IndexCitationsSalam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur at Imphal | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 294/2015 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 636Rama Kt. Barman (Died) Thr. Lrs. v. Md. Mahim Ali & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3500/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 637Union of India v. Bahareh Bakshi 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 638K. Arumugam v. Union of India & Others Etc., Civil Appeal Nos.2842-2848 of 2012 (and connected...
Index
Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur at Imphal | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 294/2015 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 636
Rama Kt. Barman (Died) Thr. Lrs. v. Md. Mahim Ali & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3500/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 637
Union of India v. Bahareh Bakshi 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 638
K. Arumugam v. Union of India & Others Etc., Civil Appeal Nos.2842-2848 of 2012 (and connected matters) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 639
State of Kerala v. Prabhu 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 640
Mukesh Salam v State of Chhattisgarh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 641
State of Haryana v. Uday Pratap Singh, SLP(C) No. 15407-15410/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 642
Prabhavathi @ Prabhamani v. Lakshmeesha M.C., SLP(C) No. 28201/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 643
Vijay Nair v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 644
Baidya Nath Choudhary v. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh, Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1188/2018 In C.A. No. 2703/2017 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 645
Bibhav Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, SLP(Crl) No. 9817/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 646
State Project Director, UP Education For All Project Board & Ors. v. Saroj Maurya & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3465 of 2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 647
Seetharama Shetty v. Monappa Shetty 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 648
Vaibhav Jain v. Hindustan Motors Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 649
Ravi Agrawal v. Union of India & Another, Writ Petition (Civil) No.706 of 2020 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 650
Ishwar (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs and Ors. v. Bhim Singh and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 651
Y. Balaji v. Assistant Commissioner of Police Central Crime Branch (Job Racketing) & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 652
Navin Kumar & Ors v. Union of India & Ors Etc, SLP (C) Nos__ of 2024 Arising Out of Diary No. 17948 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 653
Sunshine Kharpan v. State of Meghalaya, Diary No. - 48388/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 654
Jitendra Paswan Satya Mitra v. State of Bihar 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 655
Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki@ Rabin v. State of West Bengal 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 656
Metongmeren Ao v. State of Nagaland 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 657
Akshay & Anr. v. Aditya & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos.3642-3646/2018 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 658
Nitya Nand v. State of U.P. & Anr., Crl Appeal No. 1348 of 2014 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 659
C.N. Shantha Kumar v. M.S. Srinivas 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 660
George v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 661
V.S. Palanivel v. P. Sriram CS Liquidator etc, Civil Appeal Nos. 9059-9061 of 2022 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 662
Kerala Agricultural University & Anr. v. TP Murali @ Murali Thavara Panen & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 663
Chirag Bhanu Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 664
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors v. V.V. Bramha Reddy & Anr, Civil Appeal No. 5267 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 665
Somprabha Rana & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Crl. A. No. 3821/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 666
Baccarose Perfumes and Beauty Products Pvt. Ltd v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 3216 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 667
NM Theerthegowda v. YM Ashok Kumar and Others, Civil Appeal No. 10038 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 668
Mubarak Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 669
S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 670
Choudappa & Anr. v. Choudappa Since Deceased By Lrs. & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3056 of 2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 671
Mandakini Diwan and Anr. v. The High Court of Chhattisgarh & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 672
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat, SLP(Crl) No. 14489/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 673
Abhishek Banerjee and Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Crl.A. No. 2221-2222/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 674
Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani and Anr. Diary No. - 51276/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 675
Cox & Kings Ltd. v. Sap India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Arbitration Petition No. 38 of 2020 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 676
Union of India & Ors. v. Lt. Col. Rahul Arora, Civil Appeal No. 2459 of 2017 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 677
Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors v. Union of India, WP (C) No 551 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 678
Chabi Karmakar & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No. 1556 of 2013 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 679
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 680
Chalasani Udaya Shankar and Ors. v. M/s. Lexus Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and others Civil Appeal Nos. 5735-5736 of 2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 681
Savita Rasiklal Mandan & Anr v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 682
Anantdeep Singhv v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 683
The Principal Secretary & Ors v. Gaggal Airport Expansion Affected Social Welfare Committee SLP (C) No. 1676 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 684
Manilal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., C.A. No. 010440 / 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 685
Raghuveer Sharan v. District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank & Anr., Criminal Appeal No(S). 2764 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 686
Devendra Kumar Pal v. State of UP and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 687
Vikash Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar, Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 11952/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 688
Balbir Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, SLP(C) No. 19097-19098 / 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 689
Jaseela Shaji v. Union of India & Ors, Criminal Appeal No. 3083 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 690
Javedali Mahebubmiya Saiyed v. State of Gujarat & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 691
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 692
Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited, SLP(C) No. 023320/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 693
Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, SLP(Crl) No. 11023/2024 (and connected case) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 694
Virender Singh & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), WP (Crl) No. 296/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 695
Talluri Srikar (Minor) Through His Father Talluri Srikrishna v. The Director, National Testing Agency & Ors. Special Leave Petition (C) No.20243/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 696
Siddaraja Manicka Prabhu Temple v. The Idol of Arulmighu Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 697
Kimneo Haokip Hangshing v. Kenn Raikhan & Ors., C.A. No. 010549 / 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 698
Lakshmesh M. v. P. Rajalakshmi (Dead By Lrs.) and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 699
S.D. Manohara v. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Ors., C.A. No. 010567 / 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 700
Kukreja Construction Company & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and with connected cases 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 701
M/s Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 702
Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority, Civil Appeal Nos.2809-2810 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 703
National Medical Commission v. The Principal KMCT Medical College 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 704
Sk. Golam Lalchand v. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes & Ors., Civil Appeal No.4177 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 705
Beena and Ors. v. Charan Das (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3190 of 2014 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 706
Rabina Ghale & Anr v. UOI & Ors, WP (Crl) No. 265 of 2022 & Anjali Gupta v. UOI & Ors, WP (Crl) No. 250 of 2022 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 707
Sandeep Kumar v. Vinod & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 708
Dickey Alternative Investment Trust and Anr. v. Ahmed Buhari and Ors.| Diary No. 41691-2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 709
Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 710
Sandeep TS v. Union of India | Writ Petition(Civil) No.564/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 711
Sahil Bhargava v. State of Uttarakhand SLP(C) No. 019953/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 712
Katiya Haidarali Ahmadbhai & Ors. v. Sanjeev Kumar IAS & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 713
Hans Raj v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 714
Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 715
Saheb, s/o Maroti Bhumre etc. v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal Nos. 313-314 of 2012 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 716
Arockiasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No.5805/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 717
Ramesh and Anr. v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1467 of 2012 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 718
Custodian of Enemy Property for India v. Md. Yakub @ Md. Yakub Ansari & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 719
Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10648 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 720
Kamal Kishore Sehgal (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. v. Murti Devi (Dead) Thr. Lrs., Civil Appeal No. 9482 of 2013 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 721
Bhagwan Singh v. State of UP | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 18885/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 722
Bidyut Sarkar & Anr. v. Kanchilal Pal (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 10509-10510 of 2013 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 723
M/s Ultra Tech Cement LTd v.Mast Ram and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 724
The Secretary, Public Works Department & Ors. v. Tukaram Pandurang Saraf & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1689 of 2016 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 725
Shoor Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 726
Ajay Madhusudan Patel & Ors. v. Jyotrindra S. Patel & Ors., Arbitration Petition No. 19 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 727
Just Rights For Children Alliance v. S. Harish Diary No.- 8562 - 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 728
Fulleshwar Gope v. UOI & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 729
Rabbu @ Sarvesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 449-450 of 2019 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 730
Yogarani v. State By Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 477/2017 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 731
Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of West Bengal & Ors. | Diary No. 51357 of 2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 732
Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy and Ors v. State of Telangana and Ors., T.P.(Crl.) No. 152-153/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 733
Nilay Rai & Ors v. Bar Council of India| W.P.(C)No 577 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 734
Vidhu Gupta v. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 735
Gagan Banga and another v. State of West Bengal 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 736
Ranjit Singh & Anr v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 737
OPG Power Generation Pvt. Ltd. v. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Pvt Ltd. & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 738
Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors., C.A. No. 010812 / 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 739
Modh. Enamul Haque v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No.11129/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 740
Shyamsundar Radheshyam Agrawal & Anr. v. Pushpabai Nilkanth Patil & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 10804 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 741
Union of India v. Doly Loyi 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 742
HMT Ltd. v. Smt. Rukmini and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 743
Ricardo Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravi Kuckian & Others, Civil Appeal No. 9958 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 744
S Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari C 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 745
Vijay Singh@Vijay Kr. Sharma v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 1031 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 746
Manik and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 747
Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo and Ors. v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 2012 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 748
Sukhmander Singh and Ors Etc. v. State of Punjab and Ors Etc., Civil Appeal Nos. 1511-1513/2021 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 749
V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 750
Sunil Bakht v. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 751
Thangjam Santa Singh @ Santa Khurai v. State of Manipur, W.P.(Crl.) No. 498/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 752
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 4003/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 753
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited & Anr. v. M/S Sanman Rice Mills & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 754
Lakha Singh v. Balwinder Singh & Anr., C.A. No. 010893 / 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 755
Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. State of Manipur & Ors., SLP (C) NO. 15482 of 2016 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 756
Saidalavi PP v. High Court Kerala At Ernakulam
State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Anjali Lahiri and Anr. SLP(Crl) No. 11938/2024
In Re Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers MA 94/2022 In SMW(C) No. 6/2020
Ram Bali Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council, Patna, SLP(C) No. 016760/ 2024
State through the Inspector of Police CBI/ACB/Chennai v. S. Murali Mohan
Abdul Rashid v. State of Manipur and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 178/2024
Senior Advocates Council v. Amit Patel and Ors Diary No. 24091-2024
Faizabad Bar Association v. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 19804-19805/2024
Bennett, Coleman and Co. Ltd. v. The Registrar High Court of Gujarat, Diary No. 40230-2024
Baidya Nath Choudhary v. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh
In Re: TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., WP.(C) No. 202/1995
Sandip Ghosh v. State of West Bengal | Diary No. 38744-2024
Neeraj Singal v. Directorate of Enforcement, Diary No. 15175-2024
T. Thennarasu (A) Thangam Thennarasu v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors | SLP(Crl) No. 11664/2024
Harpreet Singh v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 497/2024
Rahul Rajendraprasad Tiwari v. Mumbai Cricket Association
MS Jaffar Sait v. Directorate of Enforcement
BL Jain v. Union of India and Ors. Diary No. 26323-2024
MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 533/2024
MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
Naresh Makani v. Lalbiaktluanga Khiangte & Ors. Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No.35226/2024
Sarla Gupta and Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Chanda Kochhar and Anr., Diary No. 24077-2024
In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995
Sunil Nayak @ Fundi v. State (NCT of Delhi), SLP (Crl) No. 10648.
Ravi Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. Diary No. - 38554/2024
In Re: TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., WP (C) No. 202/1995
Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 134/2022
Rajubala Das v. UOI & Anr, WP (Crl.) No. 234/2020
Shashi Tharoor v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 12360/2024
Sumedh Singh Saini v. State of Punjab and Ors, Diary No. 19730-2020
Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj
In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021
Abdul Mateen Siddiqui v. Union of India and Ors. Diary No. 289/2023 (and connected cases)
UP State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. v. Jai Prakash & Anr.
XXXX (Petitioner) v. XXXX & Anr.
Yuva Vadya Pathak Trust v. Kalyani Mandke & Ors.
D.K. Sharma & Ors. v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors. Special Leave To Appeal (C) Nos.19941-19942/2024
Shobha Gupta and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 301/2022
Superwhizz Professionals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Bar Council of India and Ors. Diary No. 24405-2024
Jamshed Zahoor Paul v. State of NCT of Delhi, SLP(Crl) No.12644/2024
M/S Sab Industries Limited v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. SLP(c) No. 21111/2024
Faizabad Bar Association v. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 19804-19805/2024
Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. SLP(C) No. 20675/2024
Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India & Ors Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 39448/2024
Anarul Sk v. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl) No. 12621/2024
Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. Canon India Private Limited
Colonel Mahinder Kumar Engrs (Retd.) v. Union of India and Ors.
In Re: Remarks By High Court Judge During Court Proceedings [SMW (C) No. 9/2024]
Zeeshan Haider v. Directorate of Enforcement
Coaching Federation of India v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 30149-2024
State of Telangana and Ors. v. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram and Ors. SLP(C) No. 21536-21588/2024
State Rep.by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID v. Kesava Vinayagam SLP (Crl.) 8674/24
Spicejet Limited v. Team France 01 S.A.S SLP(C) No. 21345-21346/2024
Ajit Vishnu Ranade v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 500/2024
Zahid Showkat Alias Mir V Joint Secretary, Prime Minister's Office & Ors.
State of Punjab v UOI Civil Appeal No.10602/2024
Neeraj Salodkar v. Bar Council of India and Ors., WP (C) No. 698/2022
Anuj Nakade v. Dr. Poonam Malakondaiah Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Diary No. 36812-2024
C.P. Mohammed v. State of Kerala | SLP(Crl) No. 10308/2019
High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Jyotsna Dohalia and Anr, SLP(C) No. 21353/2024
State of West Bengal v. Jashimuddin Mondal and Ors., SLP(C) No. 9628/2024
Prithvansh Malhotra v. State of Punjab WP (C) No. 000587 / 2024
Amandeep v. Medical Counselling Committee & Ors., Diary No. 9755/2022
Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 12494/2024
Anurag Rawal v. Lalit Sharma and Ors.
A. Kamala v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021
Rahul Jhansla v. Delhi University & Ors., SLP(C) No. 22598/2024
State of Gujarat v. Bilkis Yakub Rasool and Ors.
Ram Kumar Itoriya v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors.
Felix Jerald v. State | SLP(Crl) No. 11762/2024
State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Pyare Lal Meena and Ors. SLP(C) No. 10560/2024
MC Mehta v. Union of India WP (C) 13029/1985
T.D. Rajegowda v. D.N. Jeevaraja and Ors., SLP(C) No. 20354/2024
State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Ltd
Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Avishek Gupta
Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India and Ors.| W.P.(C) No. 523/2024
Kailash v. State of Uttar Pradesh SLP (CrL) 11258/2024
State of Haryana v. SD Anand Diary No. - 20661/2024
Directorate of Enforcement v. Anil Tuteja and Ors.
Faruk Ahmed and Ors. v. State of Assam, Diary No. 44449-2024
Siddique v. State of Kerala and Anr. SLP(Crl) No.13463/2024
Dr Subramanian Swamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 622/2024 (and connected cases)
MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
Y. Balaji v. Assistant Commissioner of Police Central Crime Branch (Job Racketing) and Anr.
Praveen Kumar and Ors. v. State of Goa and Ors. SLP(C) No. 22831/2024
Justice Shailendra Singh and Ors. v. UoI and Ors. WP(C) No. 232/2023
Judgments
District Judge Selection | HC's Full Court Resolution Can't Introduce Cut-Off For Interview Against Rules : Supreme Court
Case Details: Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur at Imphal | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 294/2015
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 636
After a legal battle of nine years, a District Judge aspirant got relief as the Supreme Court recently held him eligible for appointment after invalidating the decision of the Manipur High Court to prescribe minimum cut-off marks for interview. A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti noted that the relevant statutory rule governing the recruitment of District Judges, the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005, did not provide for a separate cut-off for interview. Hence, such a requirement could not have been introduced through a Full Court resolution without amending the rules. Also, the requirement of a separate cut-off for the interview was not specified in the advertisement and was introduced only after the written test, that too without intimating the candidates.
Supreme Court: Appellate Courts Cannot Create New Issues Not Raised in Pleadings
Case Details: Rama Kt. Barman (Died) Thr. Lrs. v. Md. Mahim Ali & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3500/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 637
The Supreme Court held that the Courts at the Appellate stage of civil suits cannot create a new case for the parties while framing such additional issues that were never raised in the pleadings of the parties.
“It is well-settled principle of law that the Court cannot create any new case at the appellate stage for either of the parties, and the appellate court is supposed to decide the issues involved in the suit based on the pleadings of the parties.”, the bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said.
The Court said that whenever the Appellate Courts create an additional issue then it is incumbent upon them to decide the said issues in contemplation with Order 41 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).
"As per Order XLI Rule 25, the appellate court may, if necessary, frame issues and refer the same for trial to the court whose decree is appealed from, and direct such court to take additional evidence required. Further, as per Rule-27 Order XLI, the Appellate Court may allow evidence or document to be produced or witness examined, in the circumstances stated therein, after recording the reasons for such admission of evidence. However, the Appellate Court can not create a new case for the party, frame the issues and decide the issues without following the procedure contemplated under Order XLI of CPC," the Court explained.
Supreme Court: Indian Spouse's Presence Mandatory for Foreign National's OCI Card Application
Case Details: Union of India v. Bahareh Bakshi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 638
The Supreme Court has held that the physical or virtual presence of the Indian spouse is mandatory to process the application of a foreign national for an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card as per Section 7-A(d) of the Citizenship Act 1955.
A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court which dispensed with the presence of the husband of an Iranian national to process her application for OCI status on the basis of her marriage to an Indian national.
The Supreme Court noted that the statute itself prescribed that the OCI registration of a foreign spouse of an Indian national is “subject to such conditions, restrictions and manner as may be prescribed”.
Sale of Lottery By State Not Service; Lottery Wholesalers Not Liable To Service Tax : Supreme Court
Case Details: K. Arumugam v. Union of India & Others Etc., Civil Appeal Nos.2842-2848 of 2012 (and connected matters)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 639
The sale of lottery tickets by a State Government is not a service but an activity to earn additional revenue, observed the Supreme Court. Hence, the wholesale lottery purchasers are not promoting or marketing any service rendered by the State so as to attract service tax liability under the head "business auxiliary service."
The appellants before the Supreme Court were wholesale lottery purchasers, who bulk purchase lotteries from the State at a discount and sell them to retailers on a margin.
The issue before the Court was whether the lottery wholesalers were liable to pay service tax under the heading 'business auxiliary service' in terms of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. The tax authorities contended that the activity of the appellants amounted to "promotion or marketing of services provided by the client" which comes under the head "business auxiliary service" as per Section 65(19) of the Finance Act 1994.
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh observed that there existed no business auxiliary service between the State and the appellants when the lotteries were sold and hence, no service tax could be levied and demanded from the Appellants.
Supreme Court: S. 50 NDPS Act Applies Only to Personal Searches, Excludes Searches of Carried Bags
Case Details: State of Kerala v. Prabhu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 640
The Supreme Court observed that Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, which outlines the procedure for conducting search of a person, applies only to personal searches and not to searches of bags carried by the person being searched.
“the exposition of law on the question regarding the requirement of compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is no more res integra and this Court in unambiguous term held that if the recovery was not from the person and whereas from a bag carried by him, the procedure formalities prescribed under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not required to be complied with”
Supreme Court Grants Bail to UAPA Accused Held for Over 4 Years, Cites Delayed Trial
Case Details: Mukesh Salam v State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 641
The Supreme Court granted bail to a person charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act over alleged links with Naxalites in Chhattisgarh, taking into account the fact that he has been under custody since May 6, 2020, and the early conclusion of trial was unlikely.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra also noted that 12 out of the 14 co-accused have been granted bail.
Supreme Court Forms Committee to Address Shambhu Border Blockade
Case Details: State of Haryana v. Uday Pratap Singh, SLP(C) No. 15407-15410/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 642
The Supreme Court ordered the constitution of a High-Powered Committee to hold negotiations with the farmers who are protesting at the Shambhu border between the States of Punjab and Haryana.
The committee will be headed by Justice Nawab Singh, Former Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in a petition filed by the State of Haryana against an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to remove the blockade at the Shambhu border (which was erected by Haryana to prevent the protesters from marching to Delhi).
The bench urged the Committee to reach out to and request the agitating farmers to remove their tractors, trolleys etc from the Shambhu border at the National Highway so as to provide relief to the general public. The protesters are at liberty to shift their agitation to an alternate site identified by the authorities.
Supreme Court: Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Can't Benefit Party Responsible for Collapse
Case Details: Prabhavathi @ Prabhamani v. Lakshmeesha M.C., SLP(C) No. 28201/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 643
The Supreme Court expressed dismay over the mechanical approach adopted by the Family Court in granting a divorce decree against the wife despite no fault being attributed to her..
The Court said that the husband cannot be benefitted from seeking annulment of the marriage when he was solely responsible for the breakdown of the marital relationship.
“The bogey of irretrievably breaking down of marriage cannot be used to the advantage of a party (husband in this case) who is solely responsible for tearing down the marital relationship”, the bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said.
Delhi Liquor Policy : Supreme Court Grants Bail To Vijay Nair After 23 Months Custody In Money Laundering Case
Case Details: Vijay Nair v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 644
The Supreme Court granted bail to Vijay Nair, the former communications-in-charge of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), in the money laundering case related to the national capital's excise policy. Nair has been in custody for approximately 23 months.
A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti The court stated that the principle of "bail as the rule and jail as the exception" would be defeated if the petitioner remained in custody without trial.
