Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: May 6 – May 10, 2024
1) Written exam measures knowledge, interview reveals character & capability: SC upholds minimum mark criteria in interview for district judge appointment
The Court upheld the prescription of minimum qualifying marks for interview in the viva voce test as a part of the selection criteria for appointment to the District Judiciary in the States of Bihar and Gujarat.
The Bench observed that the impugned Rules were not in violation of All India Judges Association and Others vs. Union of India and Others, which had accepted certain recommendations of the Shetty Commission.
Cause Title- Abhimeet Sinha & Ors. vs High Court of Judicature At Patna & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 381)
Date of Judgment- May 6, 2024
Coram- Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
2) 'Marriage has irretrievably broken down': SC grants divorce to husband; directs him to pay ₹50l as permanent alimony to wife
The Court allowed an appeal filed by a husband and granted him divorce after noticing that the marriage has been irretrievably broken down.
The Court said that the husband being an ex-employee of Multinational Corporations and presently endowed with a respectable estate should pay ₹50 Lakh as permanent alimony.
Cause Title- X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 382)
Date of Judgment- May 6, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
3) Ensure that no mechanical entries in history sheet are made of individuals simply because they hail from disadvantaged communities: SC urges police authorities
The Court emphasized the necessity to ensure that no mechanical entries in History Sheet are made of innocent individuals, simply because they happen to hail from the socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds.
The Court held that the studies in the public domain show a pattern of unfair, prejudicial and atrocious mindset against such persons.
Cause Title- Amanatullah Khan v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 383)
Date of Judgment- May 7, 2024
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
4) Three months period provided for completion of preliminary assessment u/s 14(3) of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 is not mandatory
The Court held that the provision of Section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, providing for the period of three months for completion of a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act, is not mandatory.
The Court said that the time so provided in Section 14(3) can be extended by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.
Cause Title- Child In Conflict With Law Through His Mother vs The State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 387)
Date of Judgment- May 7, 2024
Coram- Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal
5) Supreme Court orders ₹4.5l per acre compensation to owners of land acquired for Hippargi Barrage Project
The Court said that the owners of the land that was acquired for the construction of canals under the Hippargi Barrage Project are entitled to compensation of ₹4.5L per acre with all statutory benefits, interests and costs.
In this case, the Appellant Shripal and others lost their lands for the construction of canals under the Hippargi Barrage project. The lands in question were irrigated lands. The land acquisition notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in 2007.
Cause Title- Shripal v. Karnataka Neravari Nigam Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 386)
Date of Judgment- May 7, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
6) Bald plea of denial by accused to gravely incriminating circumstance is insufficient to absolve him of burden cast upon him u/s 106 Evidence Act
The Court highlighted that a bald plea of denial by the accused to a gravely incriminating circumstance is not sufficient to absolve him of the burden cast upon him by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
In this case, the appeal challenged a judgment upholding a conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court had sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2000.
Cause Title- Sukhpal Singh vs NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 385)
Date of Judgment- May 7, 2024
Coram- Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
7) Conviction based on flimsy & wavering evidence is not at all justified: SC acquits murder accused
The Court set aside the murder conviction of an accused saying that his conviction based on flimsy and wavering evidence is not at all justified.
The accused filed an appeal against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court by which his appeal challenging the order of sentence was rejected.
Cause Title- Jagvir Singh v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 384)
Date of Judgment- May 7, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
8) If arbitrator takes a particular view on interpretation of contract, court u/s 34 A&C Act cannot sit in appeal over it
The Court said the Courts under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot sit in appeal over the findings of the arbitrator, when he took a particular view on the interpretation of contract.
The Bench reiterated the law regarding the scope of interference in an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) relying on the decision in UHL Power Company Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2022) 4 SCC 116 where it was held that the jurisdiction of a Court under Section 34 of the Act was relatively narrow and the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act was “more circumscribed.”
Cause Title- National Highways Authority of India v. M/s Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 388)
Date of Judgment- May 7, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
9) SC upholds income tax rule making interest free/concessional loan benefits provided to bank employees taxable
The Court upheld the Income Tax Rule that makes the interest free or concessional loan benefits provided by banks to bank employees taxable.
