Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: April 15 – April 19, 2024
1) 'There was no reason for university not to follow what UGC stated': SC directs Jamia Milia Islamia to reinstate teachers
The Court allowed appeals filed by three teachers and directed the Jamia Milia Islamia University to reinstate them. It said that the action of the University of not continuing them after the posts being merged with the regular establishment and starting a fresh selection process is unjust, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court said thus in a batch of civil appeals filed by three teachers of the Jamia Milia Islamia against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had dismissed their Letters Patent Appeals.
Cause Title- Meher Fatima Hussain v. Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 303)
Date of Judgment- April 15, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
2) SC dismisses appeal by Association of Engineers challenging appointment of Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers on temporary basis
The Court dismissed appeals filed by Association of Engineers challenging appointment of some Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers on temporary basis.
The Court said that the equity demands no interference to be warranted in the impugned judgment in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Cause Title- Association of Engineers and Others Etc. v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 306)
Date of Judgment- April 16, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
3) Extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence: Supreme Court acquits murder accused
The Court said that extra judicial confession made by the accused is a weak piece of evidence and it can only be used as a corroborative piece of evidence in tandem with substantive evidence.
The Court was dealing with a criminal appeal preferred by a murder accused who was concurrently convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Cause Title- Dharambir @ Dharma v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 307)
Date of Judgment- April 16, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
4) Termination without disciplinary enquiry unjustified: SC orders reinstatement of registrar of G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering & Technology
The Court ordered the reinstatement of the Registrar of G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology who was terminated from service on technical grounds without holding disciplinary enquiry. It pointed out that the appellant commenced his duties as Registrar after an appointment letter was issued to him following approval from competent authorities.
The appointment letter stipulated a probationary period of one year, extendable for another year if the appellant's performance was deemed unsatisfactory, with provision for termination during probation upon one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. But in this case, the appellant had satisfactorily served in the role for nearly two years, completing the probation period without objection.
Cause Title- Sandeep Kumar v. GB Pant Institute Of Engineering And Technology Ghurdauri & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 309)
Date of Judgment- April 16, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
5) Contradictions too trivial to discard entire prosecution case: SC upholds conviction in 4 decades old murder case
The Court upheld the conviction in a four decades old murder case observing that entire prosecution case cannot be discarded citing trivial contradictions.
The trial court in 1998 had convicted the accused for the murder of a person (Section 302 IPC) and attempted murder of another (Section 307 IPC) in the year 1985 and consequently sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld this decision.
Cause Title- Ramvir @ Saket Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 308)
Date of Judgment- April 16, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
6) Decision, however erroneous, not a factor for review, but can only be corrected in appeal
The Court emphasized that a decision, however erroneous, can never be a factor for review and can only be corrected in appeal.
In this case, between 1950 and 1959, a survey and settlement revision occurred in the village of Kompally, concluding on November 17, 1960. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 87 of the A.P. Land Revenue Act, 1317 F., seeking rectification of a survey error, claiming ownership of the suit land, which spans 106.34 acres in Village Kompally, District Warangal. However, this application was rejected on January 10, 1975, only to be later allowed by the Joint Collector on July 7, 1981.
Cause Title- The State of Telangana & Ors. v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) per LRS. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 310)
Date of Judgment- April 18, 2024
Coram- Justice MM Sundresh and Justice SVN Bhatti
7) Court is concerned with quality and not quantity of evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact: SC acquits murder accused
The Court reiterated that the court is concerned with the quality and not the quantity of the evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact.
The Court was deciding a criminal appeal filed by a man against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which it dismissed his appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge who convicted and sentenced him for the offence of murder.
Cause Title- Kirpal Singh v. State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 312)
Date of Judgment- April 18, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
8) Section 22 NIA Act is applicable when offence involves investigation by State police
The Court observed that, when the offence involves investigation by the State police, Section 22 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) is applicable insofar as the issue of jurisdiction of the Court to try the offences is concerned.
The Court observed thus in an appeal preferred by the West Bengal State against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court.
Cause Title- The State of West Bengal v. Jayeeta Das (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 313)
Date of Judgment- April 18, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
9) Writ Petition should be dismissed if it is found that petitioner is guilty of delay & latches
The Court held that the delay or latches is one of the factors which should be borne in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court held thus in an appeal preferred against the judgment of the High Court by which it entertained a writ petition challenging the approval granted in favour of a person for starting LPG distributorship at Jamalpur, District Burdwan.
Cause Title- Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley and Others (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 314)
Date of Judgment- April 18, 2024
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar
10) Agreement based on an ex-parte order which was already set aside cannot be relied on by parties
The Court observed that an agreement cannot be relied on if the order which was the very basis of entering into agreement was set aside by the Court.
The Court was hearing an appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh in a property dispute suit.
Cause Title- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Satish Jain (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 315)
Date of Judgment- April 18, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice K V Viswanathan
11) Right of complainant to file petition u/s 200 CrPC isn’t taken away even if magistrate doesn’t direct protest petition to be treated as complaint
The Court held that the right of complainant to file a petition under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is not taken away even if the Magistrate does not direct that the Protest Petition be treated as a complaint.