“The right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a sacrosanct right which requires to be respected even in cases where stringent provisions are incorporated in the special enactments. The petitioner has been in custody for over 23 months and his incarceration as an undertrial cannot be a mode of punishment without trial having commenced in the case. The universal proposition of bail being the rule and jail being the exception will be entirely defeated if petitioner is kept in custody as an undertrial for such long duration particularly when in the event of conviction, the final sentence can only be 7 years in the maximum. We are of the view that petitioner deserves bail. Accordingly bail is granted on the following terms…”, Justice Roy said, dictating the order.
Supreme Court: Only Advocates Present or Assisting in Court Will Have Online Presence Marked
Case Details: Baidya Nath Choudhary v. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh, Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1188/2018 In C.A. No. 2703/2017
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 645
Deploring the practice of marking the presence of an Advocate who was neither physically nor virtually present during the proceedings , the Supreme Court directed that only the presence of those Advocates would be marked who were either present in the case or assisting in the Court.
In a strict sense, the bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal also said that the presence of those advocates would also not be marked who were though not present in the Court but associated with the Advocates office.
“we forthwith direct that in this Court, online presence of only those advocates be furnished and be marked who are appearing or assisting during hearing as indicated above and not of those who are not present in Court but may be associated in office of the advocates.”, the Court said.
Supreme Court Grants Bail to Kejriwal's PA Bibhav Kumar in Swati Maliwal Assault Case
Case Details: Bibhav Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, SLP(Crl) No. 9817/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 646
The Supreme Court granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Personal Assistant Bibhav Kumar in the Swati Maliwal assault case.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that there are more than 51 witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution, and hence, the conclusion of the trial will take some time. Also, the petitioner has been under custody for over 100 days. Since the chargesheet has already been filed, his release will not cause any prejudice to the investigation which is already complete, the bench noted.
'Judgment Cannot Be Sustained In Absence of Reasoning' : Supreme Court Remands Matter To High Court To Decide Afresh
Case Details: State Project Director, UP Education For All Project Board & Ors. v. Saroj Maurya & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3465 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 647
Observing that no decision could be legally sustainable in the absence of a reasoning, the Supreme Court recently set aside the High Court's Division Bench order which was rendered casually without furnishing any reasons therefor.
In the present case, while upholding the single-judge decision, the Division Bench of the High Court didn't express its view on the issues and rather concluded that the Division Bench was in agreement with the approach and view of the learned Single Judge without furnishing any reasons therefor.
Supreme Court Explains Procedure For Admitting Insufficiently Stamped Instruments Under Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957
Case Details: Seetharama Shetty v. Monappa Shetty
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 648
The Supreme Court recently explained the procedure related to admission of insufficiently stamped instruments as evidence as per Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti extracted the steps to be followed as per Sections 33, 34, 35, 37, and 39 of the Act in the following manner:
[Note: In Karnataka, District Registrar acts as the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps.]
- Section 33 provides the impounding of instruments that are insufficiently or improperly stamped, preventing parties from withdrawing such documents once they are notified about the requirement to pay proper stamp duty and penalties.
- A party relying on an insufficiently stamped instrument can either:
Pay the required duty and penalty directly under Section 34.
Apply under Section 39 to the District Registrar/Deputy Commissioner to determine and collect the deficient stamp duty and penalty. After payment, the impounded instrument is released and can be used as evidence.
- If a party chooses to send the instrument to the Deputy Commissioner to collect the deficit stamp duty and penalty, the court has no option but to send the document to the Deputy Commissioner. However, this choice must be made by the party before the court invokes Section 34.
- Section 34 bars the use of insufficiently stamped instruments in evidence until the deficient stamp duty and penalty are paid. The authority collecting the deficit has no discretion but to levy a penalty of ten times the deficit.
- Section 35 provides that once an insufficiently stamped instrument is admitted into evidence under Section 34, its admission cannot be challenged.
- Section 37 - Dealing with Impounded Instruments:
After the deficit duty and penalty are paid, the court has to forward it to the Deputy Commissioner or District Registrar.
If a case does not fall under Sections 34 or 36 (admission of improperly stamped instruments), the impounding authority must send the original document to the Deputy Commissioner.
- Once a party complies by paying the required stamp duty and penalty under Sections 34 or 39, the legal objection related to insufficient stamping under Section 33 is removed, allowing the document to be admitted into evidence without further objections under the Stamp Act.
- Under Section 39, the Deputy Commissioner or District Registrar is responsible for stamping impounded instruments and has discretion in levying penalties, which can extend up to ten times the deficient duty but only in extreme cases.
- After fulfilling all requirements, including payment of duty and penalties, the document complies with the Act's requirements. The scheme allows a party to directly approach the District Registrar, pay the duty and penalty, and then present the document to the court, removing any objections under Sections 33 or 34.
Motor Accident Claims - Supreme Court Absolves Car Dealer From Liability For Death During Test Drive By Manufacturer's Employees
Case Details: Vaibhav Jain v. Hindustan Motors Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 649
The Supreme Court refused to hold a car dealer liable to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of persons caused due to an accident which took place while the vehicle was taken for a test drive by the employees of the manufacturer.
In this case, an accident took place during a test drive in which the dealer (appellant) of the Lancer car, the driver of the car, and the manufacturer were held to pay compensation jointly and severally by a Tribunal. However, the dealer challenged the liability on the grounds that the deceased was an employee of the manufacturer Hindustan Motors and even though there was a dealership agreement to transfer the ownership of the vehicle, there was no sale at the time of the accident.
The court agreeing with the submissions of the dealer, held: "The appellant was neither the owner nor in control/ command of the vehicle at the time of accident, and the vehicle was being driven by an employee of M/s. Hindustan Motors, we are of the view that apart from the driver, M/s. Hindustan Motors alone was liable for the compensation awarded. Thus, the appellant should not have been burdened with liability to pay compensation."
Income Tax Act | Supreme Court Refuses To Give Retrospective Application To 2022 Amendment To S.80DD Regarding 'Jeevan Adhar' Policies
Case Details: Ravi Agrawal v. Union of India & Another, Writ Petition (Civil) No.706 of 2020
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 650
The Supreme Court refused to give the retrospective operation to the amended Section 80DD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”) which provided an option to the subscriber the Jeevan Adhar Policy (“Policy”) upon attaining the age of 60 years to discontinue the deposit made under the policy and make use of the money accumulated for the benefit of the disabled person for whom the policy was purchased.
Specific Relief Act | S.28 Application Can Be Filed In Trial Court Even If Decree Was Passed By Appellate Court : Supreme Court
Case Details: Ishwar (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs and Ors. v. Bhim Singh and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 651
The Supreme Court reiterated that an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, can be filed before the trial court even if the decree for specific performance was passed by the appellate Court.
The Court further held that the Execution Court has the power to grant extension of time stipulated by the appellate court for a property buyer to pay the amount provided that the Execution Court is also the court which tried and decided the original specific performance suit.
Supreme Court Refuses To Appoint Special Public Prosecutor For Senthil Balaji's Trial, Asks Why TN Governor Took 7 Months To Grant Sanction
Case Details: Y. Balaji v. Assistant Commissioner of Police Central Crime Branch (Job Racketing) & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 652
The Supreme Court refused to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor for the trial of former Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji in corruption case arising out of the cash of jobs allegations.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih bench stated that as of now, there is no material on record suggesting that the current Public Prosecutor is not competent enough.
B.Ed. Degree Not A Qualification For Primary School Teacher : Supreme Court Reiterates
Case Details: Navin Kumar & Ors v. Union of India & Ors Etc, SLP (C) Nos__ of 2024 Arising Out of Diary No. 17948 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 653
The Supreme Court upheld a judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court which quashed the appointments of B.Ed. Degree holders candidates as primary school teachers and reiterated that the essential qualification for such appointments is a Diploma in Elementary Education.
Doctors Directed To Stop 'Two-Finger Test' On Rape Victims, Violators Will Be Punished : Meghalaya Govt Tells Supreme Court
Case Details: Sunshine Kharpan v. State of Meghalaya, Diary No. - 48388/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 654
The State of Meghalaya informed the Supreme Court that it has issued circular in compliance with the earlier directions of the Court prohibiting the 'Two Finger test' on rape survivors.
The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Sanjay Karol was hearing a criminal appeal arising out of the High Court of Meghalaya filed by a person convicted of offense rape and charges under the POCSO. Notably, earlier a bench of CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal expressed dismay over a shocking incident where a two-finger test was applied to the rape victim in the case.
Supreme Court: Court Cannot Delay Bail Implementation After Granting Bail To Accused
Case Details: Jitendra Paswan Satya Mitra v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 655
The Supreme Court ruled that once a court concludes that an accused is entitled to bail, it cannot delay the implementation of the bail order, as doing so may violate the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih deleted the condition imposed by Patna High Court while granting bail to an accused that the bail order will be executed after six months. The HC in the impugned judgment did not provide any reason for imposing such a condition.
“The impugned judgement proceeds on the footing that the appellant is entitled to bail and in fact the impugned order grants bail. However, it is observed in paragraph 9 that the order granting bail be implemented after 6 months. Once court comes to the conclusion that an accused is entitled to bail, the court cannot postpone the grant of bail. If after holding that an accused is entitled to bail, the courts start delaying the order granting bail it may amount to violation of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution of India,” the Court held.
Bail Cannot Be Denied On The Ground That Trial Is Expedited: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki@ Rabin v. State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 656
The Supreme Court emphasized that bail cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the trial will be expedited.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih said this while issuing notice in an SLP by a dacoity accused challenging Calcutta High Court's decision to reject his bail plea but expedite the trial.
The Supreme Court noted that despite the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of High Court Bar Association v. State of UP, which held that High Courts and the Supreme Court should not fix a time-bound schedule for the completion of trials, several High Courts continue to do so after denying bail.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea of Ex-Vigilance Commissioner For Chief Secretary's Pay Scale
Case Details: Metongmeren Ao v. State of Nagaland
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 657
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by a former State Vigilance Commissioner of Nagaland seeking a pay scale equivalent to that of the Chief Secretary of the State observing that he is not entitled to the Chief Secretary's pay scale merely because some predecessors were getting that pay scale.
A bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the appellant voluntarily accepted the offered pay scale, and he was not obliged to join the post if the pay scale being offered was not acceptable to him.
Supreme Court Holds Landowners Liable Along With Builder For Deficiencies In Flat Constructions
Case Details: Akshay & Anr. v. Aditya & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos.3642-3646/2018
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 658
The Supreme Court held that a revocation of power of attorney executed between landowners and builder for developing their land would not absolve the landowners from being jointly and severally liable along with the builder in a consumer case for deficiency of service.
The Court observed that the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) between the builder and the landowners remained operative even after the revocation of the power of attorney. It was also held that the expression 'henceforth' used in the revocation letter to the builder meant that landowners would be ceased of any liability for builder's actions that occurs subsequent to the termination and that would not exclude the landowners' liability for the agreements that the builder entered into with the buyers before the termination.
S.149 IPC | When Accused Is Roped In For Being Member of Unlawful Assembly, Whether He Caused Injury Is Irrelevant : Supreme Court
Case Details: Nitya Nand v. State of U.P. & Anr., Crl Appeal No. 1348 of 2014
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 659
The Supreme Court upheld the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court convicting and sentencing the appellant for murder along with rioting armed with deadly weapon.
A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a criminal appeal where the appellant argued that although he had carried a country-made pistol at the crime scene, where other accused had committed murder, his pistol did not cause any injury as it was fired to frighten and flee from the crime scene.
Rejecting his defence, the court held that since he was present at the crime scene where unlawful assembly took place with the object of murdering the deceased, the presence of the accused was enough for him to be booked for murder.
No overact has to be imputed to a particular person in an unlawful assembly, the court observed.
S. 401 CrPC | High Courts Can't Convert Order of Acquittal To Conviction Under Revision Jurisdiction : Supreme Court
Case Details: C.N. Shantha Kumar v. M.S. Srinivas
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 660
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court while exercising a Criminal Revision jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C. (now Section 442 of BNSS) cannot order a decision of acquittal to conviction.
The Court said that if the High Court believes that the acquittal was wrong, then instead of reversing the acquittal it could have remanded back the matter for re-appreciation by the appellate court.
The bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti heard a matter where the High Court while exercising the criminal revisional jurisdiction had overturned the acquittal of an appellant to a conviction in a cheque dishonour matter without remanding a matter back to the appellate court for re-appreciation.
'No Minimum Sentence Prescribed For Conviction Under S.304A & 338 IPC' : Supreme Court Alters Sentence In Negligent Driving Case
Case Details: George v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 661
The Supreme Court ordered the release of a convict charged for causing the death of a pillion rider of a motorcycle due to his rash and negligent driving by reducing his period of sentence to a period already suffered by him during custody.
Noting that there's no minimum punishment of sentence prescribed for under Sections 304 A and 338 of the IPC, the bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma upon placing reliance on the case of Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police reported in LL 2021 SC 279 ordered for substitution of sentence to only fine.
IBC | 'Auction-Purchaser Entitled To Benefit of COVID Limitation Extension' : Supreme Court Refuses To Cancel Sale Over Delayed Deposit
Case Details: V.S. Palanivel v. P. Sriram CS Liquidator etc, Civil Appeal Nos. 9059-9061 of 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 662
The Supreme Court refused to cancel an e-auction despite the Auction Purchaser making a glaring default in making a deposit of the balance sale consideration on grounds that the subject matter of the auction has been utilised and the appellant failed to approach the court on time.
A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted: "Much water has flown under the bridge by now. The subject land has been utilized by the Auction Purchaser to build a 200-bed Mother and Child hospital which is operational. Huge amounts have been pumped into the project by the Auction Purchaser. The hospital is fully functional providing medical facilities to seven surrounding districts."
In contrast, it noted that the appellant who moved the court in appeal to cancel the auction has not been a vigilant litigation.
The Supreme Court interpreted Rule 12 of Schedule 1 under Regulation 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 as mandatory in character. Rule 12 relates to how assets of the Company (Corporate debtor) are to be sold by the Liquidator.
Rule 12 reads: "On the close of the auction, the highest bidder shall be invited to provide balance sale consideration within ninety days of the date of such demand: Provided that payments made after thirty days shall attract interest at the rate of 12%. Provided further that the sale shall be cancelled if the payment is not received within ninety days."
The Supreme Court clarified that the advice offered by the Stakeholders Consultation Committee (SCC) constituted in liquidation proceedings is not binding on the Liquidator.
Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Professor Who Couldn't Join Duty Due To COVID
Case Details: Kerala Agricultural University & Anr. v. TP Murali @ Murali Thavara Panen & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 663
The Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court's decision quashing the termination of an Assistant Professor who was unable to resume his duties after Leave Without Allowance (LWA) due to COVID-19 pandemic.
A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal noted that the relevant disciplinary provision - Rule 15(2)(a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, mandated that the relevant authority must record prima facie satisfaction that there is a case for taking action before holding a departmental inquiry, which was not done in this case.
High Court Chief Justice Cannot Individually Reconsider Judges' Appointment, Must Be Collectively Done By Collegium : Supreme Court
Case Details: Chirag Bhanu Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 664
While directing the Himachal Pradesh High Court Collegium to reconsider the elevation of two District Judges, the Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice of a High Court cannot individually reconsider a recommendation.
The Court reiterated that the decision has to be taken collectively by the Collegium (comprising CJ and two senior judges) after deliberations.
"The process of judicial appointments to a superior court is not the prerogative of a single individual. Instead, it is a collaborative and participatory process involving all Collegium members.The underlying principle is that the process of appointment of judges must reflect the collective wisdom that draws from diverse perspectives. Such a process ensures that principles of transparency and accountability are maintained," observed the bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra.
APSRTC Employees Appointed In Regions Forming Part of Telangana Will Be TSRTC Employees Following Andhra Pradesh Bifurcation : Supreme Court
Case Details: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors v. V.V. Bramha Reddy & Anr, Civil Appeal No. 5267 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 665
The Supreme Court held that the employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), who were appointed at regional levels in areas which formed part of the State of Telangana, will continue as employees of the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC), which is the successor corporation following the bifurcation of the State of AP.
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which allotted the employees to the APSRTC based on the fact that they were serving in AP on 02.06.2015(date on which TSRTC was formed).
A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal held that the division bench applied incorrect law.
'Parties' Rights Can't Override Child's Welfare' : Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Giving Father Toddler's Custody From Maternal Relatives
Case Details: Somprabha Rana & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Crl. A. No. 3821/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 666
Observing that the welfare of a child is of paramount importance, the Supreme Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order which had granted the custody of a 2.5-year-old child to her father on the sole ground of he being a 'natural guardian' of the child.
"As far as the decision regarding custody of the minor children is concerned, the only paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor. The parties' rights cannot be allowed to override the child's welfare. This principle also applies to a petition seeking Habeas Corpus concerning a minor," the Court observed.
Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Prosecution Against Company Granted Immunity Under S.32K Central Excise Act
Case Details: Baccarose Perfumes and Beauty Products Pvt. Ltd v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 3216 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 667
The Supreme Court quashed criminal prosecution against a company engaged in manufacturing and exporting cosmetics, accused of causing a loss of INR 8 crore by underpaying Countervailing Duty (CVD) based on invoice value instead of Maximum Retail Price (MRP). The prosecution was initiated under Section 120B and Section 420 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The company received immunity from prosecution under Section 32K of the Central Excise Act on August 20, 2007. However, despite this immunity, the trial court proceeded with the case, and the High Court upheld this decision.
On the grant of immunity, there arises an explicit bar from prosecution in cases where the proceedings for any offence have been instituted after the date of receipt of the application seeking such immunity under the relevant law.
The immunity was granted on 20.08.2007. The FIR was registered on 04.04.2005. Addressing the issue whether the registration of FIR would amount to the initiation of proceedings prior to the grant of immunity, the Supreme Court noted that merely registering an FIR does not constitute initiation of legal proceedings. Formal proceedings require submission of a Final Report or Chargesheet.
The Court found that since the immunity was granted and there was no fiscal liability on the company, the prosecution should not have continued.
Karnataka Stamp Act | Supreme Court Approves Levy of Ten Times Penalty On Deficit Stamp Duty To Admit Document In Evidence
Case Details: NM Theerthegowda v. YM Ashok Kumar and Others, Civil Appeal No. 10038 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 668
The Supreme Court justified the imposition of ten times penalty on a deficit stamp duty being unpaid by the litigant under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (“Act”).
The Appellant wanted the suit agreement to be admitted in evidence at the interlocutory stage, however, the agreement was not sufficiently stamped. Therefore, in terms of Section 34 of the Act, the Appellant was directed to pay ten times of deficit stamp duty by the trial court as a penalty for not paying sufficient stamp duty. The trial court's order was sustained by the High Court. Following this, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, it was argued by the Appellant/litigant that the deficit stamp duty should alone be collected at the time of the passing of the judgment and decree, and the levy of penalty is illegal and erroneous.
Rejecting the Appellant's contention, the bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti observed that since the Appellant's case squarely falls within Section 34 of the Act, which makes instruments not duly stamped to be inadmissible in evidence, the levy of penalty by the trial court i.e., ten times the deficit stamp duty amount could not be interfered with.
Take Steps To Ensure Speedy Trial In Heinous Crimes & Crimes Against Women & Children: Supreme Court To Allahabad HC CJ
Case Details: Mubarak Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 669
The Supreme Court requested the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to take measures to ensure the speedy conclusion of trials, particularly in cases involving heinous crimes and crimes against women and children.
A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that delays in the trial were enabling accused persons charged with heinous crimes to seek bail on the grounds of prolonged trial.
Supreme Court Orders State to Enforce S.136A Motor Vehicles Act for Electronic Road Safety Monitoring
Case Details: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 670
The Supreme Court directed all state governments to take immediate steps to implement Section 136A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which pertains to the electronic monitoring and enforcement of road safety. The Court also directed all state governments to ensure compliance Rule 167A(A) of Central Motor Vehicle Rules by issuing challans on the basis of footage from electronic enforcement devices.
Section 136A mandates that state governments ensure electronic monitoring and enforcement of road safety on national highways, state highways, and roads in urban areas with a population prescribed by the Central Government. Further, the Central Government has to make rules for electronic monitoring and enforcement including speed cameras, closed-circuit television cameras, speed guns, body wearable cameras and such other technology.
Inquiry About Mesne Profits Continuation of Original Suit; Application For Such Inquiry Not Barred By Limitation: Supreme Court
Case Details: Choudappa & Anr. v. Choudappa Since Deceased By Lrs. & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3056 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 671
The Supreme Court permitted the decree-holder to file an application regarding the determination of mesne profits after almost 26 years of passing the decree.
The Court said that filing an application as a reminder to the court to complete the inquiry into the determination of mesne profit cannot be said to be filing a fresh suit but a continuation of the suit and cannot be barred by limitation.
“Now, such an inquiry is nothing but a continuation of the suit and is in the nature of preparation of the final decree and as such, it cannot be said that any application moved as a reminder for completing the inquiry is barred by limitation or is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay or laches.”, the bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan said.
Supreme Court Directs CBI To Investigate Death of Chhattisgarh Senior Judicial Officer's Wife
Case Details: Mandakini Diwan and Anr. v. The High Court of Chhattisgarh & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 672
The Supreme Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate into the death of the wife of a senior judicial officer in Chhattisgarh.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale passed the direction allowing an appeal filed by the mother and the brother of the deceased, Ranjana Diwan.
