Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: October 21 – October 25, 2024
1) In compulsory land acquisition, owners entitled to highest value from similar land in bona fide transactions near acquisition time
The Court reiterated that in compulsory land acquisition, the owner is entitled to the highest value fetched by similar land in the locality in a bona fide transaction between a willing buyer and seller, around the time of acquisition.
The Court set aside the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the appeals by expropriated landowners (appellants) seeking further enhancement in compensation for their acquired lands were dismissed. The Bench restored the compensation amount granted by the Reference Court which enhanced the market value of the acquired land in addition to granting other statutory benefits.
Cause Title- Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 797)
Date of Judgment- October 21, 2024
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
2) “Private interest of a few, should give way to the public interest of the many”- Supreme Court in Land Acquisition case
The Court in a land acquisition case, remarked that the private interest of a few should give way to the public interest of many. It reiterated that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be used for claiming illicit benefits simply because someone else has been allowed such an undue favour, especially when doing so would jeopardize the entire acquisition by undermining its contiguity.
The Court was deciding appeals preferred by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA, now HSVP) against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State were annulled by quashing the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act).
Cause Title- Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Abhishek Gupta etc. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 796)
Date of Judgment- October 21, 2024
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
3) Courts should be cautious about 'tendency of over implication' in cases u/s 498A IPC
The Court noted that the tendency of over implication is reflected in a large number of cases filed alleging offence under Section 498A IPC and asked the Courts to be cautious about the same. It acquitted a man accused under Section 498A IPC while noting that only because he is the husband of guilty sister in law cannot be a ground to hold him guilty under the said offence in the absence of any specific material.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal against the decision of the High Court which partly allowed appellant’s appeal whereunder his conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was confirmed.
Cause Title- Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 798)
Date of Judgment- October 21, 2024
Coram- Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar
4) Section 294 CrPC| Court need not obtain admission or denial on a document personally from accused or complainant or witness
The Court reiterated that, it is not necessary for the Court to obtain admission or denial on a document under Section 294 CrPC personally from the accused or complainant or the witness.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal assailing the judgment and order of the High Court which allowed the Appeals, to set aside the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court and remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide the matter afresh.
Cause Title- Shyam Narayan Ram v. State of UP (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 800)
Date of Judgment- October 21, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
5) Industrial Disputes Act| In absence of concrete evidence to demonstrate nature of employee's duties, management's employment orders can be considered
The Court observed that in the absence of any concrete material to demonstrate the nature of duties discharged by the employee, the employment orders issued by the management will have to be taken into consideration under Industrial Disputes Act.
The Court was hearing two Appeals arising from the decision of the High Court which by the impugned order, set aside the award of the Labour Court to the extent that the employee is to be reinstated and to be paid compensation of Rs.75k in lieu of back wages, while upholding the finding of the Labour Court that the employee falls under the definition of “workman” as given in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Cause Title- Lenin Kumar Ray v. M/s Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 802)
Date of Judgment- October 21, 2024
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R Mahadevan
6) Misleading representations erode public trust; counsel representing government authorities should get proper written instructions from them
The Court observed that official(s)/counsel(s) appearing before the Court to represent the Government authorities should get proper written instructions from them.
The Court observed thus while it upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court Division Bench's decision, which set aside the Single Bench's order granting interest on delayed pension payments to the appellants. The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the retired Lecturers and Principals (appellants) of Government-Aided Private Colleges in Haryana regarding the entitlement of interest on delayed payments of revised pensions, backdated to 2006, as per the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009 (Pension Rules).
Cause Title- K.C. Kaushik & Ors. v. State Of Haryana & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 803)
Date of Judgment- October 21, 2024
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan
7) If 'reasons to follow' orders are passed, make reasons available in public domain within 2-5 days: Supreme Court urges HC Judges
The Court observed that High Court Judges, if they are passing 'reasons to follow' order, should preferably make the reasons available in the public domain within 2 to 5 days.
The Court set aside the decision of the Gujarat High Court that had been delayed by over a year after the oral pronouncement of dismissal. The Bench pointing out the “distressing trend,” observed that the “neglect/omission/refusal to abide by binding precedents augurs ill for the health of the system” and tantamounts to “disservice to the institution of the judiciary.”
Cause Title- Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar & Ors. v. State Of Gujarat & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 801)
Date of Judgment- October 21, 2024
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
8) When institutions grow beyond proportion, officers act mechanically ignoring simple remedies: Supreme Court grants 1L compensation to IAF Airman
The Court granted ₹1L compensation to the Indian Air Force airman as he suffered an unnecessary and long-drawn litigation that was foisted on him by the institution. It said that if the balance between in the wrong done and the punishment is not maintained, the distinction between bad governance, impropriety, unfairness and inhuman treatment is not much.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal demanding compensation for the wrongful order after he was not satisfied with the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal that allowed his OA and quashed the order of Admonition passed against him.
