Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: July 8 – July 12, 2024
1) Creative freedom of filmmaker cannot include freedom to lampoon, stereotype, misrepresent or disparage those already marginalised
The Court observed that the creative freedom of the filmmaker cannot include the freedom to lampoon, stereotype, misrepresent or disparage those already marginalised.
The Court observed thus in a civil appeal preferred against Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited and laid down comprehensive guidelines for portraying persons with disabilities (PwDs) in visual media.
Cause Title- Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 465)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala
2) Trial stands vitiated if a fatal non-compliance of Section 313(1)(b) CrPC results in material prejudice to convict
The Court remarked that in case a fatal non-compliance in the matter of questioning under Section 313(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) results in material prejudice to any convict, the trial should stand vitiated.
The Court remarked thus in a criminal appeal filed by a man challenging his confirmation of conviction by the Delhi High Court for the offence of murder.
Cause Title- Naresh Kumar v. State of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 464)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta
3) Presence of accused as part of unlawful assembly itself is sufficient for conviction u/s 149 IPC
The Court reiterated that when the charge is under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the presence of the accused as part of the unlawful assembly itself is sufficient for conviction.
The Court reiterated thus in a batch of two criminal appeals against the order of the Bombay High Court by which it upheld the conviction of the accused persons.
Cause Title- Suresh Dattu Bhojane & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 468)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
4) What are the conditions for applying principle of res judicata between co-defendants? - SC explains
The Court explained the conditions for applying the principle of res judicata between co-defendants.
The Court reaffirmed the general policy behind the principle of res judicata as enshrined under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). It was deciding a civil appeal preferred against the judgment of the High Court by which it dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff.
Cause Title- Har Narayan Tewari (D) Thr. LRs. v. Cantonment Board, Ramgarh Cantonment & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 467)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
5) SC upholds Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rule providing age relaxation to those serving in educational projects
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 13(v) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008, which provided age relaxation for those serving in educational projects.
This batch of 47 appeals involved common questions of law arising from judgments by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench. The main appeal, Civil Appeal 7906 of 2010 (Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), challenged the selection process for the post of "Prabodhak" (teacher), as advertised under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008.
Cause Title- Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 466)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan
6) Endeavour is to infuse transparency, independence & impartiality: SC while constituting search-cum-selection committees for universities in West Bengal
The Court, while invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, observed that they endeavour to infuse transparency, independence, fairness, and impartiality to ensure that the persons possessing the highest level of competence are shortlisted for the Universities in West Bengal.
The Court appointed Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Former Chief Justice of India as Chairperson of the Search ¬cum¬ Selection Committees for all the Universities in the State of West Bengal.
Cause Title- The State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 469)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan
7) Section 4A(1) Central Excise Act is attracted when rules mandatorily require the mention of retail price on a package
The Court upheld the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal while observing that mere mention of retail price on a package would not attract Section 4A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 if the package itself does not attract provisions under Standards of Weight & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 regarding mention of retail price.
The Court was hearing Civil Appeals that were filed to take exception to the judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Cause Title- Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur -II v. M/s Miraj Products Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 470)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
8) "He has been made to run from pillar to post": SC directs appointment of 100% visually impaired CSE-2008 candidate against backlog vacancies
The Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India directed authorities to appoint successful Civil Services Examination- 2008 PH category candidates against backlog vacancies of PWD candidates.
The Court said that the case of candidates could have been considered given the Union of India's significant delay in implementing the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
Cause Title- Union of India v. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 471)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
9) Threshold for disbelieving a witness is material discrepancies & inconsistencies: SC upholds conviction in murder case
The Court reiterated that the threshold for disbelieving a witness is not mere discrepancies or inconsistencies, but material discrepancies and inconsistencies that make their account highly improbable.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal that challenged the Kerala High Court's judgment which dismissed the appellant's appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC and upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 143, 147, 148, and 302 of the IPC.