Supreme Court Accepts Magistrate's Apology, Imposes Rs 25K Fine on Police Officer for SC Order Violation
Case Details: Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat, SLP(Crl) No. 14489/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 673
The Supreme Court passed the sentence in the contempt case against a Police Officer and the Judicial Magistrate from Gujarat for the arrest and remand of an accused in violation of its order granting him interim anticipatory bail.
While the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the Magistrate, it imposed a fine Rs. 25,000 on the Police Officer.
On August 7, the Court had held them guilty of contempt of court and directed their presence today for hearing on sentence.
Supreme Court: PMLA Takes Precedence Over CrPC in Summoning Procedure
Case Details: Abhishek Banerjee and Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Crl.A. No. 2221-2222/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 674
The provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, will prevail over the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in relation to the summoning of a person, held the Supreme Court in the judgment dismissing the appeals of Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife Rujira Banerjee challenging the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate for their appearance in Delhi in connection with a coal scam case.
Accused In Custody Can Seek Anticipatory Bail For Another Case : Supreme Court
Case Details: Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani and Anr. Diary No. - 51276/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 675
The Supreme Court held that an accused already in custody in connection with one case can apply for anticipatory bail in connection with another case.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra delivered the judgment in a case which raised the legal issue whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the accused is arrested in another case.
Arbitration | Courts At Referral Stage Must Not Enter Into Contested Questions Involving Complex Facts : Supreme Court
Case Details: Cox & Kings Ltd. v. Sap India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Arbitration Petition No. 38 of 2020
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 676
The Supreme Court reiterated that once there exists a valid arbitration agreement, than it would not be justifiable for the referral courts at the referral stage to venture into contested questions involving complex facts.
Emphasizing upon the doctrine of competence-competence enshrined under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), the Court said that the referral courts while deciding the petition for an appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act shall restrict its inquiry on whether there exists a valid arbitration agreement or not, and it would be impermissible for the referral courts to led the detailed inquiry into contested questions involving complex facts.
When Reasons Aren't Recorded To Appoint Junior Officer As Judge Advocate, Court Martial Proceedings Stand Invalidated: Supreme Court
Case Details: Union of India & Ors. v. Lt. Col. Rahul Arora, Civil Appeal No. 2459 of 2017
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 677
The Supreme Court observed that non-recording of the reasons in the convening order to appoint a Junior Officer as Presiding Officer of the Martial Court would invalidate the proceedings recorded before such Junior Officer.
Drawing reference from the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Charanjit Singh Gill (2000) the Court, in essence, said that it would be impermissible for the Junior Officer to act as the Presiding Officer to decide the plea against the superior officer/accused unless the reasons were not recorded in the convening order that due to the exigencies of public service, an officer of equal or superior rank to the accused is not available to act as Judge Advocate.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Stop India's Military Exports To Isreal Amidst Gaza Conflict
Case Details: Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors v. Union of India, WP (C) No 551 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 678
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking the suspension of military exports from India to Israel amidst the ongoing war against Gaza.
The Court said that it was beyond its jurisdiction to direct the Government of India to not export materials to any country, as it was a matter which was completely within the domain of foreign policy.
When Dowry Demand Isn't Established, Conviction For Dowry Death Under S.304B IPC Unsustainable : Supreme Court
Case Details: Chabi Karmakar & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No. 1556 of 2013
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 679
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction for dowry death (under Section 304-B of IPC) after noting that the prosecution was not able to prove that the deceased wife was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry.
The Supreme Court stated that unless it was proved that the alleged cruelty or harassment faced by the deceased wife from her husband and in-laws was in connection with the demand of dowry, then conviction under Section 304-B of IPC would not be sustainable.
'To Avoid Trial Process Itself Being The Punishment' : Supreme Court Grants Bail To Undertrial; Reaffirms Right To Speedy Trial
Case Details: Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 680
The Supreme Court granted bail to an undertrial prisoner in custody for over four years, considering the delay in the trial.
"An accused has a right to a fair trial and while a hurried trial is frowned upon as it may not give sufficient time to prepare for the defence, an inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial would infringe the right of an accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution," observed a bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and R Mahadevan.
Companies Act | When Can Courts Exercise Power of Rectification of Register of Members? Supreme Court Explains
Case Details: Chalasani Udaya Shankar and Ors. v. M/s. Lexus Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and others Civil Appeal Nos. 5735-5736 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 681
The Supreme Court expressed dismay over the mechanical approach adopted by the Family Court in granting a divorce decree against the wife despite no fault being attributed to her..
The Court said that the husband cannot be benefitted from seeking annulment of the marriage when he was solely responsible for the breakdown of the marital relationship.
“The bogey of irretrievably breaking down of marriage cannot be used to the advantage of a party (husband in this case) who is solely responsible for tearing down the marital relationship”, the bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said.
Don't Accept Black & White Photographs Without Permission of Court : Supreme Court Directs Registry
Case Details: Savita Rasiklal Mandan & Anr v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 682
The Supreme Court directed the Registry to not accept black and white photographs produced by parties without the permission of the Court.
Supreme Court Criticises P&H High Court & Punjab Govt For Not Reinstating Judicial Officer Whose Dismissal Was Set Aside By SC
Case Details: Anantdeep Singhv v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 683
Deploring the practice of marking the presence of an Advocate who was neither physically nor virtually present during the proceedings , the Supreme Court directed that only the presence of those Advocates would be marked who were either present in the case or assisting in the Court.
In a strict sense, the bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal also said that the presence of those advocates would also not be marked who were though not present in the Court but associated with the Advocates office.
“we forthwith direct that in this Court, online presence of only those advocates be furnished and be marked who are appearing or assisting during hearing as indicated above and not of those who are not present in Court but may be associated in office of the advocates.”, the Court said.
'Such Blanket Stay On Infrastructural Projects Inappropriate' : Supreme Court Vacates HC's Embargo On Gaggal Airport Expansion
Case Details: The Principal Secretary & Ors v. Gaggal Airport Expansion Affected Social Welfare Committee SLP (C) No. 1676 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 684
The Supreme Court vacated the Himachal Pradesh High Court's direction for status quo on the ongoing Gaggal (Kangra) Airport expansion project.
In the order, passed on March 7 and uploaded on the Supreme Court's website yesterday, the bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud criticised the High Court for imposing a blanket stay.
"The interim direction of the High Court dated 9 January 2024 puts a complete embargo on the State following due process of law towards the proposed expansion of the Gaggal (Kangra) Airport. Bearing in mind the time and cost over runs resulting from such blanket orders of stay on infrastructural projects, such a direction was inappropriate and uncalled for," observed the bench comprising CJI ,Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
Improper To Discriminate Among Homogenous Group : Supreme Court
Case Details: Manilal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., C.A. No. 010440 / 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 685
The Supreme Court observed that there cannot be a discrimination amongst the homogenous class of the candidates based on their date of admission who secured admission to the same course through the same process in the same academic session while determining their eligibility for getting an appointment to a particular position.
Witness Who Made Self-Incriminating Statements Can Be Summoned As Additional Accused Based On Other Materials: Supreme Court
Case Details: Raghuveer Sharan v. District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank & Anr., Criminal Appeal No(S). 2764 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 686
The Supreme Court held that a witness who gives an incriminating statement cannot take a shield under proviso of Section 132 of the Evidence Act (“IEA”) to claim immunity from prosecution if there exists other substantial evidence or material against him proving his prima facie involvement in the crime.
The Court stated : "We hold that the qualified privilege under the proviso to Section 132 of the Act does not grant complete immunity from prosecution to a person who has deposed as a witness (and made statements incriminating himself)"
S.319 CrPC | Order To Summon Additional Accused Passed After Acquittal/Conviction of Co-Accused Is Unsustainable: Supreme Court
Case Details: Devendra Kumar Pal v. State of UP and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 687
The Supreme Court refused to hold a car dealer liable to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of persons caused due to an accident which took place while the vehicle was taken for a test drive by the employees of the manufacturer.
In this case, an accident took place during a test drive in which the dealer (appellant) of the Lancer car, the driver of the car, and the manufacturer were held to pay compensation jointly and severally by a Tribunal. However, the dealer challenged the liability on the grounds that the deceased was an employee of the manufacturer Hindustan Motors and even though there was a dealership agreement to transfer the ownership of the vehicle, there was no sale at the time of the accident.
The court agreeing with the submissions of the dealer, held: "The appellant was neither the owner nor in control/ command of the vehicle at the time of accident, and the vehicle was being driven by an employee of M/s. Hindustan Motors, we are of the view that apart from the driver, M/s. Hindustan Motors alone was liable for the compensation awarded. Thus, the appellant should not have been burdened with liability to pay compensation."
Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Condition That Accused Who Got Bail Can Furnish Bail Bonds Only After Spending 6 Months In Custody
Case Details: Vikash Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar, Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 11952/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 688
Reiterating that the pre-trial process itself shall not become punishment, the Supreme Court set aside a bail condition imposed by the Patna High Court to the effect that the bail bonds be furnished by the accused after completion of 6 months in custody from the date of the order. The condition in effect put on hold the implementation of the bail order for six months.
'Choking Docket of Court' : Supreme Court Imposes 1 Lakh Cost On Man For Repeated Litigations To Change Birth Date In Service Records
Case Details: Balbir Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, SLP(C) No. 19097-19098 / 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 689
The Supreme Court reiterated that an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, can be filed before the trial court even if the decree for specific performance was passed by the appellate Court.
The Court further held that the Execution Court has the power to grant extension of time stipulated by the appellate court for a property buyer to pay the amount provided that the Execution Court is also the court which tried and decided the original specific performance suit.
Preventive Detention | Failure To Furnish Documents Relied On By Detaining Authority Violates Article 22(5) : Supreme Court
Case Details: Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors, Criminal Appeal No. 3083 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 690
The Supreme Court quashed the preventive detention of a person on account of a delay of 9 months by the jail authorities in communicating the representation of the detenu and also the non-supply of relevant materials. The Court has ordered his release from detention.
While quashing the prevention detention of a man for non-supply of relevant materials to challenge the detention order, the Supreme Court has held that failure to furnish copies of documents relied on by the Detaining Authority would deprive the detenu of making an effective representation.
A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan held that while it is not necessary to furnish copies of each and every document to which a casual or passing reference is made in the narration of facts and which are not relied upon in the detention order, "however, failure to furnish copies of such document/documents as is/are relied on by the Detaining Authority which would deprive the detenu to make an effective representation would certainly amount to violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.”
Alleged Involvement In Crime No Ground To Demolish Legally Constructed Property, Such Demolitions Against Rule of Law: Supreme Court
Case Details: Javedali Mahebubmiya Saiyed v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 691
The Supreme Court observed that alleged involvement in a crime is no ground for demolishing a legally constructed property, and the Court cannot ignore such demolition threats in a nation governed by the rule of law.
“In a country where actions of the State are governed by the rule of law, the transgression by a family member cannot invite action against other members of the family or their legally constructed residence. Alleged involvement in crime is no ground for demolition of a property. Moreover the alleged crime has to be proved through due legal process in a Court of law. The Court cannot be oblivious to such demolition threats inconceivable in a nation where law is supreme. Otherwise such actions may be seen as running a bulldozer over the laws of the land”, the Court observed.
Supreme Court Quashes NGT Order To Shut Down Garbage Plant In Pune; Directs PMC To Address Foul Odour Concerns
Case Details: Pune Municipal Corporation v. Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 692
The Supreme Court quashed the National Green Tribunal's order to shut down a Garbage Processing Plant (GPP) in Baner, Pune observing that shutting it down will be detrimental to public interest.
A bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan, however, directed the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) and operator of the plant to take measures to ensure that the residents of the nearby buildings do not suffer due to foul odour.
Arbitration | Application To Extend Time To Pass Arbitral Award Maintainable Even After Expiry of Period Under S.29A(4) : Supreme Court
Case Details: Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited, SLP(C) No. 023320/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 693
In an important ruling concerning the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Supreme Court held that an application for extending the time for passing of an arbitral award can be filed even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period.
“we hold that an application for extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A (4) read with Section 29A (5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period, as the case may be.”, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and R. Mahadevan said.
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal In CBI Case
Case Details: Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, SLP(Crl) No. 11023/2024 (and connected case)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 694
The Supreme Court granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in connection with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) FIR registered in the Delhi liquor policy case.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan pronounced verdict on two petitions filed by the Aam Aadmi party chief challenging his arrest and seeking bail in the CBI case. It had heard the matter and reserved orders on September 5.
Justice Kant held that Kejriwal's arrest was legal and did not suffer from any procedural irregularity. There is no merit in the contention that the CBI failed to comply with the mandate of Section 41/41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure while arresting him, the judge said.
At the same time, both the judges were unanimous in the decision to grant bail to Kejriwal considering the fact that the chargesheet has been filed in the case and that the trial is unlikely to be completed in the near future. Kejriwal's continued incarceration would infringe upon the right to personal liberty under Article 21, the Court said.
While Justice Kant upheld the arrest, Justice Bhuyan had a differing view regarding the necessity and timing of Kejriwal's arrest.
Remarking that CBI's arrest raised more questions than it sought to answer, Justice Bhuyan noted that CBI did not arrest Kejriwal for over 22 months and arrested him on the cusp of his release in the ED case.
However, both Justices Kant and Bhuyan dismissed Kejriwal's petition challenging the CBI arrest.
We Trust Members of Bar When We Hear Cases, But False Statements Shake Our Faith: Supreme Court
Case Details: Virender Singh & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), WP (Crl) No. 296/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 695
The Supreme Court dismissed two writ petitions where remission was sought by the advocate by pleading false statements in the writ petition as well as before the Court.
Taking an exception to the continuous false statements made in the petition for remission, Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih remarked: "A large number of petitions are being filed in this Court wherein a grievance is made about non grant of permanent remission. During the last three weeks, this is the 6th or 7th case which we have come across where blatantly false statements have been made in the pleadings."
NEET-UG 24 | Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Retest By Candidate Suffering From Hyper Sweating Who Wasn't Allowed Handkerchief In Exam
Case Details: Talluri Srikar (Minor) Through His Father Talluri Srikrishna v. The Director, National Testing Agency & Ors. Special Leave Petition (C) No.20243/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 696
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition by NEET UG 2024 candidate suffering from condition of excessive sweating who sought a retest claiming that he was not allowed to carry his handkerchief into the exam hall.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra upheld the decision of the High Court and observed the following : (1) The petitioner received the full allotted exam time, unlike the candidates who were granted a re-exam; (2) exam required darkening circles on an OMR sheet, which involves less writing than other exams. The court agreed with the High Court's view that wiping hands on clothes could have sufficed. (3) the Court emphasized the need for caution in entertaining individual grievances about public exams, as it can delay results and affect the larger public interest.
Supreme Court Dismisses Guru Manicka Prabhu Temple Head's Claim Over Chennai's Arulmighu Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple Property
Case Details: Siddaraja Manicka Prabhu Temple v. The Idol of Arulmighu Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 697
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the spiritual head of Chennai's Guru Manicka Prabhu Temple, claiming a property adjacent to the Arulmighu Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple as his private property.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih upheld the view of the division bench of the Madras High Court that the property was a trust property dedicated to the Arulmighu Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple.
Election Petition Should Not Be Rejected At Threshold Where There Is “Substantial Compliance” of RP Act Provisions: Supreme Court
Case Details: Kimneo Haokip Hangshing v. Kenn Raikhan & Ors., C.A. No. 010549 / 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 698
In a setback to Manipur BJP MLA Kimneo Haokip Hanghing, the Supreme Court refused to allow her petition seeking rejection of the Election Petition under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code (“CPC”) pending against her before the Manipur High Court.
The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that it cannot be said by the Appellant that a cause of action was not made in the Election Petition.
The Court observed that the petition could not be dismissed at the very threshold where there is a “substantial compliance” of the provisions.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Grant of Land Acquisition Compensation Share To Persons Who Purchased Sites From Party Having No Title
Case Details: Lakshmesh M. v. P. Rajalakshmi (Dead By Lrs.) and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 699
The Supreme Court set aside a Karnataka High Court judgment that awarded 30 percent of the compensation for land acquired for a Metro Rail Project to ten private individuals, despite the plaintiff being declared the lawful owner of the property.
The ten individuals had purchased sites on the land from a cooperative society and constructed property on it. The society claimed rights over the land but this claim was rejected by the courts. A portion of the land, including the sites purchased by these individuals, was acquired for a Metro Rail Project.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that the ten persons made no claim before the HC or any competent authority for the grant of compensation, and neither did they the challenge the HC judgment affirming the ownership and title of the suit property in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff
Resignation Not Final Until Its Acceptance Is Communicated To Employee : Supreme Court
Case Details: S.D. Manohara v. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Ors., C.A. No. 010567 / 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 700
The Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court's decision quashing the termination of an Assistant Professor who was unable to resume his duties after Leave Without Allowance (LWA) due to COVID-19 pandemic.
A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal noted that the relevant disciplinary provision - Rule 15(2)(a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, mandated that the relevant authority must record prima facie satisfaction that there is a case for taking action before holding a departmental inquiry, which was not done in this case.
Compensation For Surrendering Land For Public Purpose Once Determined Is Payable Without Formal Request, Failure Violates Article 300-A: Supreme Court
Case Details: Kukreja Construction Company & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and with connected cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 701
The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of delay and laches does not apply to cases where compensation is being sought for land surrendered for public amenities like DP Roads and compensation must be granted, even if no formal request is made.
“When relief in the nature of compensation is sought, as in the instant case, once the compensation is determined in the form of FSI/TDR, the same is payable even in the absence of there being any representation or request being made. In fact, a duty is cast on the State to pay compensation to the land losers as otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution”, the Court held.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed appeals by landowners whose writ petitions before the Bombay High Court seeking additional compensation for surrendering land and developing amenities were dismissed due to delay and laches.
Defiant Tenant Faces Supreme Court's Ire, Held Guilty For Contempt For Not Vacating Premises
Case Details: M/s Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 702
The Supreme Court convicted a tenant for contempt of court for violating the Court's directions to deliver vacant possession of the property to the landlord.
“Disregarding a Court's order may seem bold, but the shadows of its consequences are long and cold," the bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal observed.
The bench explained that the power to punish for contempt is vital to safeguard the authority and efficiency of the judicial system.
The failure to comply with judicial directions is not only disrespectful to the Court but also a challenge to the rule of law.
Flat Possession Offered Without Completion & Firefighting Certificates : Supreme Court Asks Developer To Compensate Buyer
Case Details: Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority, Civil Appeal Nos.2809-2810 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 703
The Supreme Court directed the Agra Development Authority(ADA) to grant compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 Lakhs to a flat buyer over a deficiency in service caused by the developer in offering the possession of the flat without requisite completion certificate and firefighting clearance certificate.
The absence of these documents unquestionably vitiates the offer of possession made by the ADA, the Court observed.
'National Medical Commission Expected To Act Fairly' : Supreme Court Imposes Rs.10 Lakh Cost On NMC For Challenge To Medical College's Approval
Case Details: National Medical Commission v. The Principal KMCT Medical College
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 704
The Supreme Court deprecated the National Medical Commission (NMC) for raising a frivolous challenge to the grant of approval for the expansion of a medical college. Reminding that the NMC should act reasonably and fairly, being an organ of the State, the Court imposed a cost of Rs.10 lakhs on it.
"Prima facie, we find that the attitude of the NMC is not of a model litigant. The NMC is an organ of the State and is expected to act in a fair and reasonable manner," observed a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.
Co-Owner Whose Share In Joint Property Remained Undetermined Cannot Transfer Entire Property: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sk. Golam Lalchand v. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes & Ors., Civil Appeal No.4177 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 705
The Supreme Court observed that a co-owner whose share in the joint property remained undetermined cannot transfer the entire suit property to another person without its partition being completed by metes and bounds.
'No Transfer of Title In Absence of Registered Document' : Supreme Court Rejects Tenant's Claim For Ownership Based On Settlement With Landlord
Case Details: Beena and Ors. v. Charan Das (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3190 of 2014
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 706
The provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, will prevail over the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in relation to the summoning of a person, held the Supreme Court in the judgment dismissing the appeals of Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife Rujira Banerjee challenging the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate for their appearance in Delhi in connection with a coal scam case.
Nagaland Civilian Killings: Supreme Court Closes FIR Against 30 Indian Army Personnel For Lack of Sanctions Under AFSPA
Case Details: Rabina Ghale & Anr v. UOI & Ors, WP (Crl) No. 265 of 2022 & Anjali Gupta v. UOI & Ors, WP (Crl) No. 250 of 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 707
The Supreme Court held that an accused already in custody in connection with one case can apply for anticipatory bail in connection with another case.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra delivered the judgment in a case which raised the legal issue whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the accused is arrested in another case.
Candidate Duly Elected In Democratic Process Can't Be Stopped From Assuming Office: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sandeep Kumar v. Vinod & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 708
Holding that a candidate who has been duly elected in a democratic process cannot be stopped from assuming the elected office, the Supreme Court directed the District Election Officer of Jhajjar (Haryana) to give the charge of the Sarpanch to the elected candidate who was restrained from assuming the charge of the Office despite having won the election.
