Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: December 9 – December 13, 2024
1) When citizen aggrieved by Govt. action obtains declaration of law from Court, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit: SC grants permanent commission to woman lieutenant colonel
The Court granted permanent commission to a woman Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Dental Corps and reiterated that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court.
The appeal before the Court challenged the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Regional Bench, Lucknow whereby the appellant’s prayer for reliefs similar to the ones granted by the judgment of the AFT Principal Bench was declined.
Cause Title- Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel Appellant v. Union of India and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 942)
Date of Judgment- December 9, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
2) Repatriation to parent department prior to permanent appointment is not absorption: SC upholds NHAI’s decision to deny promotion to employee
The Court upheld NHAI’s decision to deny promotion to an employee after observing that repatriation to a parent department prior to a permanent appointment cannot be termed as absorption.
The Court set aside the Judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Madras High Court which upheld the promotion granted to an employee by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI/Appellant). The Bench held that the Appellant, a repatriated Manager (Technical), could not claim promotion benefits for his past deputation service.
Cause Title- National Highway Authority Of India v. G Athipathi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 943)
Date of Judgment- December 9, 2024
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
3) There must be clarity in interpretation: SC refers question on interplay between sub-sections 1&2 of S.14 of Hindu Succession Act to larger bench
The Court referred the question on interplay between Sub-Sections 1 and 2 of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) to a larger Bench.
The Court was deciding a Civil Appeal filed by a purchaser of the Suit Scheduled Property under a Sale Deed.
Cause Title- Tej Bhan (D) Through LR. & Ors. v. Ram Kishan (D) Through LRs. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 945)
Date of Judgment- December 9, 2024
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta
4) Dedicated cell be constituted by State or Union Territories for dealing with Mercy Petitions: Supreme Court issues directions
The Court in its Judgment, issued directions regarding Mercy Petitions to the State Governments and Union Territories.
The Court was deciding Criminal Appeals in which the main question involved was about the effect of delay in executing the death sentence.
Cause Title- State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 947)
Date of Judgment- December 9, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George
5) Supreme Court sets aside sentence in rash & negligent driving case after accused deposits 1L compensation to deceased’s mother
The Court set aside the sentence imposed on an accused in a rash and negligent driving case after observing that the accused has deposited Rs. 1 Lakh towards compensation to the mother of the deceased.
While the Court upheld the conviction of the accused for rash and negligent driving under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the IPC, it set aside the sentence of three months simple imprisonment imposed by the Madras High Court.
Cause Title- Muthupandi v. State (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 950)
Date of Judgment- December 10, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
6) A decision can be per incuriam if it’s not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of previously pronounced judgment of co-equal or larger bench
The Court reiterated that a decision or Judgment can be said to be per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced Judgment of a co-equal or larger Bench.
The Court reiterated thus in a Civil Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which the Writ Petition of Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) was allowed.
Cause Title- Banwari and Others v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) and Another (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 951)
Date of Judgment- December 10, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
7) State treated similarly situated persons differently: SC sets aside Orissa HC order reinstating computer technician, awards him compensation of Rs 5 lakh
The Court set aside an order granting reinstatement of a Computer Technician engaged on temporary basis but awarded him Rs 5 lakh as compensation after noticing that the State treated similarly situated persons differently which resulted in prolonged litigation.
The State had approached the Court challenging the judgment of the Orissa High Court whereby the respondent- a Computer Technician at the College of Teacher Education was ordered to be reinstated.
Cause Title- State of Odisha & Ors. v. Dilip Kumar Mohapatra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 954)
Date of Judgment- December 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
8) Section 106 Evidence Act cannot be invoked to make up prosecution’s inability to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of an accused
The Court reiterated that Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked to make up for the prosecution’s inability to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused.
The Court acquitted the Appellants and set aside their convictions under Section 302 of the IPC which were upheld by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Cause Title- Nusrat Parween v. State Of Jharkhand (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 955)
Date of Judgment- December 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sandeep Mehta
9) Section 498A IPC being misused for unleashing wife’s personal vendetta against husband & his family
The Court quashed an FIR registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and expressed its concern over the fact that there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. The Court also held that a mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud.