Cause Title- Joy Devaraj v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 473)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Pankaj Mithal
10) Criminal complaint for offence of cheating after giving up rights under agreement is abuse of process of law: SC quashes cheating case
The Court quashed criminal proceedings while observing that continuing a Criminal Complaint for the offence of cheating after giving up rights under the concerned agreement is an abuse of the process of law.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal to quash the proceedings of a complaint filed by a person.
Cause Title- Sardar Ravi Inder Singh & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 472)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
11) “Prosecution evidence regarding extra-judicial confession cannot be believed": Supreme Court acquits man accused of murder of roommate
The Court acquitted a man accused of murdering his roommate observing that the prosecution evidence of the alleged extra-judicial confession could not be believed.
The Court explained that the normal rule of human conduct was that a person would confess to the commission of a serious crime to a person they had implicit faith in.
Cause Title- Lal Mohammad Manjur Ansari v. The State Of Gujrat (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 475)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
12) Deceased person's statement to police officer u/s 161 CrPC regarding cause of death can be considered as dying declaration
The Court emphasized that the statements made by a deceased person to a Police Officer under Section 161 CrPC, regarding the cause of death or circumstances leading to it, are admissible as dying declarations despite statutory restrictions, warranting cautious reliance by the court.
The Court emphasized thus in a murder case involving a person dying from a head injury.
Cause Title- Dharmendra Kumar @ Dhamma v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 480)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan
13) Dock identification in absence of test identification parade doubtful: SC acquits man accused of brutal murder of 14-year-old girl
The Court acquitted a murder accused observing that not conducting a Test Identification Parade before the dock identification was a “fatal flaw in the police investigation,” rendering it doubtful.
The Court set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court that convicted the appellant for the ‘brutal murder’ of a 14-year-old girl explaining that the Test Identification Parade (TIP) was only a part of the Police investigation and not a substantive piece of evidence. “The substantive piece of evidence, or what can be called evidence is only dock identification that is identification made by witness in Court during trial,” the Bench clarified.
Cause Title- P. Sasikumar v. The State (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 474)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
14) A case of consensual relationship which went sour: Supreme Court quashes rape case
The Court quashed criminal proceedings against the rape accused saying that it is a case of consensual relationship which went sour leading to lodging of FIR against him.
The Court was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by the accused against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing his criminal revision petition.
Cause Title- Shiv Pratap Singh Rana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 481)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
15) Desertion without any reasonable cause: SC grants divorce to husband & directs him to pay ₹30l as alimony to wife
The Court granted a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HM Act’) after the wife showed no inclination to resume cohabitation and the desertion of the husband continued without any reasonable cause.
According to the case of the husband, as the wife did not abide by the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, he filed a petition under Section 13 of the HM Act before the Family Court seeking a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Cause Title- X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 476)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
16) Not entitled to take benefit of Section 4 Limitation Act: SC dismisses appeal filed by State of West Bengal against arbitral award
The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of West Bengal against an arbitral award citing that the time provided by way of limitation expired before the vacation started.
The Court said that the period prescribed under Section 4 of the Limitation Act expired 31 days before the appeal was filed and the appeal would not have come under the said period even after the period of limitation could have been extended by a maximum period of 30 days as prescribed under proviso Section 34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. It was hearing an appeal after the High Court rejected the State’s appeal against the award of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Cause Title- State of West Bengal v. Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 477)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
17) Order of remand in an appeal u/s. 37 A&C Act can be made only in exceptional cases where it is unavoidable
The Court observed that an order of remand in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) can be made only in exceptional cases where remand is unavoidable.
The Court was deciding a batch of civil appeals challenging the judgment of the Bombay High Court.
Cause Title- Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited v. Samir Narain Bhojwani (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 478)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
18) Imposing bail condition which enables police to track every movement of accused violates right to privacy
The Court held that imposing bail condition which enables the Police or Investigation Agency to track every movement of the accused violates Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. It said that the bail condition of dropping a PIN on Google Maps cannot be imposed.
The court held thus in a criminal appeal preferred by the accused against Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB).
Cause Title- Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 479)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
19) Doubts on identity of accused: Supreme Court acquits murder accused
The Court acquitted a murder accused noticing that no Test Identification Parade was conducted and the identity of accused remained in doubt.
The Court observed that in a case where the identity of the accused is not known and TIP has not been conducted, the court has to see if there was any description of the accused either in the FIR or in any of the statement of witness recorded during the investigation.
Cause Title- Vishwanatha v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 482)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B Varale
20) Prior sanction u/s 19 Prevention of Corruption Act required before taking cognizance against public servant on an application u/s 319 CrPC
The Court observed that the Courts cannot take cognizance against any public servant for offences committed under Sections 7,11,13 & 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 even on an application under section 319 of the CrPC, without complying with the requirements of sanction under Section 19 of the Act.
The Court was hearing an appeal by the State of Punjab against the judgment of the High Court which set aside the trial Court order which had summoned respondent under Section 319 of CrPC to face the trial for the offences under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Cause Title- State of Punjab v. Partap Singh Verka (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 483)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
21) Section 206C Income Tax Act is not attracted on licences issued by government permitting liquor trade
The Court emphasized that provisions of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act would not be attracted on licences issued by the government permitting the licensee to carry on liquor trade, as the licensee does not fall within the concept of “buyer” referred to in that provision.
In this case, an appeal was filed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court by which it dismissed the writ appeal and other appeals of Mysore Sales International, the State of Karnataka, and Mysore Sugar Company Limited.
Cause Title- The Excise Commissioner Karnataka & Anr. v. Mysore Sales International Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 484)
Date of Judgment- July 8, 2024
Coram- Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
22) 'Public Interest' cannot be used as a pretext by public authorities to arbitrarily terminate contracts
The Court emphasized that public interest cannot be used as a pretext to arbitrarily terminate contracts.
The appeal arose from the judgment by the Calcutta High Court, which upheld the respondent's decision to cancel a tender awarded to the appellant for the maintenance of two underpasses on a Public-Private Partnership basis.
Cause Title- Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. The Chief Executive Officer & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 486)
Date of Judgment- July 9, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
23) The case of extra judicial confession cannot be accepted: SC acquits man accused of murder of stepmother over land dispute
The Court acquitted a man accused of murdering his stepmother over a land dispute, observing that the prosecution evidence of the alleged extra-judicial confession cannot be accepted.
The Court explained that the normal rule of human conduct is that if a person wants to confess to the crime committed by him, he will do so before the person in whom he has implicit faith.
Cause Title- Ratnu Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 487)
Date of Judgment- July 9, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
24) S. 19(B) SRA| Subsequent purchasers can be directed to execute sale deed along with original vendor; no need to pray for cancellation of subsequent sale deeds
The Court observed that in a case where Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) is applicable, under the decree of specific performance, the subsequent purchasers can be directed to execute the sale deed along with the original vendor.
The Court noted that, in such cases, there is no necessity to pray for the cancellation of the subsequent sale deeds.
Cause Title- Maharaj Singh & Ors. v. Karan Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 491)
Date of Judgment- July 9, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol
25) Trial Courts must not act as mere spectator; but must participate in trial proceedings proactively
The Court observed that the Trial Courts have an obligation not to act as mere spectators but should proactively participate in the proceedings to ensure that neither any extraneous material is permitted to be brought on record nor any relevant fact is left out.
The Court held that the FIR could not have been registered based on secret information received by a police officer as it did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence.
Cause Title- Gaurav Maini v. State of Haryana and connected appeals (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 488)
Date of Judgment- July 9, 2024
Coram- Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
26) Terms or language used in deed binding on parties even if they meant different things
The Court observed that the terms or the language used in a deed are binding on the parties even if they meant different things.
In this case, a suit was filed seeking partition and possession of a plaint schedule property. The property in question, a residential house, was initially owned by the owner, who entered into a lease-cum-sale agreement with the Vishakhapatnam Urban Development Authority and subsequently purchased the property through a registered sale deed. Upon his death, the property was inherited by his brothers and sister under Mohammedan law.