Coastal Energen Insolvency : Supreme Court Allows Dickey Trust-Adani Power Resolution Plan To Operate Till NCLAT Final Decision
Case Details: Dickey Alternative Investment Trust and Anr. v. Ahmed Buhari and Ors.| Diary No. 41691-2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 709
The Supreme Court observed that non-recording of the reasons in the convening order to appoint a Junior Officer as Presiding Officer of the Martial Court would invalidate the proceedings recorded before such Junior Officer.
Drawing reference from the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Charanjit Singh Gill (2000) the Court, in essence, said that it would be impermissible for the Junior Officer to act as the Presiding Officer to decide the plea against the superior officer/accused unless the reasons were not recorded in the convening order that due to the exigencies of public service, an officer of equal or superior rank to the accused is not available to act as Judge Advocate.
PCPNDT Act | Search of Clinic Illegal If Not Authorized By All Three Members of District Authority: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 710
The Supreme Court held that a search and seizure operation under Section 30 of the Pre Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) must be authorised by all three members of the District Appropriate Authority under the Act collectively, and any decision by a single member is illegal.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih quashed a complaint and FIR filed against a doctor accused of performing sex determination tests and participating in an illegal medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) racket.
Atomic Energy Act's Ban On Licence To Private Entities For Nuclear Energy Purposes Not Arbitrary : Supreme Court
Case Details: Sandeep TS v. Union of India | Writ Petition(Civil) No.564/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 711
The Supreme Court upheld the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act 1962 which prohibit private entities from obtaining licence for working on nuclear energy.
The Court observed that these provisions serve a "salutary public purpose" by ensuring that nuclear energy is used only for peaceful purposes under stringent government control.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the provisions of the Act are not arbitrary and no fundamental rights of the petitioner were violated.
Supreme Court Directs MBBS Students to Pay College Fee Arrears To Get Original Certificates
Case Details: Sahil Bhargava v. State of Uttarakhand SLP(C) No. 019953/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 712
The Supreme Court on September 9 passed an interim order in a petition filed by medical students challenging the withholding of original documents by a medical college for non-payment of arrears of fees. The Court directed the release of the documents upon the condition that 7.5 lacs will be deposited towards the pending fee arrears with an undertaking to pay the remaining balance amount.
Head of Department Guilty If Government Dept Fails To Comply With NGT Order : Supreme Court
Case Details: Katiya Haidarali Ahmadbhai & Ors. v. Sanjeev Kumar IAS & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 713
The Supreme Court observed that if a Government Department fails to comply with an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the Head of the Department shall be deemed liable for such failure as per section 28 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside an NGT order deleting 15 government officers from an execution application that alleged non-compliance with NGT direction to prevent unauthorized activities in the Wild Ass Sanctuary in Gujarat's Rann of Kutch.
Motor Accident Claims| Guidelines of State Legal Services Authority On Disability Compensation Not Binding On HC/MACT : Supreme Court
Case Details: Hans Raj v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 714
The Supreme Court observed that the guidelines issued by the State Legal Services Authority for deciding the disability compensation in motor accident claims ought not to be made applicable for determining just and reasonable compensation in the cases where the proof of earning has been brought on record.
The Court said that the guidelines issued by the Legal Services Authority would be made applicable where the proof of earning is not available and to settle such disputes in Lok Adalat. Even in the absence of evidence regarding earning, the guidelines of the Legal Services Authority are not binding on the High Court and the Supreme Court and can be used only for guidance, the Supreme Court added.
Travesty of Justice If Prisoner Can't Get Benefit of Bail Order Due To Inability To Furnish Local Surety: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 715
The Supreme Court September 18 directed the release of a POCSO convict who continued to remain in custody despite a bail order passed in May 2024. The petitioner had been unable to secure release due to his inability to furnish local surety.
A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice SVN Bhatti noted that continuing to keep him in custody despite a bail order would violate his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
'Unbelievable That Eyewitness Identified Attackers Despite Power Outage' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction In 2006 Case
Case Details: Saheb, s/o Maroti Bhumre etc. v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal Nos. 313-314 of 2012
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 716
The Supreme Court acquitted two persons who were convicted for the offence of murder holding that their convictions were solely based on the testimony of the deceased's wife, who claimed she eye-witnessed the incident despite a power outage but failed to identify the assaulter and the weapon used for attack.
Declaring the deposition of the wife as having no credence, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Aravind Kumar opined that the widow tried to embroider her testimony. It observed: “Picturing a scenario where twenty-two persons entered into the premises armed with axes and sticks on a dark night, even if dimly lit by moonlight, it is difficult to believe that, in the melee that ensued, any person who was under attack would be in a position to identify, clearly and with certainty, as to who was assaulting whom and with what weapon.”
S.195 CrPC Bar Not Applicable When Forgery Was Committed On Document Before It Was Given As Evidence In Court : Supreme Court
Case Details: Arockiasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No.5805/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 717
Dealing with a case involving allegations of forgery, the Supreme Court reiterated that there is no embargo under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of CrPC to examine an allegation of forgery of documents filed in Court, when such forgery is committed before its production.
As per Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Court can take cognizance of an offence of forgery in relation to a document submitted in evidence in a Court proceeding only on a written complaint of an officer authorized by that Court (where the forged document was produced).
Brusque Approach of High Court In Reversing Acquittal Can't Be Sustained: Supreme Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction
Case Details: Ramesh and Anr. v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1467 of 2012
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 718
The Supreme Court held that a witness who gives an incriminating statement cannot take a shield under proviso of Section 132 of the Evidence Act (“IEA”) to claim immunity from prosecution if there exists other substantial evidence or material against him proving his prima facie involvement in the crime.
The Court stated : "We hold that the qualified privilege under the proviso to Section 132 of the Act does not grant complete immunity from prosecution to a person who has deposed as a witness (and made statements incriminating himself)"
Supreme Court Directs West Bengal To Form Municipal Building Tribunal Within 2 Weeks, Asks HC To Initiate Contempt Proceedings On Default
Case Details: Custodian of Enemy Property for India v. Md. Yakub @ Md. Yakub Ansari & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 719
The Supreme Court directed the State of West Bengal to complete the formation of the Municipal Building Tribunal within two weeks, warning that failure to comply could lead to contempt of court proceedings.
Under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, any party aggrieved by a demolition order for unauthorised construction can appeal to the Municipal Building Tribunal within 30 days.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the State of West Bengal has appointed a chairperson for the tribunal but has not yet appointed judicial and technical members, rendering it non-functional.
Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence of Driver Can't Be Vicariously Attached To Passengers of Vehicle: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10648 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 720
The Supreme Court observed that the legal heirs of the deceased who died in the road accident can't be denied their rightful compensation on the ground that the driver of the car contributed to the accident.
Referring to a precedent, the Court observed, "the contributory negligence on the part of a driver of the vehicle involved in the accident cannot be vicariously attached to the passengers so as to reduce the compensation awarded to the passengers or their legal heirs as the case may be."
Setting aside the concurrent findings of the High Court and MACT, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta observed that it would not be justifiable to reduce the compensation based on the fact that the driver contributed to the accident
Where Language Is Clear and Unambiguous, Document Should Be Interpreted Literally : Supreme Court
Case Details: Kamal Kishore Sehgal (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. v. Murti Devi (Dead) Thr. Lrs., Civil Appeal No. 9482 of 2013
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 721
Dealing with a property dispute, the Supreme Court held that where the language used in an instrument/document is clear and unambiguous, only that clear expression of words is to be considered for the interpretation of the instrument, not the surrounding circumstances.
"It is a cardinal principle of interpretation that where the language employed in the instrument is clear and unambiguous, the common literary meaning ought to be assigned in interpreting the same and one should not fall back on any other inference...In short, literal construction must be considered first, rather than going into the intention behind what is said in the instrument/document if the language of the instrument is clear and unambiguous", said a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and R Mahadevan.
'Fraud Committed On Court' : Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe Into 'Fake' Petition Filed Without Petitioner's Knowledge
Case Details: Bhagwan Singh v. State of Up | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 18885/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 722
The Supreme Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to carry out a probe into a case where the petitioner denied filing any special leave petition and claimed ignorance of advocates who represented him.
Notably, the order impugned in the SLP had put an end to criminal proceedings against the only witness in the 2002 Nitish Katara Murder case. However, as informed by respondents during court proceedings, the SLP was filed in an attempt to continue the false case against him (without the petitioner's knowledge).
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma had heard the matter and reserved verdict on September 9, indicating that it would not take what happened in the case lightly. Today, the judgment was pronounced, which is authored by Justice Trivedi.
The Supreme Court observed that no professional, much less a legal professional, is immune from prosecution for their criminal misdeed.
The Court observed that Advocates-on-Record can mark the appearances of only those advocates who are authorized to appear and argue the case on a particular day of hearing.
"Such names shall be given by the Advocate on Record on each day of hearing of the case as instructed in the Notice(Officer Circular dated 30.12.2022). If there is any change in the name of the arguing Advocate, it shall be duty of the concerned Advocate-on-Record to inform the concerned Court Master in advance or at the time of hearing of the case. The concerned Officers/Court Masters shall act accordingly", said the bench.
The Court observed that an act or omission on part of a Notary in violation of Rule 11 of the Notaries Rules 1956 would amount to misconduct, and such Notary would be unfit to be a Notary. Rule 11 of the Notaries Rules stipulates how a Notary shall conduct his business. As per Rule 11(2), every notary shall maintain a Notarial Register in the prescribed Form.
In the present case, the concerned Notary did not make an entry regarding attestation of the petitioner's affidavit in the Notarial Register.
Insufficiently Stamped Document Not Admissible Merely Because It Was Exhibited Unless Deficiency Is Cured : Supreme Court
Case Details: Bidyut Sarkar & Anr. v. Kanchilal Pal (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 10509-10510 of 2013
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 723
The Supreme Court observed that alleged involvement in a crime is no ground for demolishing a legally constructed property, and the Court cannot ignore such demolition threats in a nation governed by the rule of law.
“In a country where actions of the State are governed by the rule of law, the transgression by a family member cannot invite action against other members of the family or their legally constructed residence. Alleged involvement in crime is no ground for demolition of a property. Moreover the alleged crime has to be proved through due legal process in a Court of law. The Court cannot be oblivious to such demolition threats inconceivable in a nation where law is supreme. Otherwise such actions may be seen as running a bulldozer over the laws of the land”, the Court observed.
State Must Ensure Timely Payment of Land Acquisition Compensation Even If Private Company Is Ultimately Liable, Delay Violates Art 300A: Supreme Court
Case Details: M/s Ultra Tech Cement LTd v.Mast Ram and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 724
The Supreme Court on September 20 criticised the State of Himachal Pradesh for failing to ensure the timely payment of additional compensation of Rs. 3,05,31,095 awarded to landowners for land acquired in 2008 for a cement project run by JAL(M/s Jaiprakash Associates Limited).
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said that the state government should have ensured compensation was paid, even if it meant recovering it from JAL, instead of making the landowners go after corporate houses for payment.
Temporary Workers Engaged In Maharashtra Public Works Dept Entitled To Holidays On 2nd & 4th Saturdays : Supreme Court
Case Details: The Secretary, Public Works Department & Ors. v. Tukaram Pandurang Saraf & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1689 of 2016
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 725
The Supreme Court granted relief to the temporary workers engaged in the Public Works Department of Maharashtra observing that they are entitled to get the benefits of public holidays as well as holidays on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays of each month.
The bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan observed that the respondent employees are entitled to all the holiday benefits and other emoluments stipulated under the Kalelkar Award.
S. 304-B IPC | Factum of Dowry Demand Not Proved : Supreme Court Acquits Parents-In-Law
Case Details: Shoor Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 726
The Supreme Court acquitted the parents-in-law of a deceased wife who were charged with committing dowry death since the factum of a dowry demand was not proved.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra reiterated that for convicting an accused under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, it must be proved that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in relation to the alleged demand of dowry in connection with marriage.
Arbitration | Non-Signatory Party's Conduct and Relationship With Signatories May Indicate Intent To Be Bound : Supreme Court
Case Details: Ajay Madhusudan Patel & Ors. v. Jyotrindra S. Patel & Ors., Arbitration Petition No. 19 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 727
The Supreme Court dismissed two writ petitions where remission was sought by the advocate by pleading false statements in the writ petition as well as before the Court.
Taking an exception to the continuous false statements made in the petition for remission, Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih remarked: "A large number of petitions are being filed in this Court wherein a grievance is made about non grant of permanent remission. During the last three weeks, this is the 6th or 7th case which we have come across where blatantly false statements have been made in the pleadings."
Storage of Child Pornography Without Deletion Or Reporting Indicates Intention To Transmit, Constitutes POCSO Act Offence :Supreme Courtt
Case Details: Just Rights For Children Alliance v. S. Harish Diary No.- 8562 - 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 728
Setting aside a Madras High Court judgment which held that mere storage of child pornographic material without any intention to transmit the same was not an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), the Supreme Court on September 23 held that the storage of such material, without deleting or without reporting the same, would indicate an intention to transmit.
Observing that the High Court committed an "egregious error" in quashing the criminal proceedings, the bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala set aside the decision set it aside and restored the criminal prosecution.
The Supreme Court held that watching child pornography over the internet without downloading would also amount to "possession" of such material in terms of Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).
The Supreme Court held that neither unawareness of the law nor ignorance of law cannot be claimed as an excuse for storing or possessing child pornography in a plea taken by the accused that he was not aware of the fact that storing child pornography was a punishable offence under Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Court stated that a plea of unawareness of law can be a valid defence if it "consequently gives rise to a legitimate and bonafide mistake of fact as to the existence or non-existence of a particular right to claim".
UAPA | Timelines For Sanction Mandatory, Have To Be Strictly Followed : Supreme Court
Case Details: Fulleshwar Gope v. UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 729
"In matters of strict construction, when a timeline is provided, along with the use of the word 'shall' and particularly when the same is in the context of a law such as the UAPA, it cannot be considered a mere technicality or formality," the Supreme Court observed today.
A bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol made these observations in the context of the grant of sanctions under Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Rules 3 and 4 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 where divergent views have been found in the judgments of the High Courts.
The Supreme Court held that a sanction for prosecution under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) can be challenged on grounds such as the authority has not applied its mind or that the materials were not sufficient. However, such challenge by the accused must ideally be raised at the earliest opportunity.
The Court also noted that the UAPA does not have any provision like the CrPC or the Prevention of Corruption Act to save an invalid sanction/
Convict's Age During Crime, Family's Social & Criminal Background Relevant While Commuting Death Sentence : Supreme Court
Case Details: Rabbu @ Sarvesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 449-450 of 2019
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 730
The Supreme Court observed that the age of the convict at the time of the commission of an offence would be of relevance along with other mitigating circumstances while commuting the sentence of the death penalty.
Upon noting that the convict was of the age of 22 years at the time of the commission of the offence and came from a socio-economic backward stratum of the society, where he along with his family members does not have a criminal background, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan provided relief to him by commuting his death sentence to that of fixed life imprisonment of 20 years.
Can't Convict One Accused & Acquit Another When Similar Evidence Was Pitted Against Them : Supreme Court
Case Details: Yogarani v. State By Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 477/2017
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 731
The Supreme Court held that the court cannot convict one accused and acquit another when similar or identical evidence is pitted against two accused persons.
While holding so, the Court acquitted the accused/appellant after finding that other co-accused who were charged for similar offences had been acquitted of all the charges and no appeal had been filed challenging their acquittal.
Referring to Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v State of Gujarat 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 782, the Court observed, "The Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons."
Supreme Court Condemns CBI's 'Scandalous' Allegations Against West Bengal Courts
Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of West Bengal & Ors. | Diary No. 51357 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 732
The Supreme Court castigated the Central Bureau of Investigation for making "scandalous allegations" against the Courts in West Bengal while seeking transfer of the trial of the post-poll violence cases out of the State.
Following the strong criticism by the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal, Additional Solicitor General of India SV Raju chose to withdraw the transfer petition.
"Mr. Raju what kind of grounds are taken in this? That all courts in West Bengal have hostile environment? Blanket averment that courts are illegally granting bail?. This is casting aspersions that the entire judiciary is under hostile environment," Justice Oka told ASG as soon as the matter was taken.
Supreme Court Warns Against Commenting on Court Orders While Accepting Telangana CM Revanth Reddy's Apology
Case Details: Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy and Ors v. State of Telangana and Ors., T.P.(Crl.) No. 152-153/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 733
While accepting the apology expressed by Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy for his comments about the order granting bail to K Kavitha, the Supreme Court cautioned that care should be exercised while making comments on Court's orders, even though fair criticism is welcomed.
The Court cautioned that all Constitutional functionaries should act within their respective wings, be it the legislature, executive or judiciary. Unnecessary comments will give rise to friction between the Constitutional authorities, the Court warned.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing a petition filed by BRS leader Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy seeking transfer of the trial of the case against Revanth Reddy over the 2015 cash-for-votes scam
Supreme Court Allows All Final Year Law Students to Take All India Bar Exam 2024
Case Details: Nilay Rai & Ors V Bar Council of India| W.P.(C)No 577 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 734
The Supreme Court has allowed final-year law students to appear in the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE) which is scheduled to take place on November 24.
The Court passed this interim order while hearing a petition challenging the decision to the Bar Council of India to exclude final year law students from registering for AIBE. The petitioners submitted that the BCI's decision was contrary to the Constitution Bench judgment in Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors as per which final year law students should be allowed to appear in the AIBE.
During the hearing before the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwal and Manoj Misra, the Bar Council of India submitted that they required time to frame rules regarding final year law students. The bench said that they can take time to frame rules, but should ensure that final year law students do not lose a year.
Strange Approach By HC : Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Dismissing FIR Quashing Petition As 'Infructuous' Due To Petitioner's Arrest
Case Details: Vidhu Gupta v. State of UP
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 735
The Supreme Court criticized a decision of the Allahabad High Court, which declared a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR as “infructuous” solely because the petitioner had been arrested.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal set aside the High Court's order that dismissed the petition without considering its merits.
In its order, the Supreme Court stated, “The High Court has adopted a very strange approach, to say the least. The prayer was for quashing of the First Information Report. It was the duty of the High Court to decide the petition on merits.”
'This Court Won't Shy Away From Acknowledging Its Mistakes' : Supreme Court Allows ED's Application To Recall Order
Case Details: Gagan Banga and another v. State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 736
The Supreme Court allowed an application filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to recall an earlier order which granted protection from coercive action to certain accused in a money laundering case till their petitions challenging the proceedings were finally disposed of by the High Court.
The ED sought the recall of the order, which was passed on July 4, 2023, on the ground that it was not heard before the same was passed. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Aravind Kumar noted that the ED was not actually heard when the order was passed as the application to implead the ED was allowed only on that day. As per the order passed on July 4, 2023, while disposing of the writ petitions asking the petitioners to approach the respective High Courts for relief, the Court also granted them protection from coercive action till the matter was finally disposed of by the High Court.
Courts Cannot Prepone Date of Hearing Without Giving Notice To Other Party: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ranjit Singh & Anr v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 737
The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of preponing the date of hearing without giving an opportunity of hearing to the defendant.
It was a case where the trial court proceeded ex-parte against the defendant on April 22, 2002, and fixed a date for ex-parte hearing on 30th May 2002. However, an application was made by the plaintiff to strike out the defence of the defendants on May 03, and on the same day, the court passed an order in favor of the plaintiff for striking out the defendants' defence without giving an opportunity of hearing to the defendant.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih observed that an error was committed to not providing an opportunity of hearing to the defendants while deciding an application for striking out their defence.
The Supreme Court observed that the failure of the defendant to file a written submission would not foreclose its right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses to prove the falsity of the plaintiff's case.
“Even if a defendant does not file a written statement and the suit is ordered to proceed ex parte against him, the limited defence available to the defendant is not foreclosed. A defendant can always cross-examine the witnesses examined by the plaintiff to prove the falsity of the plaintiff's case.”, the court said.
S. 34 Arbitration Act |Mere Violation of Law Won't Make Arbitral Award Invalid, Fundamental Policy of Law Must Be Violated : Supreme Court
Case Details: OPG Power Generation Pvt. Ltd. v. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Pvt Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 738
The Supreme Court explained the scope for judicial interference in arbitral awards under section 34 the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on the ground of violation of public policy, highlighting that it is very limited, particularly after the 2015 amendment.
A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra observed that mere violation of law is not enough to interfere with an award, but it must conflict with the most fundamental aspects of public policy, justice.
“The expression “in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law” by use of the word 'fundamental' before the phrase 'policy of Indian law' makes the expression narrower in its application than the phrase “in contravention with the policy of Indian law”, which means mere contravention of law is not enough to make an award vulnerable. To bring the contravention within the fold of fundamental policy of Indian law, the award must contravene all or any of such fundamental principles that provide a basis for administration of justice and enforcement of law in this country.”
Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Principles On Amendment of Plaint: Supreme Court Explains
Case Details: Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors., C.A. No. 010812 / 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 739
The Supreme Court observed that by way of an amendment to the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the plaintiff can introduce certain aspects that are necessary to determine the issues between the parties.
The bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol heard a matter where the defendant objected to the plaintiff's application seeking an amendment to the plaint. The dispute pertains to the succession of the property by way of a 'Will'.
Long Custody Will Enure To Benefit of Accused For Bail When Delay In Trial Isn't His Fault : Supreme Court Grants Bail In PMLA Case
Case Details: Modh. Enamul Haque v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No.11129/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 740
Observing that continued incarceration will enure to the benefit of the accused who is not responsible for the delay in trial, the Supreme Court granted bail to an accused in a money laundering case related to cattle smuggling across India-Bangladesh border.
"..a continued incarceration where the appellant is not entirely at fault for the completion of trial due to a prolonged delay, would enure to his benefit for the purpose of granting bail," observed the Court granting bail to one Mohd. Enamul Haque under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar considered parity with other co-accused who have been granted bail, the period of incarceration underwent and the unlikelihood of the trial in the alleged cattle smuggling case.
Agreement For Sale Conveying Possession Must Be Stamped As 'Conveyance' Under Maharashtra Stampt Act : Supreme Court
Case Details: Shyamsundar Radheshyam Agrawal & Anr. v. Pushpabai Nilkanth Patil & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 10804 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 741
The Supreme Court has observed that when an agreement for sale consists a clause to hand over possession of the property, then it has to be treated as "conveyance" for the purpose of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. Therefore, the liability to pay stamp duty will arise at the time of the execution of such an agreement for sale.
The fact that a sale deed was ultimately executed in pursuance of the agreement for sale and that stamp duty was paid on such sale deed will not absolve the primary liability of paying the appropriate stamp duty at the time of execution of the sale agreement. Because, in such a case, the agreement for sale is the principal document, the Court stated, referring to Explanation 1 to Article 25 of Schedule-I of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.
"The above Explanation I makes it lucid that an agreement for sale is to be treated as a “conveyance” if either possession is handed over immediately or if it is agreed to be handed over within a particular time. A reading of the above Explanation I along with Section 4 makes it clear that the duty is levied only on the instrument and not on the transaction," the Court observed.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan decided the matter.
Mere Grant of Prosecution Sanction Against Central Govt Employee Not Reason To Put DPC Recommendations In Sealed Cover : Supreme Court
Case Details: Union of India v. Doly Loyi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 742
The Supreme Court held that the mere grant of prosecution sanction against a Central Government employee is not a reason to put the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in a sealed cover.
The Court stated that by the mere grant of prosecution sanction, it cannot be said that the prosecution for a criminal charge so as to adopt the sealed cover procedure regarding DPC recommendations.
A bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and R Mahadevan held so while dismissing the Union of India's appeal against the judgments of the Delhi High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal which held that there was no justification to keep the DPC recommendations against the respondent in a sealed cover.
Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Judgment That Directed HMT & Union To Return Land Acquired By Them In Bengaluru
Case Details: HMT Ltd. v. Smt. Rukmini and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 743
The Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the Karnataka High Court which directed HMT Ltd. and Union of India to either return land in Bangalore's Jarakabande Kaval village to heirs of a previous owner from whom it was requisitioned in 1941 or to compensate them by paying the present market value.
The Court noted that the writ petition filed in the Karnataka High Court in 2006 was barred by delay and laches. The Court also noted that the petitioner had suppressed several crucial facts.
“A plea of delay and laches would not be merely technical when facts are in dispute as, over time, evidence may dissipate and materials, including Government files, may become increasingly difficult to trace. Further, individuals with knowledge of the case may move on or become unavailable. The situation is exacerbated for Government servants, as they face transfers and superannuation. Further, such deserving dismissals on delay and laches serve a larger purpose, as time would not be spent unnecessarily on stale and nebulous disputes, enabling Courts/Tribunals to deal with and decide active pressing cases”, a bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar held.
Consumer Protection | Right To File Written Statement Couldn't Be Foreclosed If Complaint's Copy Wasn't Supplied To Opposite Party : Supreme Court
Case Details: Ricardo Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravi Kuckian & Others, Civil Appeal No. 9958 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 744
In a consumer case, the Supreme Court permitted the opposite party to file a written statement in the consumer complaint after the expiry of the statutory time limit because a copy of the complaint was not served to him.
It was a case where the appellant was denied the right to file a written statement in response to the consumer complaint. The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) foreclosed the appellant's right to file a written statement on the ground that it failed to file a written statement within the stipulated time limit as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The appellant preferred an instant appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the NCDRC's order.
Before the Supreme Court, it was contended by the appellant that the right to file a written statement was wrongly foreclosed by the NCDRC. It added that since no copy of the complaint was furnished by the complainant's counsel to the appellant's counsel therefore it would not be possible to file a written statement.
Accepting the appellant's contention, the bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal set aside the NCDRC's order and observed that along with recording the acceptance of the notice by the defendant's counsel and the time granted to file a written statement, the order should also record that copy of the complaint has been supplied by the counsel for the complainants to the counsel for the opposite party.
Domestic Violence Act | S. 25(2) Can Be Invoked Only Based On Change In Circumstances Which Occurred After S.12 Order Was Passed : Supreme Court
Case Details: S Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari C
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 745
The Supreme Court held that alteration/modification/revocation of an order passed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) can be sought through Section 25(2) only on the basis of change of circumstances which took place subsequent to the passing of the order.
"..for the invocation of Section 25(2) of the Act, there must be a change in the circumstances after the order being passed under the Act," the Court stated.
"Any alteration, modification or revocation of an order passed under Section 12 of the Act owing to a change in circumstances could only be for a period ex post facto, i.e., post the period of an order being made in a petition under Section 12 of the Act and not to a period prior thereto. Thus, such an application for alteration, modification or revocation filed under sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act cannot relate to any period prior to the order being passed, inter alia, under Section 12 of the Act,” observed a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh.
The Supreme Court observed that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is applicable to every woman in India irrespective of her religious affiliation.
"The Act is a piece of Civil Code which is applicable to every woman in India irrespective of her religious affiliation and/or social background for a more effective protection of her rights guaranteed under the Constitution and in order to protect women victims of domestic violence occurring in a domestic relationship," observed the Court.
The Supreme Court explained when Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be invoked to seek the alteration, modification or revocation of an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Act.
The bench observed that the scope of Section 25(2) of the Act is broad enough to deal with all nature of orders passed under the Act, which may include orders of maintenance, residence, protection, etc.
The Magistrate while exercising his discretion under Section 25(2) of the Act has to be satisfied that a change in the circumstances has occurred, requiring to pass an order of alteration, modification or revocation.
'Highly Objectionable': Supreme Court Criticises Patna HC Remark That Widow Has No Use of Make-up
Case Details: Vijay Singh@Vijay Kr. Sharma v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 1031 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 746
The Supreme Court held that the sweeping remarks made by the Patna High Court that a widow does not need to wear make-up are highly questionable.
In this case, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal by seven accused persons convicted by the Trial Court and then by the Patna High Court in the abduction and murder of a woman over a dispute for property. The Court acquitted all seven persons on grounds that the prosecution's version of the story was highly untenable.
The Supreme Court set aside the order of conviction and sentence of seven accused persons for the offence of the abduction and murder of a lady to forcefully obtain possession of the house belonging to her father which was a matter of pending litigation.
A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma held that the prosecution is full of glaring about the offence of abduction. Whereas, for the offence of murder which was entirely dependent on circumstantial evidence, it cannot be termed as proved in the eyes of the law as the circumstantial evidence failed to meet the test of proof.
Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Police Officers' Convictions In Decades-Old Custodial Death Case
Case Details: Manik and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 747
The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in an appeal by police officers convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and other offences in a decades-old custodial death case for alleged torture and death of a man in police custody in December 1995.
A bench of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar delivered a split verdict, particularly on the issue of conviction of the accused under section 304 Part II IPC. The two judges disagreed on the following aspect, as explained by Justice Kumar –
“This is the major point of divergence between our views. My learned brother has acted upon the premise that once the dead body is said to have been traced and it is, then, not proved to be of that person, it would be fatal to the case of the prosecution. Permitting this premise to gain acceptance would mean that those in the police organization, who resort to such nefarious methods, can take this easy way out to ward off a finding of guilt. When sufficient evidence is available to conclude that Shama was in no position to escape from the custody of the appellants, the inevitable corollary that follows is that he died due to their torture while in their custody.”
While Justice Ravikumar set aside the convictions under section 304 IPC, Justice Kumar acquitted them.
“It is high time that our legal system squarely faces the menace of police excesses and deals with it by putting in place an effective mechanism to obviate such inhuman practices”, Justice Kumar added.
Justice Ravikumar emphasised that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and cannot rely on the weakness of the defence's arguments. He noted that the burden on the defence to prove an alternate theory (such as escape of the deceased) is not as stringent as that on the prosecution, but only requires a preponderance of probabilities.
“There can be little doubt with respect to the position that a Court is not justified in deciding a case upon its own suspicions or suppositions after discarding the evidence adduced by Criminal the parties and that defence evidence is also to be appreciated in the same manner as it is to appreciate the prosecution evidence, but with the understanding that in the case of accused the standard of proof required is only preponderance of probabilities”, he said.
“In Noor Aga's case, this Court observed and held that superficially a case might have an ugly look and thereby, prima facie, shaking the conscious of any court. But it is well settled that suspicion, however high it might be, could under no circumstances be held to be substitute for legal evidence”, he highlighted.
S. 464 CrPC | Conviction Can't Be Challenged Based On Conversion of Charges Unless 'Failure of Justice' Is Proved : Supreme Court
Case Details: Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo and Ors. v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 2012
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 748
The Supreme Court observed that to challenge the conviction based on the alteration of charges, the accused must demonstrate that substantial 'failure of justice' is caused to them by such conversion of charges.
The Court held so while upholding the conviction of the appellants in a murder case where they were initially charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC (Common Object) but convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC (Common Intention).
The appellants assailed their conviction on the ground that the High Court did not dwell upon the distinction between common object and common intention while converting the appellants' conviction under section 302 IPC read with section 149 IPC to section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC.
Limiting Candidates For Interview Necessary To Enhance Efficiency & Transparency of Selection Process : Supreme Court
Case Details: Sukhmander Singh and Ors Etc. v. State of Punjab and Ors Etc., Civil Appeal Nos. 1511-1513/2021
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 749
Citing the lack of transparency and irregularities adopted in shortlisting the candidates for the interview stage, the Supreme Court directed the Punjab School Education Board (PSEB) to commence the fresh selection process of the Laboratory Attendants from the stage of written test.
The bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti set aside the High Court's Division Bench decision which had approved PSEB's decision to invite candidates 63 times the number of vacancies for the interview.
The Court ordered that the candidates to the extent of five times the number of vacancies should be shortlisted to participate in the next segment of the test i.e., interview.
Requirement of Expeditious Trial Must Be Read Into Special Statutes Imposing Stringent Bail Provisions : Supreme Court
Case Details: V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 750
The Supreme Court while granting bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji, held that higher thresholds for granting bail in stringent penal statutes like the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act cannot be a tool to keep an accused incarcerated without trial.
A bench on Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih emphasized the incompatibility of stringent bail provisions with prolonged delays in trial.
“The expeditious disposal of the trial is also warranted considering the higher threshold set for the grant of bail. Hence, the requirement of expeditious disposal of cases must be read into these statutes. Inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together. It is a well settled principle of our criminal jurisprudence that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.” These stringent provisions regarding the grant of bail, such as Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, cannot become a tool which can be used to incarcerate the accused without trial for an unreasonably long time”, the Court held.
'Technological Impediment Not Reason To Harass Assessee': Supreme Court Asks Income Tax Dept, CBDT To Resolve Software Issues
Case Details: Sunil Bakht v. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 751
Technological impediment cannot be a reason to harass an assessee, said the Supreme Court while asking the Income Tax Department to upgrade its software to ensure that mistakes do not occur in the future.
The Court directed that the Central Board for Direct Taxes should also take necessary steps for rectifying the software.
A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta was hearing an appeal filed by an assessee questioning the imposition of surcharge on Rs. 1.57 Crores and demanding Rs. 2.01 Crores for the Assessment Year 2022-23.
Supreme Court Quashes Manipur Police Notice To Trans Woman After She Expressed Regret For Comments Against Social Welfare Dept
Case Details: Thangjam Santa Singh @ Santa Khurai v. State of Manipur, W.P.(Crl.) No. 498/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 752
The Supreme Court quashed police summons issued to a transgender woman activist of Manipur, over her social media posts alleging misappropriation of transgender persons' welfare fund by the social welfare department.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, taking into account the fact that the petitioner-activist had joined investigation and even expressed regret regarding her statement. The Court recorded an undertaking that she would not make such remarks in future on any public platform or social media. If she has a grievance in future, she'd raise that before an appropriate forum.
'Abuse of Criminal Process, Vague Allegations' : Supreme Court Quashes Wife's S.498A Case Against In-Laws
Case Details: Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 4003/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 753
Observing that a criminal case cannot be allowed to proceed based on vague and obscure complaints, the Supreme Court quashed a criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code case against the in-laws of a complaint-wife. The Supreme Court reiterated that there is no prohibition against quashing criminal proceedings even after the charge sheet has been filed.
The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal held so while quashing the domestic cruelty case against the accused after noting that no new allegations were discovered against the accused even after filing the charge sheet as it remained the same as recorded in the First Information Report.
S. 37 Arbitration Act | An Award Can't Be Set Aside Merely Because Appellate Court's View Is A Better View : Supreme Court
Case Details: Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited & Anr. v. M/S Sanman Rice Mills & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 754
The Supreme Court observed that unless the arbitral award suffers from the illegality mentioned under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), no award can be interfered with or set aside by the Appellate Courts under Section 37 of the Act.
The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal observed that the award cannot be set aside merely for the reason that the view of the Appellate Court is a better view than the one taken by the arbitral tribunal. The award as such cannot be touched unless it is contrary to the substantive provision of law; any provision of the Act or the terms of the agreement, the bench added.
'Agreement of Sale A Sheer Piece of Fraud & Concoction' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Decree For Specific Performance
Case Details: Lakha Singh v. Balwinder Singh & Anr., C.A. No. 010893 / 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 755
The Supreme Court reversed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court which had validated the sale agreement transcribed on one of the blank stamp papers on which the thumb impression of the defendant (illiterate) had been taken before its transcription.
From the facts, the Court inferred that the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant may have been taken on a blank stamp paper and the disputed agreement was typed thereon subsequently.
The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta observed that such a practice of the plaintiff to take the signature of the defendant on the blank paper before the transcription of the agreement is nothing but a "sheer piece of fraud and concoction."
Preserve Answer Scripts Till Selection Process Is Complete To Obviate Allegations of Wrong-Doing: Supreme Court
Case Details: Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. State of Manipur & Ors., SLP (C) NO. 15482 of 2016
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 756
In a matter pertaining to recruitment of primary teachers in Manipur, the Supreme Court observed that when recruitment for public posts is being done, authorities shall preserve answer scripts of candidates until the process is complete, to obviate any allegations of wrong-doing.
"When recruitment for public posts is being made by the State, the preservation of the answer scripts till reasonable time after the final declaration of result is the prudent course to adopt....we expect all concerned to be mindful of their responsibility in future recruitments, to preserve the answer scripts till the selection process is successfully completed, to obviate similar such allegation of wrong doings", it said.
In terms of a judgment by the Manipur High Court, a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti ordered for a revised select list of candidates to be drawn in 4 weeks, based on merit, which shall include all similarly situated persons - even those candidates who participated in the recruitment process but did not litigate to secure appointment.
Orders
Supreme Court Rejects Kerala District Judges' Plea Against HC Collegium Elevation Decision
Case Details: Saidalavi PP v. High Court Kerala At Ernakulam
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by two District Judges from Kerala against the Kerala High Court collegium not considering their names for elevation as judges of the High Court.
A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti expressed displeasure at the petition filed by District Judges PP Saidalavi and KT Nizar Ahamad.
Supreme Court to Create Pan-India Guidelines on 'Bulldozer Actions,' Asserts Houses Can't Be Demolished Solely Based on Accusations
Case Details: Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 (and connected matters)
The Supreme Court on Monday (September 2) expressed the intention to lay down pan-India guidelines to address the concerns that authorities in several States are resorting to the demolition of houses of persons accused of crimes as a punitive action.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, hearing a batch of petitions challenging the "bulldozer actions" in various States, asked the parties to submit draft suggestions which can be considered by the Court to frame the pan-India guidelines. The proposals are to be submitted to Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi, who has been asked to collate them and present to the Court.
RG Kar Protests: Supreme Court Rejects West Bengal Govt's Appeal on HC Releasing Student Leader
Case Details: State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Anjali Lahiri and Anr. SLP(Crl) No. 11938/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge by the State of West Bengal against the bail granted to student leader Sayan Lahiri in relation to the protests over RG Kar Hospital Rape-Murder.
The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing West Bengal's challenge against the Calcutta High Court order directing the release of Sayan Lahiri the alleged leader of the 'Paschim Banga Chhatra Samaj', an organization which led a call for protests and march towards the State secretariat in Nabanna.
Supreme Court Directs Union to File Affidavit on Ration Card Compliance for Migrant Workers
Case Details: In Re Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers MA 94/2022 In SMW(C) No. 6/2020
The Supreme Court directed the Additional Solicitor General, Aishwarya Bhati to file a comprehensive affidavit on behalf of the Union of India on whether the directions passed by the court in suo moto proceedings on granting ration cards to migrant workers and unskilled labourers and the subsequent passed orders have been complied with.
Supreme Court Ruling on West Bengal VC Appointments: Experts Known to Applicants Excluded from Selection Committee
Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023
In the dispute pending between the West Bengal government and Governor CV Anand Bose regarding appointment of Vice-Chancellors (VCs) to Universities, the Supreme Court directed that two experts known to an applicant for the VC-post shall not be part of the Selection Committee when his application is considered.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order on an interim application filed by one Dr. Indrajit Lahiri (an applicant for the VC-post for 36 Universities), wherein he stated fairly that two of the experts constituting the Committee knew him well and the same could lead to a presumption of bias.
Justice Kant dictated the order thus: "He (applicant) has fairly pointed out that two experts namely...are close to him, and that respondent No.34 has also worked under them. He has pointed out that there may be a presumption of bias by others...it is clarified that [the two named experts] will not be there in the Search-cum-Selection Committee at the time of consideration of candidature of Dr. Indrajit Lahiri".
Supreme Court Notice on RJD Leader Ram Bali Singh's Plea Against Expulsion from Bihar Legislative Council
Case Details: Ram Bali Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council, Patna, SLP(C) No. 016760/ 2024
The Supreme Court issued notice on RJD leader Ram Bali Singh's plea challenging his expulsion from the Bihar Legislative Council over statements against state policies while his party formed the government.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order. The matter is next listed for consideration on October 25.
Supreme Court Seeks Report From Madras HC After CBI's Claim That Detailed Order Was Uploaded After Judge's Retirement
Case Details: State through the Inspector of Police CBI/ACB/Chennai v. S. Murali Mohan
The Supreme Court directed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to submit a report following CBI's claim that the HC passed a single-line order in a case, and the detailed order was not made available till the judge demitted office.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by the CBI challenging an order of the HC Single-Judge Justice T. Mathivanan quashing a corruption case against an IRS officer.
The Supreme Court directed the Registrar General of the Madras HC to provide the following information:
1. The date on which the detailed judgment was received by the Registry from the judge's office.
2. The date when the detailed judgment was uploaded.
3. Whether there was any administrative direction from the Chief Justice of the HC for a de novo hearing of nine cases that were heard by the judge, and whether the case that is the subject matter of the current SLP is included among those cases.
'If Canada Willing To Take Him, You Shouldn't Object' : Supreme Court To Union On Plea of Myanmar National Detained In India Since 2012
Case Details: Abdul Rashid v. State of Manipur and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 178/2024
The Supreme Court sought Union government's response in a plea filed by a detained Myanmar national, claiming that Canada is willing to take him in as a refugee, but the process is stuck as he is detained in a Manipur detention centre since 2012.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati (for Ministry of Home Affairs) to obtain instructions, expressing that under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the authorities should not object if Canada is willing to take in the petitioner as a refugee.
The order was dictated by Justice Gavai as follows: "A perusal of the paper book would reveal that the High Commission of Canada has accepted the present petitioner as a refugee for resettlement to Canada. We request the ld. ASG to take instructions as to what is the impediment in sending the petitioner to Canada when the High Commission of Canada has approved the same."
Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Space Allotted To Senior Advocates Council At Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Details: Senior Advocates Council v. Amit Patel and Ors Diary No. 24091-2024
The Supreme Court ordered status quo on the allotment of space for the Senior Advocates Council at the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the interim order while issuing notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by the Senior Advocates Council challenging the High Court's judgment which resulted in the cancellation of the allotment of space to them.
MP High Court Tells Supreme Court That It Has Reinstated 4 Out of 6 Women Judges Whose Services Were Terminated
Case Details: In Re: Termination of Civil Judge, Class-II (Jr. Division) Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Service, SMW(C) No. 2/2023
The Supreme Court heard the suo motu writ petition registered regarding the simultaneous termination of services of 6 female civil judges in Madhya Pradesh.