The Court held thus in a criminal appeal filed by the accused against the order of the Allahabad High Court by which it dismissed his application under Section 482 of CrPC in which a prayer was made to quash the summoning order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in a case under Sections 147, 342, 323, 307, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Cause Title- Mukhtar Zaidi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 316)
Date of Judgment- April 18, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
12) “State of Arunachal Pradesh ought to have been happy getting rid of an unnecessary criminal case:” SC while quashing FIR in ‘civil’ dispute
The Court quashed an FIR observing that the dispute was civil in nature.
In this case, a transaction of Rs.1 crore for the purchase of land/building was made in Jaipur, Rajasthan. An FIR was filed under Sections 420, 120B and 34 of the IPC where the accused had contended that the amount was transferred as a loan and not for the purchase of property.
Cause Title- The State Of Arunachal Pradesh v. Kamal Agarwal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 317)
Date of Judgment- April 18, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
13) Once sale is set aside, status of persons as owners would automatically revert to that of tenants
The Court said that once a sale is set aside, the status of persons as owners would automatically revert to that of tenants.
The Court was deciding an appeal preferred against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition and confirming the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) as also the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) whereby the auction sale held in favour was set aside and the appeal was dismissed.
Cause Title- Govind Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. Bank of Baroda & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 326)
Date of Judgment- April 18, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
14) Special Court presided by Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to hear offences under IBC
The Court held that a Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge has the jurisdiction to hear offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
The Court held that the provision of Section 435 of the Companies Act, 2013 with regard to Special Court would become a part of Section 236(1) of the Code as on the date of its enactment.
Cause Title- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India vs Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu & Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 19, 2024
Coram- Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
15) Scope of interference by High Courts in appeal against acquittal: Supreme Court explains
The Court reiterated the principles governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging the acquittal of the accused recorded by the Trial Court.
In this case, the appellants, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar (A-1), Alagond Sahebagouda Rudragoudar (A-2), and Mudakappa @ Gadegappa Rudragoudar (A-3), along with three others, were tried in Sessions Case No. 28 of 2002 for various charges under the Indian Penal Code.
Cause Title- Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Ors. vs State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 320)
Date of Judgment- April 19, 2024
Coram- Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
16) For proving disclosure memo u/s 27 Evidence Act by accused, investigating officer is required to state about its contents
The Court reiterated that for proving a disclosure memo under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) by the accused, the Investigating Officer is required to state about the contents of the same.
The Court was dealing with a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by which the appeal of the accused under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was dismissed.
Cause Title- Hansraj v. State of M.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 318)
Date of Judgment- April 19, 2024
Coram- Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
17) Discretionary power of granting bail not be used arbitrarily: SC sets aside bail granted to accused in a broad daylight murder case
The Court reiterated that grant of bail involves the exercise of a discretionary power which ought not to be used arbitrarily, capriciously; and injudiciously.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal against a bail order in which respondent, Vivek Pal and another Punit Pal were accused of broad daylight murder which led to the closure of a market for a prolonged period of 10 days due to their overwhelming influence in the area.
Cause Title- Ramayan Singh v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 323)
Date of Judgment- April 19, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
18) “State machinery being misused for ulterior motives & for causing harassment”: SC imposes 5l costs while quashing FIR u/s 498a IPC
The Court imposed costs of Rupees Five Lakhs while quashing an FIR for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
The Court deprecated the practice of “the state machinery being misused for ulterior motives and for causing harassment to the other side” and thus imposed costs in order to compensate the appellant.
Cause Title- Parteek Bansal v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 324)
Date of Judgment- April 19, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
19) Supreme Court cancels bail of accused involved in murder of police constable
The Court cancelled the bail of the accused involved in the murder of a police constable. It noted that their subsequent conduct of murdering the constable rendered them ineligible for bail, despite having served more than 10 years in prison.
The Court observed that crucial facts regarding the murder of the police constable were not presented before the High Court when it granted bail to the accused. The Court also noted that the accused had absconded after disposing of the constable's body, later being arrested by the Special Task Force in Maharashtra after resisting arrest and opening fire on the police, leading to a separate case.
Cause Title- Jadunath Singh v. Arvind Kumar & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 325)
Date of Judgment- April 19, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar
20) If amendment via substitution intended to reduce penalty for regulation of foreign liquor, there’s no justification to recover penalty under unamended rule
The Court observed that if the amendment via substitution is intended to reduce the quantum of penalty for better administration and regulation of foreign liquor, there is no justification to ignore the subject and context of the amendment and permit the State to recover the penalty as per the unamended Rule.
The Court observed thus in an appeal filed by a company against the State of Madhya Pradesh in which the short question for consideration was the applicability of the relevant rule for imposition of penalty.
Cause Title- Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 327)
Date of Judgment- April 19, 2024
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar
21) Supreme Court clarifies its previous order on pensionary benefits for Short Service Commission Officers
The Court clarified the directions given in a previous order concerning pensionary benefits in favour of Short Service Commission Officers.
The Court was hearing a miscellaneous application arising out of a Supreme Court Judgment in Wg Cdr A U Tayyaba (retd) & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.
Cause Title- Wg Cdr A U Tayyaba (retd) & Ors v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 311)
Date of Judgment- April 15, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