The Court was considering a challenge to a Telangana High Court Order refusing to quash the criminal proceedings in an FIR registered against the appellants under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1e860 and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Cause Title- X v. State of Telangana & Another (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 953)
Date of Judgment- December 10, 2024
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
10) In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of order is ‘wilful’
The Court emphasised that, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is ‘wilful’.
The Court emphasised thus in Contempt Petitions alleging wilful disobedience of the Orders and being filed for punishing the persons for their alleged contumacious act.
Cause Title- Chaduranga Kanthiraj URS and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 957)
Date of Judgment- December 10, 2024
Coram- Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar
11) Nothing but a proxy litigation: Supreme Court upholds cancellation of lease where allottees repeatedly defaulted in making payments
The Court upheld the order of the Estate Authorities cancelling the lease deed issued in favour of original allottees as they repeatedly defaulted in making the payments. It observed that the litigation carried forward by the alleged tenant was nothing but a proxy litigation on behalf of the original allottees.
The Appeal before the Court arose from the impugned Orders passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the writ petitions of the allottees and the tenants were allowed.
Cause Title- Chandigarh Administrator & Ors. v. Manjit Kumar Gulati & Ors. (Neutral Citation:2024 INSC 959)
Date of Judgment- December 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
12) Selling wife’s gold ornaments followed by discord & harassment does not reflect on intention to instigate to commit suicide: SC discharges husband & in-laws u/s. 306 IPC
The Court discharged a husband and the in-laws for the abetment of suicide of the wife while observing that selling her ornaments followed by an alleged discord and harassment does not reflect on any intention to “instigate, incite or provoke the deceased to commit suicide.”
The Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the husband and the in-laws (Appellants), discharging them from charges under Section 306 of the IPC while upholding the charges under Section 498A of the IPC. The Court held that the materials on record do not establish the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide but directed the trial to continue for the offence of cruelty.
Cause Title- Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. v. State Of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 960)
Date of Judgment- December 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
13) Mere completion of engineering degree does not guarantee gainful employment in these competitive times: SC directs father to pay 1cr as maintenance to adult son
The Court directed a father to pay Rs. 1 crore towards the ‘maintenance and care’ of his adult son who had just graduated, after observing that mere completion of his engineering degree does not guarantee gainful employment in these competitive times.
The Court dissolved the marriage between the parties exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and directed the husband to pay Rs. 5 crore as a one-time settlement for the maintenance and financial security of the wife.
Cause Title- P v. A (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 961)
Date of Judgment- December 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
14) Victim would have to be under supervision of a full-time skilled attendant: SC enhances compensation in motor accident case
The Court enhanced the compensation in a motor accident case on the ground that the victim would have to be under supervision of a full-time skilled attendant.
The Court was dealing with a Civil Appeal questioning the validity of the final Judgment and Order of the Single Judge of the High Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
Cause Title- Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 963)
Date of Judgment- December 11, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
15) Disputes relating to non-payment of wages & legality of termination pending before statutory authorities are non-arbitrable
The Court imposed a cost of Rs 5 Lakh on a company for filing a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act when disputes relating to non-payment of wages & legality of termination which were anyway pending before the statutory authorities. It clarified that the disputes pending before the statutory authorities, related to non-payment of wages and legality and propriety of termination which are non-arbitrable.
Questioning the appointment of an arbitrator by the Madras High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961, the appellant filed the appeal before the Court on the ground that the dispute with the respondent-employer, M/S Hyundai AutoEver India Pvt. Ltd. was governed by the statute under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Cause Title- Dushyant Janbandhu v. M/s Hyundai Autoever India Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation:2024 INSC 966)
Date of Judgment- December 11, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta
16) Gift conditioned upon perpetual rendering of services without any remuneration is unconstitutional as it amounts to forced labour
The Court clarified that a gift which is conditioned upon perpetual rendering of services without any remuneration would amount to a “begar” or forced labour. It is not just wrong or illegal but even unconstitutional, being violative of fundamental rights of the donees, the court said.
The appellants-plaintiffs approached the Court challenging the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court whereby the second appeal of the respondents / defendants was allowed and the concurrent decisions of the courts below, which had decreed the suit, were set aside.