Cause Title- Naseem Kahnam & Ors. v. Zaheda Begum (D) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 492)
Date of Judgment- July 9, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
27) Victim did not take name of accused in dying declaration: SC upholds acquittal in murder case
The Court upheld the acquittal of accused persons in a murder case based on the dying declaration of the victim who did not take name of any accused holding him/her responsible for the fire incident.
The Court was deciding appeals preferred by the Punjab State against the judgment of the High Court by which the accused persons were acquitted and the judgment of the Trial Court was reversed.
Cause Title- State of Punjab v. Randhir Singh Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 489)
Date of Judgment- July 9, 2024
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta
28) Court should be circumspect in admitting evidence of interested & partisan eyewitness while ignoring convincing opinion of medical expert
The Court observed that where there is a prominent contradiction completely demolishing the version of the eyewitnesses who are interested and partisan, in such cases, the Court should be circumspect in admitting the evidence of the eyewitness while ignoring the convincing opinion of the Medical Expert.
An appeal was filed against a judgment passed by the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court partly accepting the appeal preferred by the Police Inspector and altered his conviction as recorded by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) to one under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced him to undergo eight years rigorous imprisonment.
Cause Title- Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Dead) Through LRs v. The State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 490)
Date of Judgment- July 9, 2024
Coram- Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
29) An idea in mind of principal to revoke cannot be construed as implied revocation or renunciation of agency u/s 208 Contract Act
The Court observed that an idea in the mind of the principal to revoke agency cannot be construed as implied revocation or renunciation of agency under Section 208 of the Indian Contract Act.
For attracting the consequence of revocation, the Court explained that the revocation of the agent’s authority must be made by the principal in a manner that clearly implies that the principal had withdrawn the authority to act on his or her behalf by the agent.
Cause Title- Thankamma George v. Lilly Thomas & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 494)
Date of Judgment- July 9, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
30) Courts can impound an insufficiently stamped instrument even in absence of any objection from any party to proceedings
The Court observed that Courts have the authority to impound an instrument even in the absence of any objection from any party to the proceedings.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal against the order of the Single Judge of the High Court who allowed the petition of the respondent under Article 227.
Cause Title- G.M. Shahul Hameed v. Jayanthi R. Hegde (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 493)
Date of Judgment- July 9, 2024
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Pankaj Mithal
31) Falsely representing that goods are of particular standard is “unfair trade practice” under Consumer Protection Act
The Court observed that falsely representing that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, style, or model, amounts to “unfair trade practice” under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now re-enacted as Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
The Court observed thus in a batch of civil appeals involving common question of law that whether the purchase of a vehicle/good by a Company for the use/personal use of its directors would amount to purchase for “commercial purpose” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of CPA.
Cause Title- M/s Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 496)
Date of Judgment- July 9, 2024
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal
32) Suit Claiming that land belongs to Dam Dama Sahib shrine not barred by Punjab Land Reforms Act
The Court held that a suit claiming that the land belongs to the religious shrine Dam Dama Sahib is not barred by Section 21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972.
The Court said that the suit was essentially for a declaration that the land belonged to the religious and charitable shrine Dam Dama Sahib, and there was no challenge to the validity of any order under the Act. It was hearing an appeal assailing the judgment where the Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the judgment of ADJ and held that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred under Section 21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972.
Cause Title- Ujagar Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. & ANR v. Punjab State (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 497)
Date of Judgment- July 9, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
33) It was sought to be established as if marriage was a child's play: SC upholds dismissal of a partition suit
The Court upheld the dismissal of a partition suit by the Bombay High Court which reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court for being perverse. The Court explained that the relevant facts to the partition suit were neither considered by the Trial Court nor the First Appellate Court.
The Court said that the High Court had also noticed the fact that the mother of the appellant had re-married claiming that the same was solemnized after she was abandoned by the respondent. “From the pleadings and oral evidence it was sought to be established, as if the marriage was a child’s play,” the Court observed.
