Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: July 29 – August 2, 2024
1) NCDRC awarded lesser interest than agreed upon in agreement: Supreme Court grants relief to homebuyers
The Court, while providing relief to homebuyers, noted that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was unjustified in awarding interest lower than what was stipulated in the agreement.
The Court was hearing an appeal that challenged the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Case which directed the developers to refund the entire sum deposited by the complainants with annual interest less than what was mentioned in the Agreement.
Cause Title- Vidya v. M/s Parsvnath Developers (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 557)
Date of Judgment- July 29, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
2) Right to practice law is also a fundamental right; Bar Councils charging excessive enrolment fees created entry barriers
The Court held that the excessive enrolment fees charged by the SBCs contravene Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, create barriers for economically weaker sections, and are manifestly arbitrary, thereby denying substantive equality and infringing on the fundamental right to practice law under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The Advocates Act was enacted to amend and consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners and establish a common Bar for the entire country. The Act created State Bar Councils (SBCs) and the Bar Council of India (BCI). Section 6 of the Advocates Act assigned various functions to the SBCs, including admitting advocates, maintaining rolls, handling misconduct cases, and safeguarding the rights and interests of advocates. The SBCs were also empowered to organize legal aid, promote law reform, conduct academic discourses, and publish legal journals and papers.
Cause Title- Gaurav Kumar vs Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 558)
Date of Judgment- July 30, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
3) Maharashtra Slum Areas Act| Writ of Mandamus lies against authorities if they don’t perform statutory duty of ensuring that project is completed within prescribed time
The Court held that a writ of mandamus lies against the concerned authorities under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, if they do not perform the statutory duty of ensuring that the project is completed within the prescribed time.
The Court held thus in a civil appeal relating to the common battles between competing real estate developers under the pretext of rehabilitating slum dwellers under the aforesaid 1971 Act.
Cause Title- Yash Developers v. Harihar Krupa Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 559)
Date of Judgment- July 30, 2024
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar
4) Supreme Court holds with 6:1 majority that sub-classification of SC/ST categories is permissible
A Seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court pronounced the judgment that sub-classification of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories is permissible. There were six opinions in the judgement. Justice Bela Trivedi dissented.
The majority held that sub-classification is permissible. CJI Chandrachud authored an opinion for himself and Justice Manoj Misra. Justice Gavai and Justice Mithal authored separate concurring opinions. Justice Gavai and the CJI agreed with each other's conclusion. Justice Nath and Justice Sharma agreed with the opinions of the CJI and Justice Gavai, while Justice Trivedi dissented.
The majority overruled the decision in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005 SC). Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Solicitor General Tushar Metha, among others, were present in Court during the pronouncement. The Central government had argued during the hearing that it supports sub-classification.
Cause Title- The State of Punjab and Ors. v. Davinder Singh and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 562)
Date of Judgment- August 1, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Bela M Trivedi, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Misra and Justice S.C. Sharma
5) How can someone be appointed to a govt. job without proper verification of documents? SC expresses surprise while upholding dismissal of railways employees
The Court questioned the Railways for employing a candidate based on forged and fabricated employment documents.
The Court upheld the dismissal of two railways employees who were terminated from their services after having produced fraudulent documents for compassionate appointment.
Cause Title- Union Of India & Ors. v. Prohlad Guha (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 563)
Date of Judgment- August 1, 2024
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol
6) Vicarious liability of directors of company not attracted unless assertions as required u/s 50(1) National Housing Bank Act are made
The Court observed that since Section 50(1) of the National Housing Bank Act is pari materia with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, vicarious liability of the Directors of the company is not attracted unless specific assertions are made.
The Court noted that the Magistrate initially took cognizance of the complaint for the offence under Section 29A (i) read with Section 50 and punishable under Section 49 (2A) of the 1987 Act. Section 49(2A) prescribes a minimum sentence of one year, which may extend to five years. The complaint was quashed by the High Court on the grounds that the requirements of sub-Section (1) of Section 50 of the 1987 Act, similar to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) were not met by the complainant.
Cause Title- National Housing Bank v. Bherudan Dugar Housing Finance Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 566)
Date of Judgment- August 1, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
7) Directions issued by Central Govt. under MSMED Act & RBI under Banking Regulation Act have statutory force & binding to all banking companies
The Court observed that the directions or instructions issued by the Central Government under Section 9 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) and by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under Sections 21 and 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 have statutory force and are binding to all the Banking companies.