Cause Title- Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors. v. Smt. Chameli & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 965)
Date of Judgment- December 11, 2024
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
17) Every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder: Supreme Court quashes preventive detention under MPDA Act
The Court, while reiterating that every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder, has quashed an Order of preventive detention under the MPDA Act in an alleged bootlegging case.
The Court set aside the detention order confirmed by the State Government imposed under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act, 1981 against the Appellant for alleged bootlegging activities. The Bench stated that the allegations against the Appellant were “as vague as it could be.”
Cause Title- Arjun v. State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 968)
Date of Judgment- December 11, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
18) Court that entertains petition of compromise can determine its legality when it is questioned by filing recall application
The Court clarified that only the Court that entertains the petition of compromise can determine its legality, at the time of recording the compromise or when it is questioned by way of a recall application.
The appeal before the Court challenged the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court whereby the appellant’s application for restoration of first appeal was dismissed citing that the High Court had not granted liberty for restoration of the appeal while recording the compromise.
Cause Title- Navratan Lal Sharma v. Radha Mohan Sharma & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 970)
Date of Judgment- December 12, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
19) There has to be transparency in matters of land allotment by government: SC quashes allotment letter issued in favor of co-op housing society
The Court quashed a land allotment letter issued in the year 2008 by the Maharashtra Government in favor of Medinova Regal Cooperative Housing Society and observed that the entire history of how the plot came to be allotted showed nepotism and favoritism for a society. It further highlighted that land is a precious material resource of the community and therefore the least which is required from the State is transparency in its distribution.
The appellant had filed the appeal challenging the judgement whereby a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and declined to interfere in the allotment of land by the Respondent¬-State to Medinova Regal Co¬operative Housing Society (MRCHS or Respondent No. 5).
Cause Title- Proposed Vaibhav Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 971)
Date of Judgment- December 12, 2024
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
20) Person’s official status neither a ground for denying bail, not can it constitute special consideration for granting bail
The Court clarified that while an accused person’s official status should not be grounds for denying bail, it also cannot constitute a special consideration to grant bail.
The Court said that Partha Chatterjee (Appellant), a member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly since 2001 must be released on bail on February 1st, 2025 in the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) case concerning money laundering linked to the State’s recruitment scam. The Bench directed the Trial Court to decide on framing of charges before the commencement of the winter vacations and/or before December 31st, 2024.
Cause Title- Partha Chatterjee v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 975)
Date of Judgment- December 13, 2024
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
21) Not permissible to convict accused on witness’s testimony based on conjectures & surmises when co-accused are granted benefit of doubt on basis of same witness’s evidence
The Court acquitted a murder accused and held that if the Court comes to a conclusion that it is difficult to believe that the witness could have witnessed the incident in the manner narrated by him and granted benefit of doubt to co-accused persons then conviction of accused on the basis of the evidence of the very same witness only on the basis of conjectures and surmises is not permissible.
The Appeal before the Court challenged the judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court whereby the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Trial Court was partly allowed and his conviction under Sections 294(b), 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was upheld.
Cause Title- George v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 974)
Date of Judgment- December 13, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
22) Special Court cannot conduct criminal proceedings u/s. 58 NDPS Act as it can be tried summarily only by a Magistrate
The Court clarified that a Special Court under the NDPS Act cannot conduct criminal proceedings under Section 58 of the NDPS Act as it can be tried summarily only by a Magistrate empowered under Section 260 of the Cr.P.C.
The Court quashed criminal proceedings and allowed the challenge against the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which upheld the Order passed by the Special Court initiating criminal proceedings under Section 58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 against the Superintendent of Police (Appellant) investigating a case pertaining seizure of opium.
Cause Title- Bharti Arora v. The State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 976)
Date of Judgment- December 13, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
23) Mere conduct of parties aimed at frustrating court proceedings or circumventing its decisions, even without an explicit prohibitory order, constitutes contempt
The Court held that the mere conduct of parties aimed at frustrating Court proceedings or circumventing its decisions, even without an explicit prohibitory order, constitutes contempt.
The Court explained that any attempts to sidestep the Court’s jurisdiction or manipulate the course of litigation through “dishonest or obstructive conduct” or malign or distort the decision of the Courts would “inevitably tantamount to contempt sans any prohibitory order or direction to such effect.”