Cause Title- Ram @ Ramdas Sheshrao Neharkar v. Sheshrao Baburao Neharkar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 498)
Date of Judgment- July 9, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal
34) "Challenge State Laws": SC refuses to entertain plea challenging demand of border tax & authorization fee by state governments from tour operators
The Court refused to interfere with the petitions that challenged the demand for Border Tax/Authorization Fee by State Governments from various transporters and tour operators. It said that if the State enactments, rules, and regulations are not challenged it cannot be said that the demand for Border Tax/Authorization Fee at the borders by the respective State Governments is bad under law.
The Court was hearing a batch of Petitions filed by the transporters and tour operators under Article 32 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality of different State Governments levying and collecting Authorization Fee/Border Tax in violation of All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules, 2023.
Cause Title- Muthyala Sunil Kumar v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 499)
Date of Judgment- July 9, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
35) Writ Court should not quash an order if it revives another wrong or illegal order
The Court held that a writ court should not quash an order if it revives a wrong or illegal order.
Had the High Court taken the view that the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction and the order passed by it was a nullity, the result would have been the revival of the illegal order passed by the Additional Collector confirming the sale, the Court noted thus while refusing to interfere with a judgment passed by the Bombay High Court.
Cause Title- M/s Al-Can Export Pvt. Ltd. v. Prestige HM Polycontainers Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 500)
Date of Judgment- July 9, 2024
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
36) Writ petition raising private service disputes against private education society cannot be entertained
The Court observed that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution can not be entertained against a private education society for the adjudication of private service disputes.
The case involved a dispute regarding the employment conditions of teaching and non-teaching staff after the Bengal Engineering Group and Centre leased land to the Institute of Brothers of St. Gabriel, which ran a school.
Cause Title- Army Welfare Education Society New Delhi v. Sunil Kumar Sharma & Ors. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 501)
Date of Judgment- July 9, 2024
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
37) Suit filed by State of West Bengal alleging Centre's misuse of CBI is maintainable, says Supreme Court
The Court ruled that the suit filed by the State of West Bengal against the Union of India, alleging the misuse of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), is maintainable.
The Bench rejected the preliminary submissions of the Union of India.
Cause Title- The State of West Bengal v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 502)
Date of Judgment- July 10, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
38) Land Acquisition Act| Market value is determined based on price of a willing buyer to a willing seller dealing at arm's length
The Court reiterated that the market value is determined based on the price of a willing buyer to a willing, but not too anxious buyer, dealing at arm’s length.
In this case, the civil appeals challenged the High Court of Bombay's judgment dated June 17, 2013. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the State's appeal was allowed, directing the appellant to refund the excess amount withdrawn with 9% interest per annum.
Cause Title- Kazi Akiloddin vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 505)
Date of Judgment- July 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Viswanathan
39) Maintenance is not charity; Muslim women also have right to seek it u/s. 125 CrPC
The Court, in its landmark judgment, observed that the Muslim woman has the right to seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), despite the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (‘1986 Act’).
The prime contention of the Appellant-husband was that the provisions of Section 125 of CrPC 1973 do not prevail in light of the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (‘1986 Act’). Furthermore, it was contended that even if a “divorced Muslim woman” seeks to move the court under the secular provision of Section 125 of CrPC 1973, it would not be maintainable, rather the correct procedure would be to file an application under Section 5 of the 1986 Act.
With respect to the right to maintenance in a constitutional context, Justice Nagarathna said that the direction to provide maintenance seeks to alleviate the financial stress and vulnerability of the impecunious woman who is dependent on her husband economically.
Cause Title- Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 506)
Date of Judgment- July 10, 2024
Coram- Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih
40) No grave & sudden provocation: SC upholds conviction of man accused of killing another amidst quarrel with neighbours over non-payment of electricity bill
The Court upheld the conviction of a man accused of murdering another amidst quarrel with neighbours over non-payment of electricity bill.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused who has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 294(b) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Cause Title- Shanmugasekar v. State of Tamil Nadu (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 504) Date of Judgment- July 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
41) Continuous readiness & willingness is condition precedent to grant relief of specific performance
The Court reiterated that the condition precedent for granting the relief of specific performance is a party's continuous readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
The Court explained the distinction between the terms ‘readiness’ and ‘willingness’ of a party. the Court stated that ‘readiness’ is the capacity of a party to perform the contract which included their financial position to pay for the sale consideration, while ‘willingness’ is the conduct of the party.