The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh was informed that the full court bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reconsidered the terminations of the 6 officers and has agreed to re-instate 4 out of the 6 of them. The bench at the outset appreciated that the High Court gave due regard to its earlier request of reconsideration of the terminations.
'Lawyers' Strike Gross Contempt' : Supreme Court Comes Down On Faizabad Bar Association Over Resolutions To Abstain From Work
Case Details: Faizabad Bar Association v. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 19804-19805/2024
Expressing serious displeasure at the Faizabad District Association, Uttar Pradesh for allegedly calling strikes and abstaining from judicial work, the Supreme Court yesterday called on its officer bearers to file an affidavit, undertaking that they shall never pass any such resolution in future.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the Association's plea against an Allahabad High Court judgment, whereby an Elders Committee was constituted to take over its affairs and ensure that the elections to its Governing Council were held by December 2024.
After hearing the submissions, the Court ordered:
"...every office bearer of the petitioner – Bar Association will file an undertaking by way of an affidavit before the District Judge, High Court and this Court that they shall never ever pass any resolution for abstaining from work and if there is any grievance of the Members of the Bar Association, they shall approach the District Judge or if need be the Administrative Judge/portfolio Judge of the High Court, for redressal of their grievances".
Supreme Court Stays Gujarat HC Order Refusing Apology Published By 'Times of India' For Wrong Reporting
Case Details: Bennett, Coleman and Co. Ltd. v. The Registrar High Court of Gujarat, Diary No. 40230-2024
The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Gujarat High Court which directed the 'Times of India' newspaper to publish a fresh apology for wrong reporting of a Court hearing.
A Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and VK Viswanathan was hearing a petition filed by Bennet, Coleman and Co Ltd (the company which owns and publishes the Times of India) against the order passed by the High Court on September 2.
While granting leave on the petition to the Registrar General of the High Court, the bench directed that the impugned order will remain stayed.
The Supreme Court however clarified that the main proceedings in the High Court relating to the amendments to the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act will continue.
Supreme Court Puts On Hold Enforcement of Order On Marking Advocate Presence For A Week
Case Details: Baidya Nath Choudhary v. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh
The Supreme Court put on hold its order that only the presence of advocates who are either present or assisting in court proceedings will be marked.
The Court allowed the exemption after Supreme Court Bar Association President Kapil Sibal sought time to streamline the issue.
After Sibal's request, the bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal said that the directions won't be given effect to for one week. The issue was mentioned before the bench by SCBA Vice President Ranjana Srivastava. President of Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) Vipin Nair represented the SCAORA.
'We Are Not In Feudal Era' : Supreme Court Questions Uttarakhand CM On Rajaji National Park Director Appointment
Case Details: In Re: TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., WP.(C) No. 202/1995
The Supreme Court expressed displeasure at the decision of the Uttarakhand Chief Minister to appoint Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer Rahul (who uses his first name only) as Director of Rajaji Tiger Reserve overlooking the pending disciplinary proceedings and the adverse reports against him.
The Court was hearing the issue of illegal constructions and tree felling at the Jim Corbett National Park. During the hearing, the Court was informed that while departmental proceedings were pending against the IFS Officer, he was appointed to the post of Director at Rajaji National Park.
The bench led by Justice BR Gavai comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Misra and VK Viswanathan noted that the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) had objected to the posting of Chief Conservator of Forest Rahul to Rajaji National Park from Jim Corbett, yet the Chief Minister proceeded to allow the posting despite multiple recommendations by the Forest Ministry, Chief Secretary and CEC against it.
Supreme Court Dismisses Ex-RG Kar Hospital Principal Sandip Ghosh's Plea Against HC Order For CBI Probe Into Irregularities
Case Details: Sandip Ghosh v. State of West Bengal | Diary No. 38744-2024
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by ex-RG Kar Medical College Hospital Principal Sandip Ghosh challenging the Calcutta High Court's order transferring to the CBI the investigation of alleged financial irregularities by him.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra orally observed that an accused does not have the locus standi to be heard in a plea seeking the transfer of investigation.
Supreme Court Orders Release of Ex-Bhushan Steel MD Neeraj Singal In PMLA Case, Says ED Violated Law On Arrest
Case Details: Neeraj Singal v. Directorate of Enforcement, Diary No. 15175-2024
The Supreme Court ordered the release of former Managing Director of Bhushan Steel Limited-Neeraj Singal in a money laundering case. The order was passed citing Singal's long incarceration of about 16 months and the unlikelihood of completion of trial in a short span.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar was hearing Singal's challenge to his arrest and dismissal of bail by the Delhi High Court. He was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on June 9 last year, for alleged involvement in a bank fraud case coupled with the offence of money laundering.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Singal and argued that he has been in custody for about 16 months. It was further submitted that Singal's case was covered by the Pankaj Bansal judgment.
Supreme Court Stays HC Order Which Set Aside Discharge of TN Ministers KKSSR Ramachandran & Thangam Thenarasu In DA Case
Case Details: T. Thennarasu (A) Thangam Thennarasu v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors | SLP(Crl) No. 11664/2024
The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Madras High Court which set aside the discharge of Tamil Nadu Ministers KKSSR Ramachandran, Thangam Thenarasu and their spouses in disproportionate assets cases.
A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra passed the interim order while issuing notice on their special leave petitions.
Is There Any Prohibition On Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal Performing His Duties From Jail? Supreme Court Asks
Case Details: Harpreet Singh v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
The Supreme Court asked whether there was any restriction on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal performing his official duties from jail while hearing a plea related to a delay in deciding the remission of a convict.
During the hearing, the counsel for the Delhi Government told the bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih that the file cannot be forwarded to the Lieutenant Governor unless it is signed by the CM, who is currently jail in the alleged Delhi Liquor Policy scam.
Evening Courts & Virtual Hearings At District Level Matters of Policy, Can't Pass Uniform Directions : Supreme Court
Case Details: Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 497/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking provisions for virtual hearings at district courts as well as 'evening courts' at the district level.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra orally observed that uniform directions can't be issued across all district courts ignoring the complexities of administration.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Delhi HC Order On Interim Chairman of SCBA Multi-State Co-operative Group Housing Society
Case Details: Satish Pandey v. Supreme Court Bar Association Multi State Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. SLP(C) No. 20553/2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition by Satish Pandey, Chairman of the Supreme Court Bar Association(SCBA) Multi-State Co-operative Group Housing Society, challenging the order of the Delhi Court to appoint an interim Chairman amidst the ongoing internal conflict between Pandey and the Board of Directors.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the challenge to the order of the Delhi High Court which directed the appointment of an interim chairman for the Group Housing Society under the supervision of Senior Advocate Dr. S Murlidhar .
'Cricketers Can Take Care Themselves' : Supreme Court Dismisses Advocate's Plea For Facilities At Mumbai Cricket Grounds
Case Details: Rahul Rajendraprasad Tiwari v. Mumbai Cricket Association
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by a practicing advocate seeking the provision of toilets and other facilities at various cricket grounds in Mumbai.
The petitioner challenged the Bombay High Court order refusing to grant relief in his PIL. The PIL sought directions to the Mumbai Cricket Association and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to provide basic amenities such as clean drinking water and toilets for players, especially women, during practice matches and unofficial games held on public grounds.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih concurred with the HC's reasoning that there is no reason why the players cannot seek redressal of their grievance on their own.
Supreme Court Seeks Report From Madras High Court On Rehearing And Reserving Judgment In Previously Allowed Quashing Petition
Case Details: MS Jaffar Sait v. Directorate of Enforcement
The Supreme Court sought a report from the Madras High Court after being told that the HC reheard a case and reserved judgment despite having already allowed the petition earlier.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra for the petitioner informed the bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih that the HC had initially quashed the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) complaint on August 21, 2024. However, despite objections, the case was reheard, he said.
The Supreme Court issued notice returnable on September 30, 2024. The Court stayed all proceedings in the case before the HC and directed that no judgment be pronounced in the matter. The Court also directed the Registrar General of the HC to examine the case records and submit a sealed report, confirming whether the petition had been disposed of on August 21, 2024.
'Political Interest Litigation' : Supreme Court Rejects PIL For CBI Probe Against TV Channels For Alleged Manipulation of Exit Polls
Case Details: BL Jain v. Union of India and Ors. Diary No. 26323-2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking probe against several media houses for broadcasting exit polls and allegedly misleading the stock market investors.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra refused to entertain the PIL terming it to be a 'Political Interest Litigation'.
Supreme Court Directs Project Proponents Who Obtained Tree Felling Permissions To Submit Data On Compensatory Afforestation
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court directed the Centrally Empowered Committee to call upon various project proponents that have received tree felling permissions from the Court to upload data on compliance with Court conditions regarding compensatory efforts.
The Court stated it will initiate contempt proceedings against those project proponents who fail to upload the data on CMIS within three months of receipt of notice from the CEC.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Rating of GST Payers
Case Details: Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 533/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to the Union to formulate and implement a centralized rating mechanism of taxpayers under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (CGST Act).
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra refused to entertain the PIL since such a relief would fall outside the scope of the Writ Jurisdiction.
Supreme Court Directs NEERI To Define And Classify Non-Polluting Industries With Assistance From CPCB And Experts
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court directed the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) to define and classify non-polluting industries with the assistance of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and consultation with relevant experts.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih highlighted the critical nature of the task and directed NEERI to call meetings with all stakeholders involved. The Court ordered NEERI to submit a preliminary report by October 3, 2024, setting out the outer limit for completion of the task. The court kept the matter on October 4, 2024.
Supreme Court Issues Notice To Jharkhand Chief Secretary In Contempt Plea Against Appointment of Acting DGP
Case Details: Naresh Makani v. Lalbiaktluanga Khiangte & Ors. Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No.35226/2024
The Supreme Court sought the response of the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand in a contempt petition challenging the appointment of IPS Anurag Gupta as the Acting Director General of Police (DGP) to be violative of the decision in Prakash Singh v. Union of India.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued notice in the contempt petition and sought responses from the State's Chief Secretary as well as the Acting DGP within two weeks. The Court however dispensed the requirement of physical presence of the respondents.
PMLA | Is Accused Entitled To Documents Which Prosecution Isn't Relying Upon In Trial? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment
Case Details: Sarla Gupta and Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the issue of entitlement of accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to get seized documents that the prosecution does not rely on before the commencement of trial.
This issue emerged in an appeal against a Delhi High Court judgment, which held that the prosecution is not obligated to provide such documents at the pre-trial stage.
During the hearing, a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice AG Masih questioned whether withholding "clinching" documents in the favour of an accused would violate the right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On CBI's Challenge To HC Order Declaring Arrest of Chanda Kochhar, Husband Illegal
Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Chanda Kochhar and Anr., Diary No. 24077-2024
The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against grant of bail to ex-ICICI Bank CEO and MD Chanda Kochhar and her husband (Deepak Kochhar) in the ICICI Bank-Videocon Loan Fraud case.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar passed the order upon hearing Additional Solicitor General SV Raju (for CBI), who raised objections to the High Court order, insofar as it also declared the Kochhars' arrest "illegal" calling it an "abuse of power".
RG Kar Case: Supreme Court Demands Postmortem 'Challan' From West Bengal Police
Case Details: In Re : Alleged Rape and Murder of Trainee Doctor in RG Kar Medical College Hospital, Kolkata and related issues | SMW(Crl) 2/2024
The Supreme Court while hearing the Suo Motu case taken on the rape and murder of a doctor of the RG Kar Medical College Hospital at Kolkata, asked the State of West Bengal to produce the challan which was sent along with the dead body for post-mortem. The challan would have entries regarding the articles and materials sent along with the body for autopsy, the Court noted.
Supreme Court Accepts Maharashtra IAS Officer's Apology for Court Affidavit Controversy
Case Details: In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995
The Supreme Court discharged the contempt notice issued to Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue and Forest Department), Maharashtra government, taking exception to certain statements in an affidavit filed by him which suggested that the Court was not following the law.
On being apprised that the affidavit in question was finalized by various persons, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was of the view that guilt could not be fastened on the Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue and Forest Department) alone. Accordingly, the contempt notice was discharged.
Supreme Court Fines Petitioner Rs. 10k for Suppressing Facts in Remission Plea
Case Details: Sunil Nayak @ Fundi v. State (NCT of Delhi), SLP (Crl) No. 10648.
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on a petitioner for seeking remission by suppressing facts.
A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih told the advocate that false statements have been pleaded in this case.
The accused in this case sought remission against his conviction for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was awarded rigorous imprisonment for life by the Trial Court. He had sought a grant of parole on the grounds that there was a medical emergency in the family. However, it was rejected on February 28.
In this, the SLP states that the Miscellaneous Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Delhi High Court seeking interim relief against conviction. However, the court perusing the SLP found that the M.A was not dismissed but withdrawn.
Supreme Court Stays Allahabad HC's Order for Fresh Candidates List in 69K UP Assistant Teachers Recruitment
Case Details: Ravi Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. Diary No. - 38554/2024
The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Allahabad High Court directing the redrawing of recruitment list of candidates to fill up 69,000 vacancies to the post of Assistant Teacher in Uttar Pradesh.
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra while issuing notice in the matter, directed a stay on the decision of the Allahabad High Court.
Supreme Court Grants Relief to Litigant Over Land Illegally Occupied by State 60 Years Ago
Case Details: In Re: TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., WP (C) No. 202/1995
Pursuant to the intervention of the Supreme Court, a litigant whose land was illegally occupied by Maharashtra authorities 60 years ago got relief in the form of alternate land.
The matter was before a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, which directed the state authorities to deliver peaceful and vacant possession of the alternate land (agreed to be accepted by the aggrieved applicant) as compensation.
Supreme Court Criticizes UP Officials for Blaming Lawyers in Remission Delay | Demands Chief Secretary's Affidavit
Case Details: Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 134/2022
The Supreme Court issued notice to the former Principal Secretary of the Prison Administration and Reforms Department of Uttar Pradesh asking him to show cause why proceedings for criminal contempt and perjury should not be initiated against him for filing a false affidavit to explain the delay in considering a remission application.
The Court also asked the Chief Secretary of the State Government to file a personal affidavit to explain the conduct of the State and its officers for delaying the file. The Court also recorded its dissatisfaction that the officers attempted to shift the blame on the advocates appearing for the State.
Supreme Court Seeks Clarity on Deportation of 211 Foreign Nationals in Assam From Centre & Assam Govt
Case Details: Rajubala Das v. UOI & Anr, WP (Crl.) No. 234/2020
The Supreme Court sought a response from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the Assam State Government in what manner the 211 declared foreign nationals detained in a transit camp in Matia, Goalpara district of Assam will be deported.
The Court has also sought a reply from the Assam Government on a report of the Assam District Legal Services Authority concerning 211 declared foreign nationals out of which 66 are from Bangladesh.
A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih was hearing a petition pertaining to the conditions of the detention centres in Assam. On July 26, it flagged that the conditions of the detention centres are 'deplorable' and termed it a 'sorry state of affairs' because there is no adequate water supply, proper sanitation system toilets etc.
'Scorpion On Shivling' A Metaphor, Why Should Somebody Object?' : Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Tharoor For Remark On Modi
Case Details: Shashi Tharoor v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 12360/2024
The Supreme Court stayed the proceedings in the criminal defamation complaint against Congress MP Shashi Tharoor over a "scorpion sitting on a Shivling" remark made about Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2018.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and R Mahadevan was hearing Tharoor's challenge to a Delhi High Court order of August 29, whereby his plea for quashing the defamation case was rejected.
HC's Findings Against ED Arrest Insignificant In View of 'RK Arora' Judgment, Says Supreme Court While Upholding Bail of PMLA Accused
Case Details: Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement v. Dilip Kumar Ghosh@Dilip Ghosh, SLP(Crl) No. 275/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the order of the Jharkhand High Court granting bail to one Dilip Kumar Ghosh@Dilip Ghosh in an alleged money laundering case.
As per the brief allegations, a property was purchased from one Pradeep Bagchi by Dilip Ghosh on behalf of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., of which he is the Director. The property in question is alleged to be the subject matter in ongoing litigation with the Indian Army in terms of its possession. It was brought at a negotiated price of Rs.7.00 crore as against the prevailing value of over Rs.20 crores.
A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma considered that the charges against Dilip and other co-accused have been framed by the Special Court and that the respondent has complied with all the conditions imposed by the High Court.
Based on this, the court held: "Under the circumstances, without expressing any opinions on the merits of the case, rather clarifying that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court shall not be cited as a precedent in case of other coaccused, and any of the observations made therein, shall not influence the Trial Court/ Special Court during the course of trial, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. However, the Special Court/ Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial."
Further, the Court stated that the observations of the High Court against the ED's arrest based on Pankaj Bansal's judgment "have paled into insignificance" in view of the Ram Kishor. Arora v. ED (2023). While in the Pankaj Bansal judgment, the Supreme Court held that the grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing at the time of arrest, the latter judgment says the accused could be orally 'informed' of the grounds of arrest which may be furnished in writing within 24 hours of arrest. Ram Kishor also stated that the judgment in Pankaj Bansal won't apply retrospectively.
The Court's order states: "Further, it may be noted that in view of the subsequent judgment passed by this Court in Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 2023 (SCC Online SC 1682), the observations made in the paragraph nos. 14- 16 and 18 of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, have failed to paled into insignificance."
Supreme Court Dismisses Ex-Punjab DGP Sumedh Singh Saini's Plea To Quash FIR In Multani Murder Case
Case Details: Sumedh Singh Saini v. State of Punjab and Ors, Diary No. 19730-2020
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by former Director General of Police, Punjab, Sumeth Singh Saini challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court refusing to quash an F.I.R. lodged against him in the Multani murder case.
In 1991, during the Punjab militancy, one Balwant Singh Multani (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was killed allegedly due to custodial torture.
Judgment On Govt Employees' Entitlement To Increment Earned A Day Before Retirement : Supreme Court Clarifies Date of Application
Case Details: Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj
The Supreme Court passed an interim order making certain important clarifications regarding the application of its judgment in the case The Director (Admn and HR) KPTCL & Others vs CP Mundinamani and others which held that government employees are entitled to the increment which they earned on the previous day of their retirement.
Rejection of Remission Must Be Immediately Conveyed To Prisoners To Enable Them To Seek Legal Aid : Supreme Court
Case Details: In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021
The Supreme Court heard the suo moto plea instituted to issue a comprehensive policy strategy for the grant of bail to prisoners. The Court while taking notice of the list of States that were asked for compliance reports, issued further directions for States that are yet to comply with the orders. It also noted that the rejection of the remission application must be immediately informed to the prisoner.
Haldwani Evictions | Supreme Court Gives 2 Months To Uttarakhand To Come Up With Rehabilitation Scheme For Persons To Be Evicted
Case Details: Abdul Mateen Siddiqui v. Union of India and Ors. Diary No. 289/2023 (and connected cases)
The Supreme Court gave 2 months' time to State of Uttarakhand to come up with a rehabilitation scheme for persons sought to be evicted by Railway authorities in Haldwani.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing an application filed by the Union of India/Railways seeking modification of the order staying the eviction of nearly 50,000 people, who have allegedly encroached upon railway properties in Haldwani.
Motor Accident Claims | Supreme Court To Examine Whether Victim Can Seek Compensation Under Both Sections 166 & 163A MV Act
Case Details: UP State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. v. Jai Prakash & Anr.
The Supreme Court is set to examine whether a victim can file for compensation under both Section 166 and Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Section 166 permits the claimant to seek compensation based on proving fault or negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, while Section 163A allows for no-fault liability, meaning the claimant is not required to prove any wrongful act, neglect, or default by the vehicle owner or driver. Compensation under Section 163A is determined based on a structured formula provided in the Second Schedule of the Act.
Establishment of Gram Nyayalayas | Supreme Court Warns States/High Courts Which Haven't Filed Compliance Affidavits
Case Details: National Federation of Societies For Fast Justice and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1067/2019
In a public interest litigation seeking establishment and effectuation of Gram Nyayalayas in the country as per the mandate of Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, the Supreme Court issued a warning to states/UTs and High Courts which did not file affidavits (on the establishment and functioning of Gram Nyayalayas) pursuant to its last order.
"If the affidavits are not filed by the next date, we would be constrained to take a serious view of the matter", the Court said.
The bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan also appointed Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta and Advocate Suhasini to assist the Court in the matter.
Supreme Court Stays FIR Against Mother For Allegedly Making False Accusation of Father Sexually Abusing 3-Year-Old Child
Case Details: XXXX (Petitioner) v. XXXX & ANR.
The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Kerala High Court, which led to the lodging of an FIR against the mother for allegedly making a false case against the father of the child under the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences, 2012. The Supreme Court stayed the observations made by the High Court against the mother and stayed the proceedings in the FIR.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N.K. Singh was informed that pursuant to observations made by the single judge of Kerala High Court, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, in para '16' of the impugned order, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner (wife) under Section 22 of the POCSO read with Section 117 of the Kerala Police Act.
Supreme Court Stays NGT Order Restricting Number of Members In Dhol-Tasha-Zanj Troupes For Ganpati Visarjan In Pune
Case Details: Yuva Vadya Pathak Trust v. Kalyani Mandke & Ors.