Cause Title- Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 978)
Date of Judgment- December 13, 2024
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
24) An opportunity to register a false case being furnished by official duty won’t be sufficient to apply Section 197 CrPC
The Court observed that the mere fact that an opportunity to register a false case was furnished by the official duty would not be sufficient to apply Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The Court observed thus in Criminal Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court by which it allowed the Applications and quashed the proceedings arising out of a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 201, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Cause Title- Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 979)
Date of Judgment- December 13, 2024
Coram- Justice Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
25) Right To vindicate & protect private property cannot be brushed away merely on grounds of delay & laches
The Court held that the right to vindicate and protect private property cannot be brushed away merely on the ground of delay and laches.
The Court held thus in a batch of Civil Appeals filed against the Judgment of Rajasthan High Court by which it allowed the Writ Appeals and quashed the land acquisition proceedings initiated by a Trust.
Cause Title- Urban Improvement Trust v. Vidhya Devi and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 980)
Date of Judgment- December 13, 2024
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
26) Final relief could not be granted in an interlocutory application: SC sets aside Consumer Commission Order directing local authority to give possession of land after 28 years
The Court set aside an Order passed by a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing Indore Development Authority to accept the outstanding amount and hand over the possession of a plot of land the agency allotted 28 years ago.
The Court was hearing a Special Leave Petition against an Order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that had directed the authority to handover the possession of a plot of land after receiving and accepting the amount from the respondent along with interest 28 years after allotment and multiple rounds of litigation later.
Cause Title- Indore Development Authority v. Dr. Hemant Mandovra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 983)
Date of Judgment- December 13, 2024
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
27) Merger of Tanti Caste with Scheduled Caste list bad in law: Apex Court upholds disentitlement of candidate’s claim under SC category
The Court upheld the decision of disentitling a Tanti candidate’s claim under the Scheduled Caste category and reiterated that the merger of the Tanti caste with the Scheduled Caste list is bad in law. It made such observations by following its recent decision in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar v. State of Bihar 2024 INSC 528.
The Union of India approached the Court challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. The Petition was filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing his Original Application filed against the decision of the Government disentitling his claim under the Scheduled Caste category.
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. Rohit Nandan (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 984)
Date of Judgment- December 13, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
28) Even in absence of regulations being framed u/s.105H MMC Act, proceedings for eviction can be continued by inquiry officer
The Court clarified that even in the absence of regulations being framed under section 105H of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, the proceedings for eviction can be continued by the Inquiry Officer by adhering to principles of natural justice. The Court also added that the said provision cannot be construed as placing an embargo on the Inquiry Officer to proceed until regulations were framed.
The Appellants approached the Court after being aggrieved by the common judgment passed on a batch of writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court. The appellants had issues with the Judge having framed points for determination by the Inquiry Officer under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
Cause Title- Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others v. Vivek V. Gawde Etc. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 985)
Date of Judgment- December 13, 2024
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
29) Not correct to recall Bail Order in absence of allegation by Investigating Agency that accused violated imposed conditions or he was misusing his liberty
The Court restored an order granting bail and observed that since there was not even an allegation by the Investigating Agency that the accused violated any of the conditions which were imposed while granting bail or that he was misusing the liberty granted to him, it was not correct on the part of the High Court to recall its earlier order granting bail.
The appeal before the Court was filed challenging the judgment whereby the Single Judge of the High Court recalled its earlier order vide which the appeal filed by the appellant herein under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was allowed.
Cause Title- Mendar Singh @ Vijay Singh v. State of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 969)
Date of Judgment- December 10, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
30) No miscellaneous application maintainable in a Writ Petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events
The Court made it abundantly clear that no miscellaneous application is maintainable in a writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events. It also observed that if the applicant appearing in-person has an apprehension that the contemnor is likely to cause any harm to him or any of his family members, it is open for him to file a writ petition before the territorial High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and seek appropriate relief in that regard.
The Appellant approached the Court for issuance of a direction to the Distt. Judge, Agra to grant protection to the applicant during the pendency of a Civil appeal.
Cause Title- Ajay Kumar Jain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 958)
Date of Judgment- December 9, 2024
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