Cause Title- Pydi Ramana @ Ramulu v. Davarasety Manmadha Rao (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 507)
Date of Judgment- July 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar
42) Prosecution failed to prove bribe demand by reliable direct or circumstantial evidence: SC acquits accused in corruption case
The Court acquitted an accused in corruption case on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe by reliable direct or circumstantial evidence.
The Court was deciding an appeal preferred by the accused against the judgment of the Telangana High Court by which his conviction was affirmed.
Cause Title- Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. The State of A.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 503)
Date of Judgment- July 10, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
43) Reversal of small pockets of land in some cases might be impossible as they may lie in middle of large development projects
The Court remarked that in some cases, reversal of small pockets of land might be impossible since they may lie in the middle of large development projects.
The Court was dealing with a batch of civil appeals preferred by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court by which the land acquisition proceedings were annulled by quashing the declaration issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act).
Cause Title- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Darshan Lal Bohra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 508)
Date of Judgment- July 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
44) Sale deed by landowners cannot directly be relied upon for determining market value of land: SC applies principle of guesstimation to enhance land acquisition compensation
The Court granted an enhanced compensation to the landowners based on the principle of ‘guesstimation’ while observing that a sale deed produced by the landowners cannot directly be relied upon for determining the market value of the land.
The Court resorted to the settled principle of guesstimation as there was no direct piece of evidence to determine fair and just compensation for the landowners whose land was acquired by the State of Uttar Pradesh/NOIDA under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act).
Cause Title- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Harnand Singh (D) through LRs & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 509)
Date of Judgment- July 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
45) Registered sale deed is not null & void merely because it is executed pendente lite
The Court observed that a registered sale deed executed during the pendency of the underlying suit does not automatically render it null and void. It said that the law on impleadment of subsequent transferees has evolved in a manner that liberally enables subsequent transferees to protect their interests in recognition of the possibility that the transferor pendente lite may not defend the title or may collude with the plaintiff.
The Court was hearing an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the appellant's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India where the appellant had challenged the dismissal of his impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC by lower Court.
Cause Title- Yogesh Goyanka v. Govinda & ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 510)
Date of Judgment- July 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
46) Minor discrepancies in documents not sufficient to doubt citizenship claim: SC quashes Foreigners Tribunal proceedings against Assam man
The Court quashed an order of Foreigner's Tribunal that had declared an Assam resident as foreigner.
Declaring him as an Indian citizen, the Apex Court held that the minor discrepancies in the material produced by him were not sufficient enough for there to be doubt and disbelief about his citizenship claim.
Cause Title- Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim vs The State of Assam & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 511)
Date of Judgment- July 11, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
47) Applicability of doctrine of need & necessity to arrest in PMLA cases: SC refers 3 questions before larger bench in Arvind Kejriwal vs ED case
In a petition challenging his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement filed by Arvind Kejriwal, the Supreme Court has referred three questions of law on the applicability of the 'doctrine of need & necessity to arrest' for consideration by a larger Bench. The questions were:
(a) Whether the “need and necessity to arrest” is a separate ground to challenge the order of arrest passed in terms of Section 19(1) of the PML Act?
(b) Whether the “need and necessity to arrest” refers to the satisfaction of formal parameters to arrest and take a person into custody, or it relates to other personal grounds and reasons regarding necessity to arrest a person in the facts and circumstances of the said case?
(c) If questions (a) and (b) are answered in the affirmative, what are the parameters and facts that are to be taken into consideration by the court while examining the question of “need and necessity to arrest”?
The Court held that the principle of parity or equality under Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to repeat or multiply irregularities or illegalities.
Cause Title- Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 512)
Date of Judgment- July 12, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta
48) CIC has power to delegate its inquiry responsibility under RTI Act to a committee formed by it: SC upholds CIC (Management) Regulations
The Court held that under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) has an ambit of power wide enough to frame its own Regulations and to delegate its power to a Committee formed by it.
The Court held thus in an appeal challenging the judgment of the Delhi High Court by which it quashed the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007 framed by CIC and held that the CIC has no power to constitute Benches of the Commission.
Cause Title- Central Information Commission v. D.D.A. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 513)
Date of Judgment- July 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
49) Non-diligent & lackadaisical approach by contractors: Supreme Court upholds forfeiture of security deposit by forest department
The Court upheld the forfeiture of security money deposited by successful bidders with forest department after it noted that their approach was non diligent and lackadaisical in completing the work.
The Court was hearing an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court where the Respondents challenged the notice passed by the Divisional Forest Office forfeiting the security amount of the Respondents.
Cause Title- Chief Conservator Of Forest & Ors. v. Virendra Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 514)
Date of Judgment- July 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
50) Suit for injunction & possession and suit for damages for illegal use & occupation of property are two different causes of action; not barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC
The Court reiterated that a suit for permanent injunction and vacant possession and a suit for damages for illegal use and occupation of a property are two different causes of action which are not barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (respondent) had filed a suit for permanent injunction and vacant possession to claim outstanding dues and arrears of storage charges from the appellant. The suit was also filed for a permanent injunction and to hand over vacant possession of the warehouse. Subsequently, another commercial suit for recovery was filed in the High Court of Madras.
Cause Title- Uniworld Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 515)
Date of Judgment- July 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
51) Both parties are professionally qualified doctors with sufficient & equal earnings: SC refuses to award permanent alimony while dissolving marriage
The Court did not award any permanent alimony while dissolving a marriage noting that the parties are professionally qualified medical doctors with sufficient and equal earnings.
The Court granted the husband a decree of divorce after invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The Court considered the long separation period of 22 years between the parties that resulted in the “demolition of their matrimonial bond beyond repair.”
Cause Title- A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 517)
Date of Judgment- July 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
52) Merely because name of plaintiff continued in revenue records, it won’t confer any title upon him
The Court in a trespass case, clarified that merely because the name of the plaintiff continued in the revenue records, it would not confer any title upon him.
The Court was deciding an appeal preferred against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which it allowed the second appeal of the plaintiff and set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, and restored the judgment of the Trial Court decreeing the suit for possession.
Cause Title- The State of Punjab & Ors. v. Bhagwantpal Singh Alias Bhagwant Singh (Deceased) Through LRs. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 518)
Date of Judgment- July 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
53) No active role or positive act to instigate: Supreme Court discharges wife accused of abetting husband's suicide
The Court discharged a wife accused of abetment of suicide of her husband, noting that she did not play an active role or perform any direct act to instigate or aid her husband in committing suicide. It said that there is no proximate link between the marital dispute in the marriage of the deceased with appellant-wife and the commission of suicide.
The Court was hearing an appeal that challenged the impugned order where the High Court had dismissed the Appellant’s Revision Application. The trial Court had rejected the discharge application of the Appellant for her discharge from the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Cause Title- Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 519)
Date of Judgment- July 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
54) No sympathy with purchasers of property based on will 'shrouded with suspicion' not entitled to benefit u/s 41 TP Act
The Court observed that purchasers of property based on a Will “shrouded with suspicion” were not entitled to the benefit under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA).
The Court said that once a will was proved invalid, there could have been no right accrued in favour of the party to receive any right, title or interest under the Will regarding the property.
Cause Title- Duni Chand v. Vikram Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 516)
Date of Judgment- July 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
55) Eyewitness testimony of deceased's family member cannot be discarded if cogent, credible & reliable
The Court, in a murder case, observed that the testimony of an eyewitness who is a close relative of the deceased can always be relied upon if it is cogent, reliable, and credible.
The Court said that the evidence of the eye witness cannot be discarded only because an eye witness is a member of the deceased’s family.
Cause Title- Thatireddigari Maheswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 495)
Date of Judgment- July 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