Cause Title- SP Pandey v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 804)
Date of Judgment- October 21, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta
9) Referral Court while considering petition seeking appointment of Arbitrator need to just examine existence of arbitration agreement
The Court reiterated that a Referral Court, while considering applications seeking appointment of arbitration, need to just examine the existence of an arbitration agreement.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal considering the question of whether the Public Premises Act, 1971 overrides the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Cause Title- Central Warehousing Corporation v. M/s Sidhartha Tiles & Sanitary Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 805)
Date of Judgment- October 21, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta
10) Putting a condition on convict to behave ‘decently’ after release from jail is manifestly arbitrary: SC clarifies scope of remission powers under CrPC & BNSS
The Court observed that, putting a condition on the convict to behave ‘decently’ after release from jail is manifestly arbitrary in nature and defeats the object of remitting the sentence under Section 432(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The Court observed thus in a criminal appeal in which the issue was the legality of the conditions imposed while remitting the life sentence of the convict under Section 432(1) of CrPC i.e., Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Cause Title- Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 806)
Date of Judgment- October 21, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
11) Question of mens rea does not arise since bank is a juristic person: Supreme Court quashes FIR alleging cheating & breach of trust against HDFC Bank
The Court quashed an FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust against the HDFC Bank.
The Court set aside the order of the Patna High Court which dismissed the petition filed by the HDFC Bank Ltd. (Bank) for quashing an FIR against them under Sections 34, 37, 120B, 201, 206, 217, 406, 409, 420 and 462 of the IPC. An FIR was registered following a search and seizure operation led by the Income Tax (IT) Department concerning a locker associated with an account holder.
Cause Title- HDFC Bank Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 807)
Date of Judgment- October 22, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
12) Deceased wife had become stumbling block in their incestuous relationship: SC upholds murder conviction of husband, his aunt & uncle
The Court upheld the conviction of a man, along with his aunt and uncle, for the murder of his wife, who had become a "stumbling block" in the man's alleged incestuous relationship with his aunt. The Court upheld the reversal of acquittal by the Madras High Court.
The prosecution’s case detailed an illicit relationship between the accused that led to the murder of his wife. The prosecution’s case was that the complaint revealed glaring details of the disturbing circumstances and troubles that the deceased was being subjected to by the Appellants at the time of her marriage and the said details were substantiated and corroborated by witnesses.
Cause Title- Uma & Anr. v. The State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 809)
Date of Judgment- October 22, 2024
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
13) IBC| Acknowledgement of debt in balance sheets of company amounts to acknowledgement of liability: SC upholds NCLAT order
The Court upheld NCLAT’s order affirming the initiation of CIRP proceedings by the UCO Bank against a corporate debtor, holding that acknowledgement of debt in the balance sheets of the company amounts to an acknowledgement of the liability.
The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the suspended director of the Corporate Debtor assailing the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) affirming the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (Adjudicating Authority) admitting the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings against the Corporate Debtor.
Cause Title- Vidyasagar Prasad v. UCO Bank & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 810)
Date of Judgment- October 22, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta
14) Inherent power can't be invoked to circumvent carefully crafted CIRP withdrawal procedure: SC sets aside NCLAT’s order approving settlement between BYJU’s & BCCI
The Court set aside the NCLAT’s order approving a settlement between BYJU’s and BCCI holding that permitting the NCLAT to circumvent the detailed procedure by invoking its inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules would run contrary to the carefully crafted procedure for withdrawal of a CIRP.
The Bench allowed the appeal filed by the GLAS Trust Company LLC (appellant) challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) decision to close the insolvency proceedings against BYJU’s which approved BYJU’s settlement with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). It clarified that the correct course of action by the NCLAT would have been to stay the constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and direct the parties to follow the course of action in Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) read with Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations 2016.
Cause Title- GLAS Trust Company LLC v. BYJU Raveendran & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 811)
Date of Judgment- October 23, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
15) Federal supremacy of Parliament on legislative competence can only be resorted to when there is an ‘irreconcilable direct conflict’ between entries in different lists
The Court reiterated that the federal supremacy of Parliament on legislative competence can only be resorted to when there is an ‘irreconcilable direct conflict’ between entries in different lists.
The Constitution Bench observed thus in a judgment in which it overruled its 1990 Judgment in an 8:1 majority.
Cause Title- State of U.P. & Ors. v. M/S Lalta Prasad Vaish and Sons (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 812)
Date of Judgment- October 23, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, and Justice Augustine George Masiah.
16) “Legal aid to poor should not be poor legal aid”- Supreme Court issues directions for access to legal aid services
The Court issued directions for access to legal aid services and remarked that, legal aid to poor should not be poor legal aid.
