Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: January 8 – January 12, 2024
1) Bilkis Bano’s Case | Supreme Court says its earlier order was obtained by fraud; also terms it 'per incuriam'
The Court while quashing the remission granted to the 11 convicts in Bilkis Bano’s plea, observed that its order dated May 17, 2022 was a nullity and non-est in law (bad in law) as a result of being per incuriam (lacking due regard to the fact or a law). The court also added that the order was obtained by suppressing material facts and misleading the Court, and thus suppressio veri suggestio falsi.
The bench was further of the opinion that it could not have set aside an order of the High Court in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The bench also noted that it was only Radheshyam Shah (convict and Respondent no. 3) who had approached the Court or any High Court seeking remission. Therefore, in regards with other 10 respondents, there was no direction of Supreme Court or any court to the State of Gujarat to consider their pre-mature release.
Cause Title- Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India Others (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 24)
Date of Judgment- January 8, 2024
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
2) Tests to ascertain whether a contract is covered by Article 366(29A)(d) of Constitution: Supreme Court explains
The Court explained the tests to ascertain whether a contract is covered by Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution. It held that there is no transfer of right to use the goods when substantial control over them remains with the owner.
The Court was dealing with a batch of civil appeals filed against the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) concerning the liability to pay tax under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 and the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (VAT Act), respectively.
Cause Title- M/s. K.P. Mozika v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 27)
Date of Judgment- January 9, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
3) 'No willingness shown': Supreme Court upholds dismissal of a specific performance suit filed 25 years ago
The Court upheld the dismissal of a suit for specific performance observing that no willingness shown by the plaintiffs to pay the remaining amount or getting the Sale Deed ascribed on necessary stamp paper and giving notice to the defendants to execute the Sale Deed.
An appeal challenging the Final Judgment of the High Court was filed, contesting the dismissal of a Second Appeal initiated by the original defendants (Appellants).
Cause Title- Alagammal And Ors. v. Ganesan And Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 28)
Date of Judgment- January 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
4) Withdrawal of personal/promotional pay scale benefit: SC dismisses ayurvedic medical officers' plea against recovery orders
The Court dismissed Ayurvedic Medical Officers' plea against recovery orders passed against them after withdrawing the benefit of personal/promotional pay scale.
The benefit of a personal/promotional pay scale was granted to the appellants by the State of Uttarakhand. The said benefit was withdrawn under a subsequent decision of the State government. The question for consideration was whether the benefits can be recovered from the appellants who have superannuated.
Cause Title- Dr. Balbir Singh Bhandari v. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 29)
Date of Judgment- January 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
5) 'No court or tribunal or authority can ignore law stated by this court': Supreme Court criticizes NGT for stalling Shimla development plan
The Court observed that no Court or Tribunal or any other authority can ignore the law stated by it.
The court criticized the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for stalling the implementation of the draft Development Plan 2041 for Shimla despite pendency of the proceedings before the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
Cause Title- The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Yogendra Mohan Sengupta & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 30)
Date of Judgment- January 11, 2024
Coram- Justice BR Gavai and Justice Aravind Kumar
6) Litigant who is not diligent cannot invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction of High Court
The Court held that a litigant who lacks diligence cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court allowed an Appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) against the order of the High Court deciding in favour of a society that was denied allotment of land to build a school in Vasant Kunj without requisite sponsorship letter.
The Court noted the society’s delay of 11 years in filing a writ petition, despite receiving in-principle approval in 2003 and emphasized that the Petition was liable to be dismissed on these grounds of unreasonable delay.
Cause Title- Delhi Development Authority v Hello Home Education Society (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 33)
Date of Judgment- January 11, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal
7) 'All citizens have fundamental right to pollution free environment': SC directs centre to frame policy of phasing out heavy duty diesel vehicles
The Court observed that citizens have a fundamental right to a pollution free environment as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed the Central Government to examine recommendations by Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (‘EPCA’) and to formulate a policy of phasing out heavy¬ duty diesel vehicles and replacing them with BS¬VI vehicles.
An application was filed in the National Green Tribunal (NGT) highlighting pollution issues arising from ICD which was used by trucks/trailers not destined for Delhi, contributing to increased air pollution in Delhi NCR due to emissions from the substantial inflow of these vehicles.
Cause Title- Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. Ajay Khera & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 31)
Date of Judgment- January 11, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
8) “Unscrupulous litigants should not go scot-free": SC imposes 25 lakh costs on a complainant while quashing FIR over a civil dispute
The Court, while quashing criminal proceedings, imposed costs of Rupees 25 Lakhs on the complainant for unnecessary conversion of a civil/commercial matter into a criminal case.
The Court emphasized the need to hold unscrupulous litigants accountable by imposing strict terms, conditions, and costs.
Cause Title- Dinesh Gupta v The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 32)
Date of Judgment- January 11, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal
9) Order VIII Rule 10 CPC | Not mandatory to pass judgment in favour of plaintiff merely because defendant failed to file written statement
The Court observed that it is not mandatory for a Court to pass a judgment in favour of the plaintiff, if the defendant fails or neglects to file his written statement.