The Court dismissed appeals that challenged Rule 3(7)(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and Section 17(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was deciding a batch of appeals filed by staff unions and officers’ associations of various banks, against judgments of the Madras and Madhya Pradesh High Courts by which the writ petitions were dismissed.
Cause Title- All India Bank Officers’ Confederation v. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India and Others (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 389)
Date of Judgment- May 7, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta
10) High Courts can grant leave to file 'replication' in election petitions
The Court held that a High Court is empowered to grant leave to an election petitioner to file a replication in exercise of its powers under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC.
Sheikh Noorul Hassan had filed an appeal directed against the order of the High Court of Manipur which granted leave to Nahakpam Indrajit Singh to file a replication in answer to the new facts asserted in the written statement filed by the returned candidate, the appellant. The Bench explained that by virtue of the provisions of Section 87 (1) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (the Act), a High Court, acting as an Election Tribunal, subject to the provisions of the Act, was vested with all the powers which were vested in a civil court under the CPC.
Cause Title- Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 391)
Date of Judgment- May 8, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
11) Punishment of compulsory retirement prescribed by Rule 27 of CRPF Rules is intra vires the CRPF Act
The Court upheld Rule 27 of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (CRPF Rules) that prescribes punishment of compulsory retirement.
The Court was dealing with a civil appeal filed by the Centre against the judgment of the Orissa High Court by which an appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge was dismissed.
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 392)
Date of Judgment- May 8, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
12) "Her version in chief examination fully incriminates accused": SC upholds gang rape conviction even though prosecutrix turned hostile during cross examination
The Court upheld the conviction of man in a gang rape case on the ground that there was sufficient corroboration to the version given by the victim in her examination-in-chief.
The accused had filed a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Madras High Court by which his conviction was upheld.
Cause Title- Selvamani v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 393)
Date of Judgment- May 8, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
13) Delay condonation application by a stranger who is not party to proceedings illegal
The Court said that an application for condonation of delay filed by a non-party is illegal.
The Court said that approving such an approach would permit “any Tom, Dick and Harry” to move such an application for restoration of the suit even if they were non-parties to the suit. The Bench was of the prima facie view that the reasoning given by the trial court as well as the Bombay High Court for condonation of an inordinate delay did not come under the ambit of “sufficient cause.”
Cause Title- Vijay Laxman Bhawe (D) v. P & S Nirman Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 394)
Date of Judgment- May 8, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
14) Can time-barred debts be recovered by invoking remedies under special statutes for debt recovery?: SC refers question to 3 judges bench
The Court will consider the question whether debts, which cannot be recovered by filing civil suits as they are time-barred under the Limitation Act 1963, can be recovered by invoking other remedies under special statutes for debt recovery.
The Court was hearing an appeal against a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment, which allowed the recovery of a time-barred debt under the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979, coupled with the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951.
Cause Title- K.P. Khemka & Anr. vs Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 396)
Date of Judgment- May 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan
15) NCDRC has limited revisional power; cannot interfere with SCDRC order if there is no material irregularity or illegality
The Court emphasized that, invoking its revisional power under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, the NCDRC cannot interfere with a SCDRC order, if there is no material irregularity or illegality.
The case revolved around the death of Shri Narender Kumar Kantilal Modi, who submitted a life insurance policy proposal shortly before his accidental death in 1996. Despite the deceased's premium payment and the issuance of a policy, the respondent did not provide benefits to the appellants, prompting legal action. The District Forum ruled in favor of the appellants, but the respondent appealed to the State Commission and then the NCDRC, arguing that no concluded contract existed due to the deceased's death before policy communication.
Cause Title- Mrs. Bhumikaben N. Modi & Ors. vs Life Insurance Corporation of India (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 395)
Date of Judgment- May 8, 2024
Coram- Justice AS Bopanna and Justice CT Ravikumar
16) Identification of individual instances of ‘alienating behaviour’ required to invoke principle of parental alienation syndrome to overcome preference indicated by minor children
The Court observed that the identification of individual instances of ‘alienating behaviour’ was required to invoke the principle of parental alienation syndrome to overcome the preference indicated by the minor children.
