Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: November 18 – November 22, 2024
1) Differential treatment cannot be meted out to similarly situated employees: SC grants proficiency step-up scheme benefits to work-charged employees
The Court granted Proficiency Step-Up Scheme benefits to work-charged employees observing that differential treatment cannot be meted out to similarly situated employees.
The Court reversed the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Appellant had challenged the denial of benefits under the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme, 1988 (Scheme) and argued for the inclusion of his work-charged service as qualifying service.
Cause Title- Gurmeet Singh & Ors v. State Of Punjab & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 872)
Date of Judgment- November 18, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta
2) Mandatory to record evidence of witnesses for proving charges even in an ex-parte disciplinary inquiry proceedings
The Court held that it is mandatory to record the evidence of the witnesses for proving charges even in ex-parte inquiry proceedings. The Court quashed the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court and restored the Order of the Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal in favour of the Appellant.
The Court held that the inquiry proceedings conducted against the Appellant were “vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the department in support of the charges.”
Cause Title- Satyendra Singh v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 873)
Date of Judgment- November 18, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta
3) Disciplinary proceeding can’t be initiated after delinquent employee retires on attaining superannuation age or after extended period of service
The Court observed that the disciplinary proceeding cannot be initiated after the delinquent employee retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation or after the extended period of service.
The Court observed thus in a Civil Appeal preferred by the State Bank of India (SBI) and its officers, challenging the Judgment and Order of the Jharkhand High Court.
Cause Title- State Bank of India & Ors. v. Navin Kumar Sinha (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 874)
Date of Judgment- November 19, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
4) Allowing State to appropriate private property via adverse possession undermines constitutional rights of citizens & erodes public trust
The Court observed that, allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession undermines the Constitutional Rights of citizens and erodes public trust in the Government.
The Court observed thus in a Civil Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which it allowed the regular second Appeal, set aside the Judgment of the First Appellate Court, and restored the Decree of the Trial Court.
Cause Title- The State of Haryana & Anr. v. Amin Lal (Since Deceased) Through His LRs & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 875)
Date of Judgment- November 19, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
5) During pendency of Divorce Petition, wife is entitled to enjoy same amenities as she was enjoying in her matrimonial home
The Court upheld the Order of the Family Court granting higher amount of maintenance to wife and clarified that the wife is accustomed to a certain standard of living in her matrimonial home and during the pendency of the divorce petition, she is also entitled to enjoy the same amenities of life as she would have been entitled to in her matrimonial home.
The two Appeals, before the Top Court, arose out of the impugned order of the Madras High Court reducing the maintenance amount to be paid to the wife from Rs.1.75 lakh per month to Rs 80,000 per month. Both parties had challenged the said Order.
Cause Title- XX v. YY (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 876)
Date of Judgment- November 19, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Prasanna B. Varale
6) Complaint lodged 8 years after incident: Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail to Malayalam actor Siddique in rape case
The Court allowed the Appeal of Malayalam Actor Siddique challenging rejection of his anticipatory bail plea in an alleged rape case registered against him.
The Court was considering an appeal directed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court rejecting the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant – accused under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with the F.I.R. registered under Sections 376 and 506 IPC.
Cause Title- Siddique v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 877)
Date of Judgment- November 19, 2024
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
7) Prosecution utterly failed to prove any case of premeditation: SC alters conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 IPC
The Court altered the conviction of an accused from Section 302 of the IPC to Part I of Section 304 of the IPC observing that the prosecution had utterly failed to prove any case of premeditation.
The Court partly allowed the Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Bombay High Court which upheld the conviction and life sentence imposed by the Trial Court on the accused. The accused was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the IPC for allegedly beating and assaulting the deceased on his face and head with a bamboo stick causing his death.
Cause Title- Sunny @ Santosh Dharmu Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 878)
Date of Judgment- November 20, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
8) Mere breakup of relationship between consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings: Supreme Court quashes 'rape case'
The Court held that a consensual relationship between parties at an initial stage cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship.