The Supreme Court stayed the direction issued by the National Green Tribunal (Western Zone) Bench that the total number of Dhol+Tasha+Zanj members in each troupe during the Ganpati Visarjan Procession in Pune shall not exceed 30 in number.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed the interim order while issuing notice on an appeal filed against the NGT direction.
Delhi Bar Elections : Supreme Court Clarifies Stay Order, Says HC's 'One Member, One Post' Direction Stayed
Case Details: D.K. Sharma & Ors. v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors. Special Leave To Appeal (C) Nos.19941-19942/2024
The Supreme Court clarified that its stay order passed in the matter regarding the elections of the Bar Associations in Delhi. The Court clarified that its stay order is applicable to the Delhi High Court's direction that a member can only contest for posts in only Bar Association.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan clarified its earlier order passed on September 9, which directed a blanket stay of the High Court's directions passed on March 19. This meant that the other directions issued by the High Court, such as the elections to all Bar Associations in Delhi must be held on one day, were also stayed. Following this, the matter was mentioned before the bench for clarifications.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Declare Agra As 'World Heritage Site'
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court dismissed an application seeking to declare the city of Agra as a "World Heritage Site."
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih observed that the Court cannot pass any direction to declare any place as a heritage site.
"There is nothing placed on record to show that by declaring Agra as World Heritage Site there will be any special advantage to the city. Moreover, we don't think that this Court can grant a declaration as prayed that Agra is heritage site. Application is rejected," the bench observed in the order.
Supreme Court Seeks Data From States From 2015 Onward On Appeals Against Acquittals Under Prohibition of Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques For Sex Determination Rules
Case Details: Shobha Gupta and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 301/2022
The Supreme Court has sought a reply from States long with data from January 1, 2015 to till date indicating as to in how many cases of acquittal, appeal, revision or other proceedings have been filed by the appropriate authorities in the higher courts in response to a PIL claiming that States are violating the mandate provisions of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1966 by not filing mandatory appeals against other of acquittal.
The Court has observed that in case of is non-compliance of the order by State, it will take appropriate adverse actions.
Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection From Arrest To YSRCP Leaders In Cases Over Alleged Attack of TDP Office & Naidu's Residence
Case Details: Devineni Avinash v. State of Andhra Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 12659-12662/2024 & Jogi Ramesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh SLP(Crl) No. 12567/2024
The Supreme Court granted interim protection to YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) Vijayawada East coordinator Devineni Avinash after the Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected his anticipatory bail for allegedly ransacking the NTR Bhavan, the central office of ruling Telugu Desam Party, at Mangalagiri during YSRCP regime in October 2021.
The interim protection has also been granted to YSRCP members Lella Appi Reddy, Sri Talasila Raghuram and Oggu Gavaskar, who along with other members are accused of criminally trespassing into the office of TDP and attacking the members of the TDP.
The petitioners are accused under the offences 147, 148, 452, 427, 323, 506, 324 read with 149 and Sections 326, 307, 450, 380 read with 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah has also granted interim protection to former minister and MLA Jogi Ramesh in connection with the allegedly vandalising Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu's Undavalli residence along with other YSRCP members in 2021.
'Trial Not Likely To Conclude Soon In Actress Sexual Assault Case', Says Supreme Court Granting Bail To Main Accused Pulsar Suni
Case Details: Sunil NS v. State of Kerala
The Supreme Court on September 17 granted bail to Sunil NS, also known as Pulsar Suni, the main accused in the 2017 actress sexual assault case, after considering his long period of incarceration and the slow progress of the trial.
Suni, who has been in custody for more than seven and a half years, is accused of conspiring with Malayalam actor Dileep and others in the abduction and sexual assault of the actress in a moving vehicle near Kochi in February 2017.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal noted that as 268 prosecution witnesses have been examined and there are nine accused in the case, completing the trial, including the recording of statements of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, would take considerable time.
Supreme Court Asks Wikipedia To Remove Name of Victim In RG Kar Hospital Rape-Murder Case
Case Details: In Re : Alleged Rape and Murder of Trainee Doctor in RG Kar Medical College Hospital, Kolkata and related issues | SMW(Crl) 2/2024
The Supreme Court on September 17 directed Wikipedia to remove from its pages the name of the victim in the RG Kar Medical College Hospital rape-murder case.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwal and Manoj Misra passed the direction in the suo motu case taken by the Supreme Court over the crime.
Supreme Court Pauses 'Bulldozer Actions', Orders That No Demolition Should Take Place Without Its Permission,
Case Details: Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 (and connected matters)
The Supreme Court passed an interim order that no demolition should take place in the country without its permission.
The Court however clarified that this order won't be applicable to encroachments on public roads, footpaths, railway lines, or waterbodies.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed this direction in a batch of petitions accusing various state governments of demolishing the buildings of persons accused of crimes as a punitive measure. The Court posted the matters for next hearing on October 1.
Supreme Court Surprised Over DRT Adjourning Case Saying Its Officers Are Busy With Preparing Statements For Finance Ministry
Case Details: Superwhizz Professionals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court on September 17 expressed surprise over Vishakhapatnam Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) staff being occupied with preparing statements for the Finance Ministry.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal was informed that the DRT on September 12, 2024 adjourned a securitization application which has been reserved for orders stating that all the staff is busy in preparing a statement called by the Finance Ministry.
The Court directed the Presiding Officer of the DRT Vishakhapatnam to file a report in a sealed cover by September 30, 2024 detailing the Finance Ministry's requirements and the type of work the tribunal's staff had been carrying out in response.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Petition Seeking Relaxations For Advocates' Dress Code In Summers
Case Details: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Bar Council of India and Ors. Diary No. 24405-2024
The Supreme Court on September 17 while refusing to entertain a petition seeking exemption for advocates from wearing black coats during summer months, emphasized the importance of maintaining dress code decorum in the courts.
The counsel for the petitioner sought exemption the coat and gown requirement while keeping the band, in the light of the extreme summer heat that advocates face especially at trial courts and High Courts.
However, the bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stated that advocates must wear appropriate attire, ruling out casual clothing like shorts and t-shirts in court.
Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over Delay In Trial of UAPA Case Over Alleged ISIS Links
Case Details: Jamshed Zahoor Paul v. State of NCT of Delhi, SLP(Crl) No.12644/2024
While hearing the bail plea of a 25-year-old Kashmiri man booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act over alleged ISIS links, the Supreme Court on September 17 observed that steps must be taken to ensure that the trial is completed expeditiously.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing petitioner/accused-Jamshed Zahoor Paul's challenge to a Delhi High Court judgment of April 24, 2024, whereby he was denied regular bail. Paul was arrested by the Delhi Police Special Cell in 2018.
Justice Kant further conveyed that the court would abstain from monitoring trial, as it can have adverse impact, but it won't shut its eyes and see if the trial can be expedited. Three weeks' time was given to the prosecution to file an affidavit as to:
- How many witnesses does the prosecution propose to examine,
- How many of those witnesses are public servants,
- How many witnesses are domain experts,
- Total pendency of trials before the Presiding Officer of the Court (Patiala House), etc.
Before parting, the Court also asked Advocate Zoheb Hossain to come with instructions on proportionate distribution of trials across Delhi.
Arbitration | View That Delay Beyond 120 Days For S.37 Appeals Can't Be Condoned May Require Reconsideration: Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S Sab Industries Limited v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. SLP(c) No. 21111/2024
The Supreme Court observed that the view expressed in an earlier judgment that delay beyond the period of 120 days in preferring an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be condoned may require reconsideration.
The Court observed that in view of Section 43 of the Act, the above-said view might require reconsideration. As per Section 43, the Limitation Act, 1963, is applicable to proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a challenge to an order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which condoned the delay of 166 days in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Act.
Lawyers' Strikes | Supreme Court Seeks Information On Abstention From Work By All District Bar Associations In UP
Case Details: Faizabad Bar Association v. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 19804-19805/2024
Pursuant to Supreme Court's rap, office bearers of the Faizabad Bar Association, Uttar Pradesh recently filed an undertaking that they will not pass any resolution, or become party to any resolution, for abstention of work. Taking into account the same, the Court expressed an inclination to expand the scope of the proceedings and called for data on abstention by all district Bar Associations across the state (atleast during 2023-24).
The matter was before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, which was dealing with Faizabad Bar Association's plea against an Allahabad High Court judgment, whereby an Elders Committee was constituted to take over its affairs and ensure that the elections to its Governing Council were held by December 2024.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Regulate Laser Beams & Loudspeakers During Festivals
Case Details: Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. SLP(C) No. 20675/2024
The Supreme Court on September 17 refused to entertain a petition seeking directions to regulate the use of light laser beams and loudspeakers in public spaces, gatherings and events during festivals.
The petition was filed against the Bombay High Court's April 20 order which disposed of the PIL against the usage of laser beams and loud sound systems during religious processions and other ceremonies. The High Court refused to pass substantive directions, saying that the aggrieved persons can file complaints before the authorities.
Challenging the High Court's verdict, the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there has been no statute regulating the use of laser beam lights. The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the matter.
MBBS : Supreme Court Allows Candidate With Speech & Language Disability To Pursue Medical Education
Case Details: Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India & Ors Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 39448/2024
The Supreme Court on September 18 allowed a candidate with nearly 45% speech and language disability to be admitted to the MBBS course after a medical board constituted by the Court opined that he could pursue medical education.
The Court directed that the candidate be admitted to the seat, which was earlier directed to be kept vacant.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a challenge against the order of the Bombay High Court which denied interim relief against the cancellation of the admission to the MBBS Course.
'Unheard Of' : Supreme Court Surprised By Grant of Anticipatory Bail In NDPS Matter
Case Details: Anarul Sk v. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl) No. 12621/2024
The Supreme Court expressed surprise at the grant of anticipatory bail in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 and asked the State of West Bengal to consider filing applications seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the accused..
The bench of Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan directed: "Grant of anticipatory bail in an NDPS matter is a very serious issue. We therefore direct the State to consider if it proposes to apply for the cancellation of Anticipatory Bail granted to the accused.”
Supreme Court Dismisses Telecom Companies' Curative Petitions Against Ruling On AGR Dues
Case Details: Vodafone Idea Limited v. Union of India, Curative Petition (Civil) Nos. 231-337/2023 (and connected cases)
The Supreme Court dismissed curative petitions filed by telecom companies (including Vodafone Idea, Bharti Airtel and Tata Teleservices) against a 2019 ruling of the Court regarding payment of adjusted gross revenue (AGR) dues.
A bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai rendered the decision, holding that no ground was made out to exercise curative jurisdiction in terms of the Court's decision in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra.
Can DRI Officers Exercise Powers Under Customs Act? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Customs Dept's Review Petition
Case Details: Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Canon India Private Limited | R.P.(C) No. 000400/2021
The Supreme Court heard the suo moto plea instituted to issue a comprehensive policy strategy for the grant of bail to prisoners. The Court while taking notice of the list of States that were asked for compliance reports, issued further directions for States that are yet to comply with the orders. It also noted that the rejection of the remission application must be immediately informed to the prisoner.
Supreme Court Directs Centre To Pay Interest On Arrears of Disability Pension To 1971 Indo-Pak War Veteran Who Lost His Right Leg
Case Details: Colonel Mahinder Kumar Engrs (Retd.) v. Union of India and Ors.
The Supreme Court on September 19 directed the Union of India to pay interest on the arrears of disability pension to a retired army officer who lost his right leg below the knee during the 1971 Indo-Pak war.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Pankaj Mihal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah partly allowed an appeal by the veteran seeking interest on arrears of his disability pension after it was enhanced by the Armed Forced Tribunal.
“Learned ASG appearing for the respondent submits that though the appellant was not entitled to get the relief prior to 01.01.2016, it is only because the appellant has sustained injuries in the Indo-Pak war that the respondent did not challenge the impugned judgement. The fact remains that the entitlement of the appellant as granted by the Tribunal was not challenged by the respondent. It is true that the Original Application was belatedly filed on 16th March 2022. In our view, appellant ought to have been granted interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the differential amount as directed to be paid in terms of paragraph 8 of the judgement for a period of 3 years starting from 17th March 2019 till the date of payment of arrears in terms of paragraph 8 of the impugned judgement. We grant time of 3 months to the respondent to pay the interest amount. Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms”, the Court observed.
Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Controversial Remarks of Karnataka HC Judge, Seeks Report
Case Details: In Re: Remarks By High Court Judge During Court Proceedings [SMW (C) No. 9/2024]
The Supreme Court on September 20 took suo motu cognizance of the video clips containing the controversial comments made by a judge of Karnataka High Court during hearings.
A 5-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrahud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy passed an order seeking a report from the Karnataka High Court.
Recently, two video clips of Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda of the High Court surfaced on social media, in which he was seen making objectionable remarks. In one video, he was seen referring to an area in Bangalore as "Pakistan". In another video, he was seen making objectionable remarks to a woman advocate.
'Somebody Goes To Registry & Manipulates, We Won't Tolerate' : Supreme Court After Bail Plea Was Listed Before Posting Date
Case Details: Zeeshan Haider v. Directorate of Enforcement
The Supreme Court September 20 sought an explanation from its Registry for listing a bail plea in a money laundering case today even though it was supposed to be listed on October 14, according to a previous court order.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal raised concerns over manipulation in the listing process.
UPSC Aspirants' Death | Examine Coaching Centres' Issues On Pan India Basis, Delhi Mishap Can Happen Anywhere : Supreme Court To Centre
Case Details: Coaching Federation of India v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 30149-2024
While hearing the suo motu case arising out of the tragic flooding incident at Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi, in which 3 students lost their lives, the Supreme Court today suggested that the Union of India look at the issue from a pan-India perspective.
The matter was before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, which made the suggestion to Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, taking into account the latter's submission that a Committee has been constituted by the Home Ministry, Govt. of India to look into the Delhi incident.
Telangana MBBS/BDS Admissions : Supreme Court Stays HC Judgment Which Removed '4 Year Consecutive Study' Criteria For Local Quota
Case Details: State of Telangana and Ors. v. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram and Ors. SLP(C) No. 21536-21588/2024
The Supreme Court on September 20 issued notice on the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Telangana challenging the Telangana High Court's judgment which removed the '4 years' continuous study or residence requirement in the State' for permanent residents to secure admission in local quota seats in MBBS or BDS courses.
The State however agreed before the Supreme Court to grant a one-time exception for the petitioners who had approached the High Court.
The led by CJI DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the challenge to the order of the Telangana High Court which held that a permanent resident need not be required to study or reside in Telangana for 4 continuous years to get the benefit of domicile quota in medical admissions.
Supreme Court Allows TN Police To Summon BJP Leader Kesava Vinayagam Without Seeking Madras HC's Permission
Case Details: State Rep.by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID v. Kesava Vinayagam SLP (Crl.) 8674/24
The Supreme Court on September 20 set aside the Madras High Court's direction that the police must obtain the High Court's prior permission to serve summons to Tamil Nadu Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP) Organising Secretary Kesava Vinayagam in connection with a case over the seizure of Rs.3.99 crore for alleged bribing of voters during the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, hearing a petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the High Court's condition, directed that the investigating officer must serve advance notice to Vinayagam through WhatsApp or physical delivery to him or his family members at his residence asking him to join the investigation. The bench added that Vinayagam would be at liberty to challenge the notice in accordance with law. The bench also ordered that the interim protection from arrest granted to him by the High Court will continue.
Supreme Court Dismisses SpiceJet's Plea Against HC Order To Handover Aircraft Engines To Lessors
Case Details: Spicejet Limited v. Team France 01 S.A.S SLP(C) No. 21345-21346/2024
The Supreme Court refused to interfere in the order of the Delhi High court which directed the cash-strapped airlines SpiceJet to return three aircraft engines for defaulting on payments to engine lessors.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing an SLP by SpiceJet against the September 11 Order of the High Court's division bench upholding the grounding and handing over of the engines due to non-payment to its France based lessor companies.
'Dogs Won't Wait For Your Deliberations To Bite' : Supreme Court Raps Union & Kerala For Not Responding To Plea On Anti-Rabies Vaccines
Case Details: Kerala Pravasi Association through its President v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 882/2022., Diary No.- 31222 – 2022
The Supreme Court directed the Secretary, Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and Chief Secretary for the State of Kerala to file counter affidavits in a petition seeking to constitute an independent expert committee to study the efficacy of the Intra Dermal Rabies Vaccines (IDRV) currently being administered to Humans and Rabies Veterinary Vaccine, administered to dogs in India. A bench of Justices Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol is hearing the matter.
Private Citizens Free To Change Party Loyalties; 10th Schedule Can't Be Challenged For Exempting Non-Elected Persons: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ajit Vishnu Ranade v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 500/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution. The Court also noted that the validity cannot be challenged on the ground that anti-defection laws do not apply to private individuals changing their political loyalties.
The 10th Schedule was introduced by 52nd Constitutional Amendment in 1985 which laid down anti-defection laws for members of the house of legislatures at center and states. The aim of the amendment was to prevent MPs to switch from one party to another after being elected to the Parliament / state legislature.
The petitioner in person argued that while the constitution is applicable to all citizens, the insertion of Schedule 10 is only limited to the members of the legislature, leaving behind the aspect changing political allegiance of a non-member. The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the matter.
Supreme Court Dismisses Ex-Google Employee's Petition Alleging Religious Discrimination At Workplace
Case Details: Zahid Showkat Alias Mir V Joint Secretary, Prime Minister's Office & Ors.
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition file by a terminated Google employee who wrote complaints to the Prime Minister about alleged religious discrimination he faced at the workplace.
The petitioner in person, Zahid Showka,t filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution stating that he was aggrieved by his termination and subsequent non-action on his written complaints to the Prime Minister's Office.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the matter.
At the outset, the CJI noted that the matter was related to proceedings before the labour court where the petitioner had challenged his termination. The CJI explained to the Petitioner that executive functionaries like the Prime Minister's Office cannot take action over a termination arising out of a private contract as in the present case
Supreme Court Stays NGT Order Directing Punjab Government To Pay 1,026 Crores For Failure To Treat Sewage Waste
Case Details: State of Punjab v UOI Civil Appeal No.10602/2024
The Supreme Court stayed the order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) which directed the state of Punjab to pay 1,026 Crores to the Central Pollution Control Board as environment compensation for failure to manage legacy waste and untreated sewage.
The bench CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing an appeal by Punjab Government against the NGT order dated July 25, 2024.
Supreme Court Seeks State Bar Councils' Affidavits Over Non-Compliance of Rule To Publish List of Senior Lawyers Willing To Mentor Law Students
Case Details: Neeraj Salodkar v. Bar Council of India and Ors., WP (C) No. 698/2022
While hearing a public interest litigation (PIL), the Supreme Court called on all State Bar Councils which have not complied with the rule requiring them to publish a list of seasoned lawyers willing to mentor law students during college vacations, to file affidavits explaining reasons for non-compliance.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar heard the matter and sought the Bar Councils' explanation with regard to non-compliance of Rule 26 of Schedule III to the Rules of Legal Education, 2008.
Supreme Court Seeks Response From States/UTs On Compliance of Directions To Set Up Online RTI Portals
Case Details: Anuj Nakade v. Dr. Poonam Malakondaiah Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Diary No. 36812-2024
The Supreme Court sought response from all the States and Union Territories in a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the directions in Pravasi Legal Cell v Union of India & Ors. for having online RTI Portals across the states in the country.
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala issued notice in the contempt petition filed by Anuj Nakade who alleged that 7 states and 4 Union Territories were yet to set up online RTI Portals while many of the other States either had Portals with incomplete boarding of Authorities or didn't follow the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting's “Guidelines for Indian Government Websites 3.0” (pertaining to accessibility of the portals to the visually impaired). The petitioner was represented by Advocate N Sai Vinod.
Supreme Court Rejects Plea For CBI Investigation Into Congress Worker Shuhaib's Murder
Case Details: C.P. Mohammed v. State of Kerala | SLP(Crl) No. 10308/2019
The Supreme Court rejected a plea seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the murder of a Youth Congress worker named Shuhaib in Kerala in February 2018.
The Court refused to interfere with the judgment of the division bench of the Kerala High Court which set aside the single bench direction for a CBI investigation into Shuhaib's murder.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan dismissed the petition filed by CP Mohammed and SP Raziya, the parents of Shuhaib, against the Kerala High Court's judgment. The bench however clarified that if the role of any other accused comes to light during the trial, the parties will be at liberty to take steps in accordance with the law. The bench observed that the State police has already filed chargesheet, arraying several persons as the accused, and it would be imprudent to interfere with the matter at this juncture.
3 Year Practice Or 70% LLB Mark Rule : Supreme Court Stays HC Order To Recompute Cut-Off For Civil Judge Prelims Exam
Case Details: High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Jyotsna Dohalia and Anr, SLP(C) No. 21353/2024
The Supreme Court stayed the 13 June order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which halted the recruitment process and ordered the recomputation of cut-off marks for Civil Judge Junior Division (Entry Level) Recruitment exam 2023.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti was hearing an SLP filed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the judgment passed by the division bench of the High Court which ordered excluding all candidates who had successfully passed the Preliminary Examination because they did not fulfil the eligibility criteria under the Amended Recruitment Rules.