The Court observed thus in a batch of civil appeals filed by the MSMEs registered under MSMED Act, challenging the common order of the Bombay High Court by which it dismissed the writ petitions and held that the Banks/Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) are not obliged to adopt the restructuring process as per the notification issued by the Ministry of MSMEs on its own without there being any application by the MSMEs.
Cause Title- M/s Pro Knits v. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 565)
Date of Judgment- August 1, 2024
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice R. Mahadevan
8) Manner in which NTA organised NEET-UG 2024 gives rise to "serious concerns"
The Court, while pronouncing the judgment in the petitions alleging paper leaks in the National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test-Under Graduate Exam, 2024 ('NEET-UG, 2024'), observed that the manner in which the National Testing Agency ('NTA') has organised the exam this year gives rise to serious concerns.
The Court also observed that there was no systemic breach of the sanctity of the exam and the leak was only limited to Patna and Hazaribagh. On July 23, 2024, the Court refused to cancel the NEET-UG, 2024 and said that cancellation would not be justified.
Cause Title- Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 568)
Date of Judgment- August 2, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
9) Pre-arrest bail condition requiring husband to fulfil all physical & financial requirements of wife absolutely improbable, impracticable & counterproductive
The Court held that a pre-arrest bail condition requiring a person to fulfil all the physical as well as financial requirements of their spouse is absolutely improbable, impracticable & counterproductive.
The Court set aside the condition imposed by the Patna High Court while granting provisional pre-arrest bail to a husband which stated that “he undertakes to fulfill all physical as well as financial requirement of the complainant so that she can lead a dignified life without any interference of any of the family members of the petitioner.”
Cause Title- Sudeep Chatterjee v. The State of Bihar & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 567)
Date of Judgment- August 2, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
10) VAT paid on purchases is required to be excluded for computing taxable turnover of purchases u/s 11(3)(b) Gujarat VAT Act
The Court held that the Value Added Tax (VAT) paid on purchases is required to be excluded for computing taxable turnover of purchases under Section 11(3)(b) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (GVAT Act).
The Court held thus in civil appeals filed by the Gujarat State against M/s. Ambuja Cement Ltd., challenging the judgment of the High Court which had dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Tribunal.
Cause Title- The State of Gujarat v. M/s. Ambuja Cement Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 572)
Date of Judgment- August 2, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
11) Rights of State as lessor can be transferred only by adopting a fair & transparent process fetching best possible price
The Court observed that the rights of the State as the owner and lessor can be transferred only by adopting a fair and transparent process by which the State fetches the best possible price.
The Court said that the rights of the lawful lessees do not get affected if the lessor makes sale of a leasehold plot, as their tenancy is attorned to the purchaser in view of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 (TPA).
Cause Title- City Montessori School v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 570)
Date of Judgment- August 2, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
12) "An exceptional case": SC directs UPSC to reschedule re-medical examination of a candidate who missed it 9 years ago
The Court directed the Union Public Service Commission to reschedule the Re-Medical Examination of a candidate who unfortunately missed the same 9 years back.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition seeking directions to the UPSC to allocate a service to the petitioner with all consequential benefits for the Civil Services Examination, 2014, on par with other similarly placed candidates in the Reserve List as well as direct a re-medical examination if required.
Cause Title- Rakshit Shivam Prakash v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 569)
Date of Judgment- August 2, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal
13) Appeal u/s 19 Contempt of Courts Act lies only against order imposing punishment
The Court observed that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 lies only against an order imposing punishment for contempt.
In this case, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for alleged misconduct during his tenure as Officer Commanding in CRPF, leading to his removal from service.
Cause Title- Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors v. Prakash Kumar dixit (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 575)
Date of Judgment- July 29, 2024
Coram- Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
14) No evidence to show that accused took undue advantage or acted in cruel manner: SC alters conviction u/s 302 IPC to Part I of S. 304 IPC
The Court altered the conviction of a man under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to Part I of Section 304 of IPC.
The Court was dealing with a criminal appeal challenging the judgment of the Allahabad High Court by which it upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and sentence of life imprisonment.
Cause Title- Devendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 576)
Date of Judgment- August 2, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
