Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: November 11 – November 15, 2024
1) Mere absence of explicit boundary details of property does not render agreement to sell vague or unenforceable
The Court observed that mere absence of explicit boundary details of property does not render the agreement vague or unenforceable.
The Court observed thus in a batch of Civil Appeals preferred by the Plaintiffs in a Suit for Specific Performance of a Contract, challenging the Judgment of the High Court by which it set aside the Trial Court’s Order and dismissed the Suit.
Cause Title- Shyam Kumar Inani v. Vinod Agrawal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 865)
Date of Judgment- November 12, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
2) "Executive cannot become a Judge": Apex Court lays down pan India guidelines on demolition of properties
The Court pronounced Judgment in Writ Petitions challenging bulldozer actions allegedly taken by authorities across the country against houses of accused persons as a punitive measure.
The Bench observed that an executive cannot become a Judge. At the outset, Justice Gavai said, "It is the dream of every family to have a home/shelter. Can the executive take away shelter from a person who is accused of a crime is the question before us."
Cause Title- In Re: Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 866)
Date of Judgment- November 13, 2024
Coram- Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan
3) Compassionate appointment right is not a condition of service of employee who dies in harness; must be given on strict scrutiny of various parameters
The Court remarked that the right of compassionate appointment is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness, which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection.
The Court was deciding a Civil Appeal preferred by the son of a deceased Constable in Haryana Police, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds as his father died while on duty in 1997.
Cause Title- Tinku v. State of Haryana & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 867)
Date of Judgment- November 13, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih
4) 'Consideration' need not always be in monetary terms; it can be in other forms as well
The Court reiterated that consideration does not always have to be in monetary terms as it can be in other forms as well. It set aside the decision of the Madras High Court restoring the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
The case involved the Appellants contesting the claim in a 2/3rd share of the property in question based on a 1963 settlement deed.
Cause Title- Ramachandra Reddy (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. v. Ramulu Ammal (Dead) Thr. Lrs. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 868)
Date of Judgment- November 14, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol
5) Suppression of fact of employment with other organization: Supreme Court upholds termination of LIC employee
The Court allowed an Appeal of the Life Insurance Corporation Of India in a service matter and held that the delinquent employee was disentitled to equitable relief from the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution as he was guilty of suppression of the fact of his employment with the Food Corporation of India.
The High Court was considering a Civil Appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh whereunder, the Judgment of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench.
Cause Title- Life Insurance Corporation Of India v. Om Prakash (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 870)
Date of Judgment- November 13, 2024
Coram- Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N Bhatti
6) Factual findings of Labour Court should not normally be disturbed by a Writ Court without compelling reasons
The Court held that factual findings of the Labour Court should not normally be disturbed by a Writ Court without compelling reasons.
The Court set aside the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court and restored the Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court which had directed the reinstatement of the Appellant in service. The Appellant was removed from service by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (Respondent) on allegations that he had secured his employment under the rehabilitation scheme for land-losers through misrepresentation.
Cause Title- Ganapati Bhikarao Naik v. Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Limited (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 871)
Date of Judgment- November 13, 2024
Coram- Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
