedural requirement relating to a pleading, memorandum of appeal, application, or petition for relief should not entail automatic dismissal or rejection unless the relevant statute or rule so mandates.
The Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration after observing that the Punjab and Haryana High Court was in error in dismissing a revision petition in the case regarding execution of a final decree from a partition suit. “The impugned orders of the High Court dismissing the revision application are to be interfered with, for that instance, the procedure has managed to compromise the substantive right of the objector,” it observed.
Cause Title- Joginder Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs v. Dr. Virinderjit Singh Gill (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 814)
Date of Judgment- October 17, 2024
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sanjay Karol