The Court quashed the FIR filed under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC and set aside the Delhi High Court’s Order which had refused to quash the FIR holding that both the Appellant and the complainant were educated adults in a consensual relationship, and therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
Cause Title- Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 879)
Date of Judgment- November 20, 2024
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
9) Tower & pre-fabricated buildings are goods & not immovable property; qualify as ‘inputs’ under Rule 2(k) CENVAT rules
The Court held that the tower and pre-fabricated buildings (PFBs) are goods and not immovable property and qualify as ‘inputs’ under Rule 2(k) of the Central Value Added Tax Credit Rules, 2004 (CENVAT Rules).
The Court held thus in a batch of Civil Appeals preferred by M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. and others against the decisions of the Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court.
Cause Title- M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 880)
Date of Judgment- November 20, 2024
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
10) Bar for taking cognizance not attracted when High Court as a Superior Court directs a Complaint to be filed: SC summarizes principles on prosecution u/s. 195 CrPC
The Court laid down the principles relating to prosecutions under Section 195 Cr.P.C. It clarified that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) cannot be thought to be applied when the forgery of a document has happened prior to its production in Court or when judicial order is involved in the proceeding.
The Court made such observations while restoring a two-decade-old case of evidence tampering registered against former Kerala Minister Antony Raju and observed that the High Court had wrongly held the proceedings in question to be hit by the bar under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
Cause Title- M.R. Ajayan v. State Of Kerala & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 881)
Date of Judgment- November 20, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol
11) Property given in lieu of maintenance to Hindu woman solidifies into absolute ownership u/s 14(1) Hindu Succession Act
The Court held that a property given to a Hindu woman in lieu of maintenance would solidify into absolute ownership by action of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
The Court dismissed an Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that held that if a property is given to a widow in recognition of her Sastric right to maintenance or arrears of maintenance, then that would be her absolute property after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) came into force.
Cause Title- Kallakuri Pattabhiramaswamy (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Kallakuri Kamaraju & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 883)
Date of Judgment- November 21, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol
12) Writ Court can correct findings of fact by authorities when such findings are perverse or based on incomplete & erroneous appreciation of evidence
In a land dispute matter, the Court upheld the Order of the Allahabad High Court as it rightly corrected the findings of fact arrived at by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities.
The Court observed that the findings were perverse and based on an incomplete and erroneous appreciation of evidence. It was considering an Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court whereby the Order of the Settlement Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation were set aside.
Cause Title- Shambhu Chauhan v. Ram Kirpal Alias Chirkut & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 882)
Date of Judgment- November 21, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol
13) Trial Court’s failure to frame issue on maintainability of suit touching jurisdictional fact by itself can’t trim powers of higher Court to examine whether jurisdictional fact exists
The Court clarified that any failure or omission on the part of the Trial Court to frame an issue on maintainability of a suit touching jurisdictional fact by itself cannot trim the powers of the higher Court to examine whether the jurisdictional fact did exist for grant of relief as claimed, provided no new facts were required to be pleaded and no new evidence led.
The appellants-sellers had approached the Apex Court with a Civil Appeal challenging a judgment of the Madras High Court granting decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale in favour of the first respondent-buyer in respect of land together with a tenanted building. Another Appeal was instituted by a Company (subsequent purchaser) who had purchased the property, forming the subject of the Agreement, from the sellers when the first appeal was pending before the High Court.
Cause Title- R. Kandasamy (Since Dead) v. T.R.K.Sarawathy (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 884)
Date of Judgment- November 21, 2024
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Sanjay Karol
14) Sense of something being irreparably wrong will be present for remainder of his life: SC enhances compensation towards ‘pain & suffering’ for motor accident victim with 100% disability
The Court awarded a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs under the head ‘pain and suffering’ in a case of motor accident where the victim suffered 100% disability and held that the sense of something being irreparably wrong in life will be present for the remainder of his natural life.
The Appeal before the Court arose from the final Judgment of the Karnataka High Court pertaining to a motor accident case. The Miscellaneous First Appeal before the High Court was filed against the Award passed by the Tribunal.