HC Must Say Why State Police Investigation Is Unfair Before Ordering CBI Probe : Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta HC Order
Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Jashimuddin Mondal and Ors., SLP(C) No. 9628/2024
The Supreme Court aside a Calcutta High Court order directing preliminary investigation by the CBI, holding that such directions can be passed only in very rare cases, and that too, after the High Court records reasons for deeming State investigation to be unfair or impartial.
"The High Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution can entrust investigation to the CBI. However, for doing so, it has to come to a reasoning as to why it finds that investigation by State police is not fair or is partisan. Merely, on the basis of some letters, such exercise is not warranted. It has also been held that such an exercise of entrusting the investigation by the High Court has to be done in very rare cases. A perusal of the order passed by the learned single judge would reveal that there is not even a whisper as to why it finds the investigation by the state to be unfair or impartial so as to find it necessary to direct an enquiry to be conducted by CBI. For the very same reasons, the order passed by the learned Division Bench is also not sustainable in law", said the bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.
'NRI Quota Fraud Must Come To An End': Supreme Court Upholds P&H High Court's Order Quashing Widened Definition of 'NRI' In MBBS Admissions
Case Details: Prithvansh Malhotra v. State of Punjab WP (C) No. 000587 / 2024
The Supreme Court, while dismissing the challenge to Punjab and Haryana High Court's quashing the Punjab Government's notification to broaden the ambit of NRI Quota in medical admission, orally observed that such 'fraud' must stop as it gave way to backdoor entries at the cost of meritorious candidates.
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing three petitions challenging the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which quashed the August 20 notification widening the definition of Non-Resident Indian for MBBS admissions.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Apply Delhi Govt OBC List In Central Govt Funded Institutions In Delhi
Case Details: Amandeep v. Medical Counselling Committee & Ors., Diary No. 9755/2022
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging Medical Counselling Committee's notice dated January 10, 2022 which modified OBC reservation criteria with respect to Institutional Preference seats in central institutes.
The matter was heard by a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, which found no ground to interfere with the impugned notice.
Explore Possibility of Having Arbitration Centre At Air India Building Near Bombay HC : Supreme Court To Maharashtra Govt
Case Details: In Re: Heritage Building of The Bombay High Court and Allotment of Additional Lands For The High Court
The Supreme Court asked the Administrative Committee headed by Chief Justice of Bombay High Court and the Maharashtra Government to look into the possibility of having an Arbitration Centre in the Air India Building near the Bombay High Court Complex.
The special bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice BR Gavai and Justice JB Pardiwala, was hearing a suo moto petition regarding the heritage building of the Bombay High Court and the issue of additional land allotment.
'What Is Rate of Conviction In PMLA Cases? You Keep Person In Jail For Years' : Supreme Court To ED While Granting Interim Bail
Case Details: Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 12494/2024
The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Chhattisgarh's suspended civil servant Saumya Chaurasia in a money laundering case, taking into account factors including the amount of time spent in custody and the non-framing of charges.
Chaurasia, former Deputy Secretary to ex-Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, is accused in a money laundering case relating to coal scam. She has been in jail for 1 yr and 9 months now.
The bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with Chaurasia's challenge to Chhattisgarh High Court's order dated August 28, 2024, whereby her third bail application was dismissed.
Delhi Bar Association Elections: Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging Voter Eligibility Criteria, Allows To Approach HC
Case Details: Anurag Rawal v. Lalit Sharma and Ors.
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea challenging requirement of furnishing proximity cards and minimum 12 appearances for eligibility to vote in Delhi Bar Association elections imposed by the Delhi High Court.
A bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice KV Vishwanathan and Justice PK Mishra disposed of the petition.
The Court noted petitioner's plea of practical difficulties due to the impugned order and granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Delhi High Court to seek modification.
Tamil Nadu Govt Revokes Savukku Shankar's Detention, Supreme Court Orders His Immediate Release
Case Details: A. Kamala v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
The Supreme Court ordered the release of YouTuber Savukku Shankar from detention under the Tamil Nadu 'Goondas' Act 1982.
The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra took on record the statement of the State of Tamil Nadu that it has revoked the detention order of Shankar following the opinion of the Advisory Board.
'We Want To See What Exactly There Is On E-Prison Portal' : Supreme Court Directs To Arrange Demonstration of E-Prison Portal
Case Details: In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021
The Supreme Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to arrange a demonstration of the e-Prison Portal at 4:15 pm on October 15.
A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih is hearing a suo moto case (In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail) where it has passed orders to ensure that prisoners who get bail are released without delay.
Supreme Court Orders Women's Reservation In Delhi High Court Bar Association Posts
Case Details: Aditi Chaudhary v. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 42332-2024; Shobha Gupta and Anr. v. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 42644-2024
The Supreme Court ordered that there should be women's reservation for posts in the Delhi High Court Bar Association.
The Court directed that a meeting of the General Body of DHCBA be held as early as possible, not later than 10 days. The GB shall consider the desirability of reserving the post of Treasurer for women members. In addition to reserving the post of Treasurer, GB shall be at liberty to consider the desirability of reserving 1 more post of office bearers of the Bar Association for women members.
Further, the Court ordered that out of 10 Executive Committee members, there shall be at least 3 women members. The GBM may also consider that out of 3 women members of EC, at least 1 is a senior designated advocate.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with pleas seeking reservation for women lawyers in Delhi's Bar bodies. Yesterday, it had asked the Delhi High Court Bar Association to consider reserving post of Vice-President for women lawyers in the upcoming elections. The bench further found it disappointing that since the year 1962, there had not been even a single woman President of the Bar.
DUSU Elections : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Candidate's Plea To Provisionally Contest For Secretary Post
Case Details: Rahul Jhansla v. Delhi University & Ors., SLP(C) No. 22598/2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea filed by Delhi University-student Rahul Jhansla seeking permission to contest for the post of Secretary in the Delhi University Students Union elections scheduled for September 27, 2024.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan heard the matter and observed that it could neither stay the elections, nor permit Jhansla to contest provisionally. Ultimately, the plea was dismissed as withdrawn.
The bench noted that Jhansla's nomination was cancelled as he filed the same for multiple posts. Further, the Delhi High Court had issued notice on his plea raising the same issue, however, as it denied interim relief, Jhansla straightaway came to the Supreme Court assailing the order of the Single Judge, without moving the Division Bench.
Supreme Court Dismisses Gujarat Govt's Review Petition Challenging Adverse Remarks Against It In Bilkis Bano Case Judgment
Case Details: State of Gujarat v. Bilkis Yakub Rasool and Ors.
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by the State of Gujarat against remarks against it in the Supreme Court judgment that set aside the premature release of 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case.
The Court also dismissed the review petitions field by the convicts.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said that there is no apparent error on the face of the record or merit in the review petitions.
Supreme Court Seeks Explanation From Authorities On Demolition of Ancient Gates of Datia City In Madhya Pradesh
Case Details: Ram Kumar Itoriya v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors.
The Supreme Court directed the Collector and the Chief Municipal Officer of Datia(Madhya Pradesh) to file affidavits addressing the allegations of illegal demolition of ancient gates of the outer fortification surrounding Rajgarh Palace in MP's Datia city.
A bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice KV Viswanathan also directed them to outline steps for the restoration and repair of the ancient gates in the city of Datia within four weeks.
“We find that it will be appropriate that respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 shall file an affidavit, within four weeks, so as to meet the averments made in the application(s). It shall also be stated in the affidavit as to what steps they propose to take for restoration and repair of the ancient gates”, the order reads.
Supreme Court Sets Aside HC's Condition That YouTuber Must Shut Down YouTube Channel For Bail
Case Details: Felix Jerald v. State | SLP(Crl) No. 11762/2024
The Supreme Court set aside the condition imposed by the Madras High Court that YouTuber Felix Jerald should shut down his YouTube channel “RedPix 24x7” for getting bail in the criminal case over alleged scandalous remarks in the interview of 'Savukku' Shankar uploaded on the channel.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that such a bail condition was extraneous to the issue and was unnecessary. The bench confirmed its September 6 order which stayed the High Court's condition.
Why Stepmotherly Treatment To Ayurvedic Doctors? Supreme Court Pulls Up Rajasthan Govt For Non-Release of Salaries
Case Details: State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Pyare Lal Meena and Ors. SLP(C) No. 10560/2024
The Supreme Court expressed displeasure over the 'stepmotherly treatment' meted out by the State of Rajasthan to Ayurvedic doctors by the delay of 5 months in releasing the salaries of those Doctors who were reinstated after the High Court's order.
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a petition filed by the State of Rajasthan against the Rajasthan High Court order directing the grant of enhanced superannuation for Ayurvedic Doctors at parity with Allopathic ones. The counsel for the doctors informed that subsequent to the impugned High Court order, the Ayurvedic Doctors were reinstated but have not received salaries for the past 5 months.
The bench directed the State Government to release the salaries of the respondents and all the similarly placed doctors within one week as there was no stay on the operation of the High Court's order.
Supreme Court Closes Curative Petitions of Union & AAI On GMR- Nagpur Airport Issue After SG Says They Aren't Maintainable
Case Details: Airports Authority of India v. GMR Airports Limited & Anr. | Curative Petition (Civil) No. 198 of 2022
The Supreme Court closed the curative petitions filed by the Union Government and the Airports Authority of India (AAI) against a judgment allowing GMR Group the operational management rights of Nagpur's Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport.
The Court closed the curative petitions after Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, in his personal capacity, opined that no ground for the exercise of the curative jurisdiction was made out within the parameters of the Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra judgment.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and JK Maheshwari recorded the SG's statement and closed the matter.
'Commission Needs To Be More Active' : Supreme Court Expresses Dissatisfaction With CAQM Over Steps To Stop Stubble Burning
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India WP (C) 13029/1985
The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with steps taken by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to stop stubble burning in the States of Punjab and Haryana, which is a cause for the worsening of the air quality in Delhi-National Capital Region during every winter.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih was surprised to note that the CAQM has never taken penal action as per Section 14 of the CAQM Act against those who indulge in stubble-burning contravening its directions. If there is no penal action taken under Section 14, the prohibitive directions against farm fires will remain only on paper, Justice Oka orally observed.
Supreme Court Allows Objections To Be Raised Against Admissibility of Materials Produced In Petition Challenging Karnataka Congress MLA's Election
Case Details: T.D. Rajegowda v. D.N. Jeevaraja and Ors., SLP(C) No. 20354/2024
Upon hearing Karnataka Congress MLA TD Rajegowda's challenge to a 'vague' election petition filed against him by BJP's DN Jeeveraja, the Supreme Court clarified that the parties would be entitled to raise their pleas relating to admissibility/relevance of certain documents filed as 'proof' by Jeeveraja after the filing of the election petition, at an appropriate stage.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order on Rajegowda's petition challenging Karnataka High Court's dismissal of an Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application, seeking rejection of Jeevaraja's election petition over lack of specific averments.
Dictating the order, Justice Kant said,
"We find that election petition is broadly based upon two sets of allegations - (i) the wrongful rejection of postal ballot papers (ii) alleged corrupt practices adopted by the petitioner/returned candidate. As regards the first set of allegations, it seems to us that there is no serious contest. The High Court will proceed with the election petition on that ground in accordance with law. As regard to the allegation of corrupt practices, we find that the respondent-election petitioner has placed on record a list of documents/material/proof for further support of his allegations levelled against the petitioner. Those documents/material are yet to be formally brought on record of the election petition. We are therefore of the view that the petitioner, election-petitioner shall be entitled to raise an objection regarding admissibility/relevance of these documents/material/proof at an appropriate stage and the High Court will consider such objections in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order."
Free Copy of NCLT Order & Copy of Order Obtained On Paying Cost Are 'Certified Copies' For Filing NCLAT Appeal : Supreme Court
Case Details: State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Ltd
The Supreme Court set aside an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which refused to condone delay in filling an appeal because of the filling of a 'free copy' of the impugned order.
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra held that there was no difference between a free certified copy of the order and a certified copy which is obtained after paying cost under Rule 50 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules 2016.
"Both the certified copy submitted free of cost as well as the certified copy which is made available on payment of cost are treated as "certified copies" for the purpose of Rule 50".
Such Litigants Have No Place In Court: Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 10 Lakh Fine On Litigant Company For Suppression of Facts
Case Details: Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Avishek Gupta
The Supreme Court came down heavily on a litigant for suppressing material facts in its two appeals and filing affidavits that sought to justify such suppression.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih imposed a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs in each case on the litigant company, who has filed the SLPs challenging orders of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
The Court in its order noted that the appellants had suppressed material facts in both appeals and had adopted an “adventurous approach” by filing a 19-page affidavit and annexing 300 pages of documents. The affidavit, meant to explain the appellant's conduct, instead fully justified the suppression of facts, the Court stated.
Supreme Court “Showing Magnanimity” Closes Contempt Proceedings Against UP Official For False Affidavit, Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Cost On State
Case Details: Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
The Supreme Court closed contempt proceedings against the former Principal Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Prisons Administration Department for making false statement in his affidavit filed to explain delay in deciding remission plea of a convict.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih had issued the contempt notice after observing that Rajesh Singh, the former Principal Secretary, walked back his earlier stance that the CM Secretariat did not accept remission files due to Model Code of Conduct during Lok Sabha elections.
The Court made it clear that though it is closing the proceedings to save time, it does not accept any explanation offered by the government officers for the contempt.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Separate National Judicial Data Grid For Tribunals
Case Details: Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India and Ors.| W.P.(C) No. 523/2024
The Supreme Court refused the entertain a PIL seeking for the creation of a separate National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) for the Tribunals in the country.
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra dismissed the petition considering that the petitioner had filed a similar petition previously where he sought the inclusion of Tribunals in the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG).
Allahabad HC's General Observations On Religious Conversions & 'Majority Becoming Minority' Were Uncalled For: Supreme Court
Case Details: Kailash v. State of Uttar Pradesh SLP (CrL) 11258/2024
The Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the general observation made by the Allahabad High Court that if conversions in religious congregations were not stopped, India's majority population would become in minority.
The Supreme Court observed that "the general observations made by the High Court had no bearing on the facts of the present case and were, therefore, not required for the disposal of the case."
"The observations, therefore, shall not be cited in any other case or proceeding in the High Court or in any other Court," said the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra while granting bail to a person accused in a case under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
State Can't Pay Less To Tribunal Member Saying Case Load Was Low; Question of Retired Judges' Dignity: Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Haryana v. SD Anand Diary No. - 20661/2024
The Supreme Court stressed the need for State Authorities to treat retired High Court Judges with dignity when appointing them for positions in the state tribunals and commissions.
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a challenge by the State of Haryana against the Division Bench order of Punjab and Haryana High Court directing the Government to treat the appointment of Retired Justice SD Anand as Chairperson of Appellate Authority of Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB)at par with Chairpersons of other Tribunals for Tax and Backward Classes in terms of conditions of appointment.
Will Seriously Examine Allegations About Influencing Judiciary: Supreme Court In Chhattisgarh 2015 NAN Scam Case
Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement v. Anil Tuteja and Ors.
The Supreme Court directed former IAS officer Anil Tuteja to respond to allegations of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) that he manipulated the Chhattisgarh judiciary to obtain anticipatory bail.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih was hearing ED's plea challenging the anticipatory bail granted to Tuteja, accused in the 2015 Nagrik Apurti Nigam (NAN) scam, which involved corruption in the Public Distribution System (PDS) in Chhattisgarh.
The ED has contended that Tuteja and his co-accused Alok Shukla misused the anticipatory bail. Further, they allegedly tampered with the judicial process and influenced a High Court judge to secure the bail.
“Mr. Raju, we want to first seriously examine the first part of your allegations about the allegations concerning the judicial system. We will first examine that and then we will go to the other material”, Justice Oka remarked.
Supreme Court Issues Notice To Assam Govt On Plea Against Sonapur Demolition Drive, Orders Status Quo
Case Details: Faruk Ahmed and Ors. v. State of Assam, Diary No. 44449-2024
The Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Assam on a contempt petition filed by 47 residents of Assam, alleging willful violation of the Court's interim order dated September 17, 2024, whereby it was directed that no demolition should take place across the country without the Court's prior permission.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, while issuing notice returnable within three weeks, also ordered that the status quo shall be maintained by the parties in the meantime.
Supreme Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To Malayalam Actor Siddique In Rape Case
Case Details: Siddique v. State of Kerala and Anr. SLP(Crl) No.13463/2024
The Supreme Court granted interim anticipatory bail to Malayalam actor Siddique in a rape case registered against him based on allegations levelled by a young actress.
A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the State while granting interim relief. The court stated that the interim relief is for two weeks and is subjected to conditions set by the trial court and his cooperation with the investigation.
Tirupati Laddu Row : 'Lab Report Doesn't Show Impure Ghee Was Used' Supreme Court Slams AP CM For Public Comments Before Probe
Case Details: Dr Subramanian Swamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 622/2024 (and connected cases)
The Supreme Court criticized the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh N Chandrababu Naidu for making public allegations about the use of adulterated ghee for the preparation of laddus offered as prasadam at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple.
The Court questioned the propriety of the Chief Minister -a high Constitutional functionary - making such statements when the matter was under investigation. The bench also orally observed that the lab report prima facie indicated that it was the rejected ghee samples which were subjected to the test.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing a batch of petitions seeking court-monitored investigation into the controversy relating to Tirupati laddus.
It asked Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta to seek instructions from the Central Government on whether a Central Investigation is required and posted the matter to Thursday.
After an hour-long hearing, the bench observed in its order as follows :
"The petition pertains to sentiments affecting crores of people living in the entire world. The Hon'ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh had gone in public making a statement that the animal fat was being used to make Tirupati laddus under the previous regime. However, some press reports also show that the Chief Executive Officer of the Tirupati Tirumala Devasthanam had also made a statement that such an adulterated ghee was never used. The petitions have been filed seeking various prayers including an independent enquiry and directions for regulating the affairs of the religious trusts and specifically the manufacture of prasadam.
"There are some disclaimers in the lab report. It is not clear, and it is prima facie indicating that it was rejected ghee, which was subjected to test. If you yourself have ordered investigation, what was the need to go to press?" Justice Viswanathan asked Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi who was representing the State of Andhra Pradesh.
'Threshold For Criminal Defamation Higher For Political Discourse' : Supreme Court Stays Case Against Arvind Kejriwal, Atishi
Case Details: Arvind Kejriwal and Anr. v. State (National Capital Territory of Delhi) and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 13279/2024
In an interim relief to Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal and Delhi Chief Minister Atishi Marlena, the Supreme Court stayed further proceedings in a criminal defamation case filed by BJP leader Rajiv Babbar assailing their remarks over alleged deletion of Delhi voters' names from electoral rolls in 2018.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti granted the interim relief, while issuing notice on the plea filed by Kejriwal-Atishi seeking quashing of the defamation case.
Supreme Court Criticises Delhi Govt For 'Lacklustre Approach' In Enhancing Green Cover, Seeks Forest Secretary's Affidavit
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court criticized the lacklustre approach of the Delhi government towards making efforts to enhance the green cover in Delhi NCR and directed the Secretary of thru Forest Department to appear before the Court on October 18, 2024.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih further pulled up the Delhi Forest Department for submitting a status report on green cover in the contempt case against DDA over illegal tree felling which was transferred to CJI's bench from the bench led by Justice Oka.
Entrust Trial of Corruption Case Against Senthil Balaji To Judge With Lesser Workload : Supreme Court Tells Madras HC
Case Details: Y. Balaji v. Assistant Commissioner of Police Central Crime Branch (Job Racketing) and Anr.
The Supreme Court asked the Madras High Court to hand over the trial of the corruption case against Minister Senthil Balaji in the cash-for-jobs scam to a judge with a lesser work load.
Noting that the present Sessions Judge handing the cases against MPs/MLAs has a heavy caseload, the Supreme Court suggested that one more Sessions Judge be appointed to handle such cases and the trial of Senthil Balaji be handed over to the judge with a lesser load.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih highlighted that the case involves over 2,000 accused persons and around 600 prosecution witnesses. The Court emphasized the need for early disposal of the case due to the nature of the allegations in the charge sheet.
MDS Seats In Govt Colleges 'Prestigious': Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge To Fee Hike From 12K To 48K In Goa Dental College
Case Details: Praveen Kumar and Ors. v. State of Goa and Ors. SLP(C) No. 22831/2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition challenging the fees hike by the Goa Dental College for MDS Course. The Court orally said that the increase from 12,000 Rs to 48,000 Rs was not excessive considering how prestigious government college seats are amidst the academic competition.
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra heard the matter.
"No Judge Expected To Work Without Salary": Supreme Court Directs Bihar Govt To Release Pay Arrears of Sitting HC Judge
Case Details: Justice Shailendra Singh and Ors. v. UoI and Ors. WP(C) No. 232/2023
The Supreme Court directed the State of Bihar to immediately release the salary of sitting Patna High Court Judge, Justice RP Mishra, who had pending arears since the date of his elevation to High Court.
The Court passed the interim order considering the urgency as "no judge should be expected to work without a salary.."
The bench comprising the Chief Justice, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the batch of matters relating to the pending release of salaries of Patna High Court Judges as well as the issue on the fixation of pensions for judicial officers.