The Bench ordered that the father would retain custody of the minor children, granting visitation rights to the mother stating that while the desire or preference of the minor children alone cannot determine custody, it must be given due consideration as it is a factor of "utmost importance."
Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 397)
Date of Judgment- May 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
17) Writ petition raising disputes arising out of purely contractual obligations cannot be entertained
The Court reiterated that a writ petition raising disputes arising out of purely contractual obligations cannot be entertained. The court said that a relief sought for damages “by no stretch of imagination” could be a subject matter of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court set aside the Jammu and Kashmir High Court's judgment, which entertained a dispute filed for claiming monetary relief/damages arising from the fallout of contractual obligations clarifying that the tender bidder, having participated fully aware of the auction notice's terms and conditions, was estopped from questioning its legality or validity by way of a writ petition.
Cause Title- Municipal Committee Katra & Ors. v. Ashwani Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 398)
Date of Judgment- May 9, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
18) Mere omission to frame points for determination will not vitiate first appellate court's judgment
The Court observed that even if the first appellate Court does not separately frame the points for determination arising in the first appeal, it is not fatal as long as that Court deals with all the issues that actually arise for deliberation in the said appeal, in compliance with the mandate of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.
In this case, the two appeals stemmed from a shared judgment of the Gujarat High Court, where it favored the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in First Appeal No. 3596 of 2009 and dismissed Cross-Objection No. 81 of 2010 in the same appeal.
Cause Title- Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta & Ors. vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 401)
Date of Judgment- May 10, 2024
Coram- Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar
19) No overwhelming material on record to outweigh liberty granted: SC upholds bail granted to CPI (Maoist) member who allegedly killed 4 police personnel
The Court dismissed the Centre's appeal challenging the bail of a member of the banned terrorist organisation CPI (Maoist) who allegedly killed four police personnel.
The Bench clarified that the apprehension of the Centre that the accused was likely to pose a threat to the witnesses and the complainant could not be a ground to set aside the impugned order enlarging the accused on bail.
Cause Title- Union Of India v. Mrityunjay Kumar Singh @ Mrityunjay @ Sonu Singh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 404)
Date of Judgment- May 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar
20) Consumer Protection Act| Onus to prove that service was obtained for commercial purpose is on service provider, not complainant
The Court held that the onus to prove that the service was obtained for a commercial purpose under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lies with the service provider and not the consumer.
The Bench reiterated that the Consumer Protection Act is a consumer-friendly and beneficial legislation intended to address the grievances of consumers which could not place a negative burden cannot be placed on the consumer to show that the service available was not for a commercial purpose.
Cause Title- Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited v. Raghachand Associates (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 403)
Date of Judgment- May 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar
21) 'Breach of multiple terms & conditions of lease': SC upholds dismissal of suit filed by lessee challenging resumption proceedings
The Court upheld the dismissal of a suit filed by the lessee challenging the resumption proceedings.
The Orissa State had filed an appeal against the order of the Orissa High Court by which its second appeal was dismissed and consequently the judgment and decree was passed in favour of the other.
Cause Title- State of Orissa v. Santi Kumar Mitra & Another (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 402)
Date of Judgment- May 10, 2024
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar
22) Peculiarities associated with accused is taken into consideration while examining question of granting interim bail
The Court observed that the Courts take into consideration the peculiarities associated with the person in question and the surrounding circumstances while examining the question of grant of interim bail.
The Court reiterated that the power to grant regular bail includes the power to grant interim bail, particularly in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It noted thus while releasing the Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal on interim bail in excise policy case.
Cause Title- Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 400)
Date of Judgment- May 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Dutta
23) Developmental projects must proceed in harmony with environmental laws: SC on proposed greenfield airport case
The Court emphasised that the developmental projects must proceed in harmony with the environmental laws to prevent irreparable damage to ecosystems and biodiversity.
The Court was deciding appeals arising from an order of the Eastern Zone Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT).
Cause Title- Tapas Guha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 399)
Date of Judgment- May 6, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