The Court said that under Rule 10 of Order VIII of Code of Civil Procedure, only on being satisfied that there is no fact which need to be proved on account of deemed admission, could the court pass a judgment against the defendant who has not filed the written statement.
Cause Title- Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 36)
Date of Judgment- January 12, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar
10) Execution application can be dismissed if decree is unmistakably found to suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction of court that passed it
The Court held that the executing court can dismiss an execution application if the decree put to execution is unmistakably found to suffer from an inherent lack of jurisdiction of the court that made the same rendering it a nullity in the eye of law.
The Court held thus in an appeal arising out of an objection under Section 47 of the (Civil Procedure Code) CPC in an execution application filed before the Executing Court.
Cause Title- Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 36)
Date of Judgment- January 12, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar
11) Interim relief can be granted only after recording prima facie satisfaction on question of maintainability of suit if questioned
The Court observed that an interim relief in a suit can be granted only after recording a prima facie satisfaction on the question of maintainability of the suit if the same is questioned. The court noted that the question of jurisdiction would assume importance even at the stage a court considers the question of grant of interim relief.
The Court observed thus in a recent judgment in which it considered the scope of execution court's power under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Cause Title- Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 36)
Date of Judgment- January 12, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar
12) Hit & Run Accidents: SC issues directions to ensure victims are informed about compensation scheme
The Court issued directions to ensure that the victims and their legal representatives in hit and run accident cases are informed about the availability of the compensation scheme and that they are assisted in filing the claims.
The Court pointed out that Police in a hit-and-run accident must inform the victim or their legal representatives about the availability of the compensation scheme under Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Cause Title- S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 37)
Date of Judgment- January 12, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
13) SC issues directions to study impact of blasting operations on Chittorgarh Fort
The Court issued directions to conduct a comprehensive study on the impact of blasting activities on the historic Chittorgarh Fort.
The Court issued directions to study the impact of blasting for limestone extraction in an ongoing matter concerning the potential impact on the historic monuments including Chittorgarh Fort and adjoining areas.
Cause Title- Birla Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director v Bhanwar Singh And Others (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 35)
Date of Judgment- January 12, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti
14) In murder trials, conviction solely based on testimony of untrustworthy witness is unsafe
The Court observed that, in murder trials, it is unsafe to convict an accused based solely on the testimony of an untrustworthy witness unless supported by strong corroborative evidence.
The Court dismissed an appeal filed by the State challenging the conviction of one Mohd. Jamil under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Court noted that the credibility of witnesses in the second trial was questionable due to factual inconsistencies and therefore conviction under Section 302 IPC would not be prudent.
Cause Title- State Of Haryana v Mohd. Yunus & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 34)
Date of Judgment- January 12, 2024
Coram- Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
15) Prosecutrix kept silent for a long period of 34 years: Supreme Court quashes FIR against rape accused
The Court quashed the charges of rape (Section 376 IPC) and criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC) against an accused observing that the FIR was filed after 34 years. The Court held that filing an FIR after 34 years on a bald statement that the complainant was a minor at the time of the commission of offence, itself can be a ground to quash criminal proceedings.
There was no explanation given in the FIR as to why the complainant kept silent for a long period of 34 years. The complainant had filed an FIR stating that when she was fifteen years of age, the appellant committed rape on her and as a result of which she gave birth to a child.
Cause Title- Suresh Garodia v. The State of Assam & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 39)
Date of Judgment- January 12, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
16) Clause already annulled by HC’s judgment need not be challenged separately: SC directs for reinstatement of Anganwari Sevika after 10 years
The Court held that when a Clause (i.e. Clause 4.9 of Anganwari Sevika Guidelines, 2011 has already been annulled by the judgment of the High Court, there is no requirement to challenge its validity separately.
The Court allowed the Appeal of Anganwari Sevika whose appointment was challenged by another candidate. The Appellate Authority's decision, affirmed by the High Court, resulting in her dismissal, was overturned by the Apex Court.
Cause Title- Anjum Ara v. The State Of Bihar And Others (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 400)
Date of Judgment- January 8, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
17) Relationship between accused & complainant was after their 'forced' marriage: Supreme Court quashes rape case
The Court quashed a rape case after it noticed that the sexual relationship between the accused and the complainant was after the 'forced' marriage.
The Court observed thus in an appeal challenging the order of the Uttarakhand High Court by which the application filed by the accused for quashing the proceedings under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC was rejected.
Cause Title- Mohd. Julfukar v. The State of Uttarakhand and Another (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 38)
Date of Judgment- January 9, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
18) Electricity Act | State Commission can consider whether bids quoted are aligned with prevailing market prices or not
The Court observed that the Electricity Act gives power to the State Commission to regulate the electricity purchase and procurement process. It said that the State Commission can go into the question whether the bids quoted by the bidders are aligned with the prevailing market prices or not.
In this case, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (RVPN) filed a petition before the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission seeking approval for procuring 1000 MW of power through competitive bidding.
Cause Title- Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. vs MB Power (Madhya Pradesh) Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 23)
Date of Judgment- January 8, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