The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed primarily for issuance of direction to the Centre, States, and Union Territories to ensure that no prisoner is subjected to torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment because of living in overcrowded and unhygienic conditions in jail.
Cause Title- Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 813)
Date of Judgment- October 23, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
17) Chief artificers & artificers may be equivalent in seniority to chief petty officers; but chief artificers hold command over them
The Court observed that for the purposes of seniority, Chief Artificers and Artificers of rank III to I may be equivalent to Chief Petty Officer but the Chief Artificer has command over Artificers of III, II and I grade.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal that took exception to the judgment and order of the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Cause Title- Manish Kumar Rai v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 815)
Date of Judgment- October 23, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
18) Aadhaar is not proof of date of birth: Supreme Court notes while setting aside HC judgment in motor accident compensation case
The Court noted that an Aadhar Card, while can be used to establish identity, it is not per se proof of date of birth.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal after the High Court reduced the compensation in a Motor vehicle accident case.
Cause Title- Saroj v. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 816)
Date of Judgment- October 24, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
19) Disobedience of the object of gift by itself would not attract the power to revoke a gift deed
The Court held that the disobedience of the object of a gift by itself would not attract the power to revoke the gift deed.
The Court upheld the decision of the High Court which observed that the gift deed was duly acted upon and accepted by the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board (respondent), which concluded that the gift deed could not be held as invalid for want of acceptance. Therefore, on the basis of the gift deed, the respondent acquired absolute right and title over the suit property.
Cause Title- N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi And Village Industries Board (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 817)
Date of Judgment- October 24, 2024
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
20) Condition to deposit an amount while suspending sentence of fine should not be impossible for accused to comply with
The Court held that the condition to deposit an amount while suspending the sentence of fine should not be impossible for an accused to comply with as the same could be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court which suspended the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed on the accused. The CBI had argued that only the substantive sentence of imprisonment was suspended, and not the fine. However, the Court clarified that the High Court was conscious of the embezzlement allegations and only then suspended both the sentence of imprisonment and payment of fine.
Cause Title- Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Sirpal (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 819)
Date of Judgment- October 24, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
21) Consolidation authorities not justified in importing principles of Hindu Law while determining share of Mohammedan parties: Supreme Court upholds HC judgment
The Court dismissed two appeals preferred against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court in a property dispute case.
The Court while upholding the High Court’s judgment, noted that the authorities were not justified in importing principles of Hindu Law while determining the share of parties who were Mohammedans.
Cause Title- Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through LRs & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 820)
Date of Judgment- October 24, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
22) Marriage irretrievably broken down: SC directs husband to pay ₹13L as alimony to employed wife while dissolving marriage
The Court while dissolving a marriage directed the husband to pay ₹13 Lakh as permanent alimony to the employed wife.
The Court was considering a Transfer Petition pending before the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Roorkee, Uttarakhand to the Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
Cause Title- Sapna Negi v. Chaman Singh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 822)
Date of Judgment- October 24, 2024
Coram- Justice BR Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice KV Vishwanathan
23) FIR not an encyclopedia; but it can be used to corroborate or contradict informant to establish whether he is a trustworthy witness or not
The Court upheld the acquittal of three men who were accused of causing death of a person by allegedly cutting and beating him with sickle, axe, and stick.
The Court was deciding a criminal appeal filed by the State against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench by which the conviction of the accused men was reversed.
Cause Title- The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramjan Khan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 823)
Date of Judgment- October 25, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
24) Deterioration of patient’s condition post-surgery not necessarily suggestive of medical negligence or actionable negligence on part of medical expert
The Court held that deterioration of the condition of the patient post-surgery is not necessarily suggestive of medical negligence or actionable negligence on the part of the medical expert.
The Court set aside the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that found the doctor (appellant) liable for medical negligence while performing PTOSIS corrective surgery on a then-six-year-old patient (minor) for treating drooping eyelid. The Bench observed that there was no case for “actionable negligence” against the doctor since the “reasonable care, expected of the medical professional, is extended or rendered to the patient.”
Cause Title- Neeraj Sud & Anr. v. Jaswinder Singh (Minor) & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 825)
Date of Judgment- October 25, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal
25) Police can never be allowed to interfere with possession of immovable property in civil disputes: Supreme Court sets aside bail condition
The Court set aside a bail condition imposed on the accused observing that the police cannot be allowed to interfere with the possession of an immovable property in a civil dispute. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had imposed a bail condition directing the removal of a wall at the expense of the accused and also directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to hand over the possession of the disputed property to the complainant.
The Apex Court, while setting aside this condition, reiterated its decision in Mahesh Chandra v. State of U.P. (2006) wherein it was held that while deciding a bail application, it is not the jurisdiction of the court to decide civil disputes between the parties.
Cause Title- Ramratan @ Ramswaroop & Anr. v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 826)
Date of Judgment- October 25, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta
