Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: July 15 – July 19, 2024
1) DPCO provisions cannot be given restricted interpretation: SC rejects Sun Pharmaceuticals' claim that it is not ‘distributor’ of roscilox drug
The Court held that Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited is both ‘distributor’ and ‘dealer’ of Roscilox, a Cloxacillin-based drug while observing that the provisions of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 cannot be given restricted interpretation. It said that the intent and purpose of the order is to control the prices at which medicinal drug formulations are made available to the common man by holding out the threat of recovery of the higher prices charged for such drug formulations by those involved in their manufacture and marketing.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal that challenged the decision which dismissed the appeal of the Appellants to the demand notices.
Cause Title- M/s Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 521)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Augustine George Masih
2) A few bits here & there relied by prosecution aren’t sufficient to connect accused with criminal conspiracy: SC discharges man in custodial death case
The Court while discharging a man in custodial death case, said that a few bits here and there on which the prosecution may rely, are not sufficient to connect an accused with the crime of criminal conspiracy.
The Court was dealing with an appeal filed against the order of the Allahabad High Court by which it dismissed the application for discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Cause Title- Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 522)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
3) Offence of bigamy is a serious one: Supreme Court modifies 'flea-bite' sentence imposed on man convicted u/s 494 IPC
The Court, in a bigamy case, said that the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has to be treated as a serious offence.
The Court was deciding appeals seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed on the accused person.
Cause Title- X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 523)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar
4) Bidders have to exercise a greater than ordinary degree of care to maintain sanctity & integrity of tender process
The Court observed that bidders are expected to have the assistance of technical experts and to exercise a greater than ordinary degree of care to obviate and prevent errors, in order to maintain the sanctity and integrity of the tender process.
In this case, the Court, considering the doctrine of proportionality, directed to conduct a fresh e-auction of the mining lease of the Orahuri manganese and iron ore block and also directed the Appellant/Bidder to deposit Rs 3,00,00,000/- for his failure to act with the required degree of care during e-auction.
Cause Title- M/s Omsairam Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Director of Mines and Geology, BBSR & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 520)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta
5) Pay parity cannot be claimed as indefeasible enforceable right except where competent authority taken conscious decision to equate two posts
The Court observed that pay parity cannot be claimed as an indefeasible enforceable right except where the competent authority has taken a conscious decision to equate two posts.
The Court was deciding a civil appeal preferred against the order of the Allahabad High Court by which an intra-court appeal of the State, challenging the Single Judge’s judgment was dismissed on the ground of delay.
Cause Title- State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. Virendra Bahadur Katheria and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 524)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2024
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
6) SC constitutes High-Powered Sale Committee to auction assets of Sai Prasad Group of Companies; grants interim bail to directors
The Court constituted a High-Powered Sale Committee (“HPSC”) to auction the immovable assets of Sai Group of Companies, to the extent they are required to satisfy the investors’ claims and liquidate all other statutory liabilities of the Companies.
The Court appointed Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt, Former Judge, Supreme Court as the Chairperson of HPSC. It also granted interim bail (accused in many FIRs) to its directors to facilitate the sale and disbursement process.
Cause Title- Balasaheb Keshawrao Bhapkar & Ors. v. (Securities and Exchange Board of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 525)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2024
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan
7) Industrial policy of 2003 provides exemption from market fees; rural development fees not exempted
The Court held that the Market fees and Rural Development fees are distinct as there is no exemption from Rural Development fees mentioned in the Industrial Policy of 2003 it only encompasses exemption from Market fees.
In this case, Punjab Spintex Ltd. (respondent company) sought an exemption from the payment of market fees and rural development fees under the Industrial Policy of 2003 (2003 Policy).
Cause Title- State Of Punjab & Ors. v. M/S Punjab Spintex Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 526)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
8) Mere statements of parties before court about compromise cannot satisfy requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC
The Court held that mere statements of the parties before a court about a compromise cannot satisfy the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC as the same needs to be reduced to writing and signed by the parties.
The Court explained that a lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties would be required to be proved to the satisfaction of the Court. Since there was no document in writing, the question of the parties signing it did not arise as per the Court.
Cause Title- Amro Devi & Ors. v. Julfi Ram (D) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 527)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
9) State Govt has no authority to tinker with lists of scheduled castes published under Article 341 of Constitution
The Court held that the State Government has no power to tinker with the lists of Scheduled Castes published under Article 341 of the Constitution.
The Court held thus in a batch of two civil appeals filed against the judgment of the Patna High Court by which it dismissed the writ petitions and appeal, challenging the notification of the State Government.
Cause Title- Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 528)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
10) Matters of gruesome crime don’t warrant withdrawal of prosecution merely on the ground of good public image of accused
The Court remarked that the matters of a gruesome crime do not warrant withdrawal of prosecution merely on the ground of good public image of the accused. It Court said that merely because an accused person is elected to the Legislative Assembly, it cannot be a testament to their image among the general public.
The Court remarked thus in a criminal appeal preferred against the order of the Allahabad High Court.
Cause Title- Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 529)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
11) Award of permanent alimony should be for ensuring a decent living standard for wife: SC directs husband to pay ₹2 cr to wife
The Court emphasised that the award of maintenance or permanent alimony should not be penal but should be for the purposes of ensuring a decent living standard for the wife.
The Court was dealing with criminal appeals preferred by the wife against the order of the Delhi High Court by which it directed the husband to pay only 20% of the total arrears of interim maintenance granted by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Cause Title- Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 530)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
12) SC dismisses Bihar Staff Selection Commission’s appeal against HC direction to appoint candidate who secured minimum qualifying marks
The Court dismissed the appeals of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC) preferred against the judgment of the Patna High Court by which it directed the appointment of a candidate who secured minimum qualifying marks.
The said candidate had secured 22.575 marks out of 70 in the written examination and the minimum qualifying requirement was 32% as per the advertisement.
Cause Title- Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Anr. v. Himal Kumari & Anr. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 531)
Date of Judgment- July 16, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
13) Can Referral Court consider issue of "accord & satisfaction" u/s 11 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act?: Supreme Court explains
The Court reiterated that the scope of enquiry at the stage of appointment of arbitrator is limited to the scrutiny of prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement. It observed that the question of “accord and satisfaction,” being a mixed question of law and fact, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties. It said that the dispute pertaining to the “accord and satisfaction” of claims is not one which attacks or questions the existence of the arbitration agreement in any way.
In this case, the Court was determining whether the arbitration agreement contained in a substantive contract survives even after the underlying contract is discharged by “accord and satisfaction”.
Cause Title- SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Krish Spinning (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 532)
Date of Judgment- July 18, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
14) Constitutional Court can’t be restrained from granting bail due to restrictive statutory provisions if fundamental right of accused is infringed
The Court emphasised that the court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused due to restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed.
The Court was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by the accused against the order of the Allahabad High Court by which it rejected his bail application.
Cause Title- Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 534)
Date of Judgment- July 18, 2024
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
15) Bail cannot be granted merely because NDPS accused is HIV+
The Court observed that being an HIV-positive patient cannot be the sole reason to enlarge an accused on bail when the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not satisfied.
The Court set aside the order that granted bail to an accused for the offence under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Bench explained that non-consideration of the provisions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be taken as a “very serious lapse” when the accused was found with more than the commercial quantity of the contraband substance (heroin).
Cause Title- The State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 537)
Date of Judgment- July 16, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
16) Specific performance suit based on bald & vague pleadings must be rejected; readiness & willingness must be pleaded & proved
The Court observed that a suit for specific performance based on bald and vague pleadings must necessarily be rejected, and it requires readiness and willingness to be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff.
In this case, the Trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed upon receipt of the balance consideration within three months, but denied the permanent injunction as the plaintiffs were not in possession of the property. The High Court dismissed the defendants' appeal leading to the appeal to the Apex Court.
Cause Title- P Ravindranath & Anr. vs Sasikala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 533)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
17) Pendency of registration due to deficiency in stamp duty cannot benefit vendor who executed sale deed & received consideration
The Court held that the pendency of registration due to deficiency in stamp duty cannot benefit the vendor, who has forfeited all rights by executing the sale deed and receiving the sale consideration, thus he cannot reclaim ownership of the transferred land merely because the document of sale is pending for registration.
In this case, the Trial Court dismissed the suit in 2016, deeming the appellants' sale deed void since they were minors at the time of execution. The District Judge, on appeal, overturned the Trial Court's judgment and decreed the suit and Respondent No. 1 challenged this decision in the High Court, which allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit in 2022. The appellants, aggrieved by the High Court's judgment, approached the Apex Court.
Cause Title- Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr vs Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 540)
Date of Judgment- July 19, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
18) Prior executive decision does not bar state legislature from enacting law or framing policy in conflict with it in larger public interest
The Court observed that a prior executive decision does not bar the State Legislature from enacting a law or framing any policy contrary to or in conflict with the same in furtherance of larger public interest.
The Court observed thus in a batch of civil appeals against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh which decided a group of twelve petitions wherein the question involved was whether a transaction where the right to collect tolls is given in lieu of the amount spent by the Concessionaire in the construction of roads, bridges, etc. under the Build, Operate & Transfer Scheme (BOT) amounts to a ‘lease’ under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TOPA) and Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (ISA).
Cause Title- M/s Rewa Tollway P. Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 539)
Date of Judgment- July 19, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