Cause Title- K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 886)
Date of Judgment- November 22, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar & Justice Sanjay Karol
15) Marumakkathayam Law| Single female at time of partition continues to hold the property as her own even if she has children in future
The Court held that under the Marumakkathayam Personal Law, if at the time of partition the female is single, she continues to hold the property as her own, even if she has children in the future.
The Court overruled the 1967 Kerala High Court Full Bench judgment in Mary Cheriyan v. Bhargavi Pillai Bhasura Devi to this extent and held that in order for a thavazhi to be formed, there has to be at least one female and her successive generation, either male or female, in the generation immediately succeeding and thereafter progeny of the female line. The Court however clarified that the pronouncement of law in this judgment shall apply prospectively.
Cause Title- Ramachandran & Ors. v. Vijayan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 885)
Date of Judgment- November 22, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol
16) Trial Courts might get influenced if inadmissible confessions made by accused to police officers are made part of depositions of prosecution witnesses
The Court observed that there is every possibility that the Trial Courts may get influenced if inadmissible confessions made by an accused to a police officer are made part of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.
The Court set aside the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and acquitted the Appellant who was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201, 212 and 120-B of the IPC. Although the case involved a “brutal murder,” the Court stated that an accused can only be convicted if his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of legally admissible evidence as there cannot be a “moral conviction.”
Cause Title- Randeep Singh @ Rana & Anr. v. State Of Haryana & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 887)
Date of Judgment- November 22, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih
17) Personal criticism of Judges or recording findings on conduct of Judges in Judgments must be avoided: SC expunges adverse remarks in Delhi HC Judgment against ASJ
The Court expunged adverse remarks made by the Delhi High Court against an Additional District and Sessions Judge after observing that personal criticism of Judges or recording findings on the conduct of Judges in judgments must be avoided.
The Court allowed the Appeal for expunging adverse findings/remarks recorded against Sonu Agnihotri (Appellant), an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Delhi judicial service, by the Delhi High Court. The High Court in its Judgment described the Appellant’s actions as a "judicial misadventure" after noticing improper conduct on the part of the Judicial Officer.
Cause Title- Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 888)
Date of Judgment- November 22, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih
18) Application for extension of time u/s 29a A&C Act can be filed before or after termination of Arbitral Tribunal’s mandate
The Court clarified that an application for extension can be filed either before or after the termination of the Arbitral Tribunal’s mandate upon expiry of the statutory and extendable period and 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted in the context of facilitating effective dispute resolution.
The Court had to consider the issue whether the application filed by the appellant under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 for extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal ought to have been allowed by the High Court.
Cause Title- M/s Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 889)
Date of Judgment- November 22, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Justice Sandeep Mehta
19) Negligence or carelessness of lawyer by itself can’t be ground to condone inordinate delay; litigant owes duty to be vigilant
The Court ruled that the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and even if it is assumed that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay.
The Special Leave Petition arose from an order passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court allowing a Civil Revision Application filed by the original defendant/counter claimant and quashing the order passed by the District Judge, Shimla condoning the delay of more than 534 days in filing the appeal by the petitioners (original plaintiffs).
Cause Title- Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. V. Ved Prakash (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 891)
Date of Judgment- November 21, 2024
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
20) Sale certificate issued in pursuance of confirmation of auction sale is not compulsorily registrable
The Court clarified that a sale certificate issued to the purchaser in pursuance of the confirmation of an auction sale is merely evidence of such title and does not require registration under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act. The Sale Certificate would attract stamp duty only when the auction purchaser presents it for registration.
The Appeal before the Court arose from the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent Company was allowed and the Registrar was directed to handover the original sale certificate to the Respondent Company and send a copy of the same to the Sub-Registrar under Section 89(4) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
Cause Title- The State of Punjab & Anr. v. M/s Ferrous Alloy Forgings P Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 890)
Date of Judgment- November 19, 2024
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
