Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: September 17 – September 20, 2024
|1) No prosecution without previous sanction of Central Govt. under AFSPA: SC quashes FIRs against Indian Army officers in 2021 Nagaland civilians killings case
The Court quashed FIRs registered against officers of the Indian Army’s 21 PARA (SF) unit for the 2021 Nagaland civilian killings clarifying that the proceedings may continue in case sanction is granted at any stage under Section 6 of the AFSPA.
The Court reiterated the specific bar contained in Section 6 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) which provides that no prosecution, suit, or other legal proceedings can be instituted except with the previous sanction of the Central Government with respect to the exercise of any power conferred under the said Act.
Cause Title- Rabina Ghale & Anr. v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 698)
Date of Judgment- September 17, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
2) If separation of truth from falsehood is impossible, there can’t be conviction: Supreme Court acquits murder accused
The Court observed that the maxim ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ is only a rule of caution and has not assumed the status of the rule of law in the Indian context.
But an attempt must be made to separate truth from falsehood, and where such separation is impossible, there cannot be a conviction, the Court said while acquitting murder accused.
Cause Title- Saheb and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:INSC:700)
Date of Judgment- September 18, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Aravind Kumar
3) High Court must provide clear findings on each charge against accused while reversing Trial Court's acquittal
The Court observed that once the Trial Court found no evidence to convict the accused, the burden is upon the High Court, while reversing the said judgment, to record clear findings about each of the charges against the accused.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by two persons who were implicated in FIR along with three others for charges under Sections 143, 147, 148, and 302 read with 149, and 120B of the IPC and the Trial Court acquitted them of all charges. As the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted all five accused, the appeal was filed.
Cause Title- Ramesh and another v. State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 701)
Date of Judgment- September 18, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Aravind Kumar
4) Only expression in clear words contained in instrument or document must be considered & not surrounding circumstances
The Court observed that, only expression in clear words contained in the instrument or document must be considered and not the surrounding circumstances.
The Court observed thus in a civil appeal filed by the legal representatives against the judgment of the High Court by which the Trial Court’s order was reversed and the suit was decreed.
Cause Title- Kamal Kishore Sehgal (D) Thr. LRs. & Ors. v. Murti Devi (Dead) Thr. LRs. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 707)
Date of Judgment- September 19, 2024
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan
5) PWD temporary employees fall within domain of Kalelkar Award; entitled to get benefits of public holidays and 2nd & 4th Saturdays off
The Court held that the employees of Public Works Department (PWD) working in the Converted Temporary Establishment fall within the domain of Kalelkar Award and are entitled to get the benefits of public holidays as well as 2nd and 4th Saturdays off each month.
The Court held thus in a civil appeal preferred by the Secretary, PWD challenging the judgment of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench by which it dismissed the writ petition of the employer and upheld the Industrial Court’s order.
Cause Title- The Secretary, Public Works Department & Ors. v. Tukaram Pandurang Saraf & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 703)
Date of Judgment- September 19, 2024
Coram- Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice R. Mahadevan
6) Contributory negligence of driver of vehicle in accident cannot be vicariously attached to passengers
The Court observed that contributory negligence on the part of a driver of the vehicle involved in the accident cannot be vicariously attached to the passengers so as to reduce the compensation awarded to the passengers or their legal heirs.
The Court reversed the findings of the Karnataka High Court which had imposed joint responsibility on the both driver and passengers in a motor vehicle. The Bench referred to the decision in Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1997), wherein the Apex Court explained that there cannot be a fiction of the passenger sharing a “right of control” of the operation of the vehicle nor is there a fiction that the driver is an agent of the passenger.
Cause Title- Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 706)
Date of Judgment- September 19, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta
7) Advocates' conduct must conform to BCI rules of conduct & etiquettes; no legal professional is immune from prosecution for criminal misdeed
The Court observed that an advocate's conduct must conform to the Rules of Conduct and Etiquettes of Bar Council of India. It also added that no legal professional is immune from prosecution for his/her criminal misdeeds.
The Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate allegations of serious professional misconduct by advocates for filing false and fabricated documents. The Bench further directed that the Advocates on Record (AOR) can only mark the appearances of those Advocates who are authorised to appear and argue the case on the particular day of hearing.
Cause Title- Bhagwan Singh v. State Of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 708)
Date of Judgment- September 20, 2024
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
8) Factors that signify intention of non-signatory to be bound by an arbitration agreement: Supreme Court explains
The Court explained the factors that signify the intention of the non-signatory to be bound by the Arbitration Agreement. It said that the mutual intent of the parties, relationship of a non-signatory with a signatory, commonality of the subject matter, composite nature of the transactions and performance of the contract are factors that signify the intention of the non-signatory to be bound by the arbitration agreement.
The Court was dealing with an arbitration petition filed under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes in terms of clauses of the Family Arrangement Agreement (FAA) read with the Amendment Agreement.
Cause Title- Ajay Madhusudan Patel & Ors. v. Jyotrindra S. Patel & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 710)
Date of Judgment- September 20, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
9) Disputes regarding ownership of acquired land cannot impede legitimate rights of original landowners to receive compensation
The Court observed that the disputes regarding the ownership of the subject land cannot be an impediment to the legitimate rights of the original landowners to receive compensation.
The Court clarified the liability concerning compensation for land acquisition associated with a cement project in Himachal Pradesh.
Cause Title- M/s. Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. v. Mast Ram & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 709)
Date of Judgment- September 20, 2024
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
10) Arbitral award need not be set aside merely for being inadequately reasoned; courts can explain it
The Court observed that where an arbitral award, which exhibits no perversity, contains reasons but appear to be insufficient or inadequate, the Courts need not set it aside while exercising its powers under Section 34 or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act of 1996’).
The Court was dealing with the challenge against such awards should explain such underlying reasons for a better and clearer understanding, it added. It added that while doing so, they must differentiate between an arbitral award where reasons are either lacking/unintelligible or perverse and an arbitral award where reasons are there but appear inadequate.
Cause Title- OPG Power Generation Private Limited v. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Private Limited & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 711)
Date of Judgment- September 20, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
11) “Bald allegation of participation in alleged conspiracy”: SC upholds discharge of accused in illegal gratification & bribery case
The Court upheld the discharge of an accused in an alleged illegal gratification and bribery case while observing that he got roped in the charge sheet based on a bald allegation of participation in the alleged conspiracy.
The Court dismissed the appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the discharge of the respondent (ex-Managing Director of M/s Khimji Poonja Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd.) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act) for allegedly abetting the offence of bribery and payment of illegal gratification to an Air Cargo personnel.
Cause Title- Central Bureau Of Investigation v. Dilip Mulani & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 712)
Date of Judgment- September 20, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
12) Presumption u/s 113b Evidence Act cannot be invoked by prosecution if it fails to prove ingredients of dowry death beyond reasonable doubt
The Court, while acquitting in-laws of the victim of the charges of dowry death, observed that once all the necessary ingredients of dowry death have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would not be available to the prosecution.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal challenging a High Court judgment that upheld the Appellants' conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. The High Court had partially allowed the Appeal, reducing the sentence from 10 years to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC while maintaining the 1-year sentence under Section 498-A IPC.
Cause Title- Shoor Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 713)
Date of Judgment- September 20, 2024
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra