Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 996 To 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1013Nominal IndexPriya Indoria v. State of Karnataka 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 996Vivek Kaisth and another v. The State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 997Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 998P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 999Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Mukul Aggarwal 2023...
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 996 To 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1013
Nominal Index
Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 996
Vivek Kaisth and another v. The State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 997
Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 998
P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 999
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Mukul Aggarwal 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1000
State of Jharkhand v. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1002
Pawan Kumar v. State of UP 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1003
Shah Originals v. Commissioner of Income Tax-24, Mumbai 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1004
Nanhe v. State of UP 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1005
Sarr Freights Corporation v. CJDARCL Logistics Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1006
Ramkrishna Forgings Limited v Ravindra Loonkar 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1007
State Of Punjab v Principal Secy To The Governor Of Punjab 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008
Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1009
Amandeep Singh Sran v. State of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1012
Aditya Kumar v. State of Bihar 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1013
Judgments/Orders
Conditions For Transit Anticipatory Bail In FIRs Registered In Other States: Supreme Court Explains
Case title: Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 996
In a significant and groundbreaking judgment, the Supreme Court has held that High Courts and Sessions Court have the power to grant interim/transit anticipatory bail even when the First Information Report (FIR) has been registered in another State.
The Court finally set aside the judgment of Patna High Court in Syed Zafrul Hassan and the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Sadhan Chandra Kolay to the extent that they hold that the High Court does not possess jurisdiction to grant extra-territorial anticipatory bail i.e., even a limited or transit anticipatory bail
Case title: Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 996
The Supreme Court recently held that the police have to obtain a transit remand when arresting an individual outside the jurisdiction where the offence is registered. This mandate is in line with the requirements of Article 22 of the Constitution, emphasizing the need for police to facilitate the accused's transfer from the location of arrest to the jurisdiction where the crime is registered.
Case title: Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 996
The Supreme Court today held that the Sessions Court or High Court would have the power to grant interim/transit anticipatory bail, when the FIR is not registered within the territory of a particular State but in a different State.
The Court observed : "...we hold that the Court of Session or the High Court, as the case may be, can exercise jurisdiction and entertain a plea for limited anticipatory bail even if the FIR has not been filed within its territorial jurisdiction and depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, if the accused apprehending arrest makes out a case for grant of anticipatory bail but having regard to the fact that the FIR has not been registered within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court or Court of Session, as the case may, at the least consider the case of the accused for grant of transit anticipatory bail which is an interim protection of limited duration till such accused approaches the competent Sessions Court or the High Court, as the case may be, for seeking full-fledged anticipatory bail"
Case Title: Vivek Kaisth and another v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 997
The Supreme Court recently held the procedure adopted by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and the High Court in the selection of Civil Judge (Junior Divisions) in 2013 to be wrong and consequently, the appointments of two judicial officers were found to be irregular. At the same time, the Court refused to unseat the two officers, considering the fact that they have rendered over ten years service and that there was no fault on their part in the irregularities
Case Title: Moturu Nalini Kanth V. Gainedi Kaliprasad
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 998
The Supreme Court on Monday (20.11.2023) held that in order to prove the genuineness of a will, it is not enough to examine a random witness who asserts that he saw the attesting witness affix his signature in the Will.
Section 69 of the Evidence Act deals with proving the authenticity of a document in cases where no attesting witnesses are found. Under the said provision, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person
Case Title: P. KISHORE KUMAR v. VITTAL K. PATKAR
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 999
Reiterating that revenue records are not documents of title, the Supreme Court held that mere mutation of revenue records would not divest the real title-owners of a land of their right, title and interest in the land.
Referring to a catena of precedents, the Court observed that "mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title nor does it have any presumptive value on title. All it does is entitle the person in whose favor mutation is done to pay the land revenue in question".
Case title: State of Jharkhand v. SOCIEDADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL PVT. LTD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1002
The Supreme Court recently validated the authority of the state to annul a tender process, with a specific focus on adherence to Rule 9 under the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015.
Referring to Rule 9(10) of the Mineral (Auction) Rules, the Court said that where the total number of technically qualified bidders is less than three, then no technically qualified bidder shall be considered to be qualified bidder and the first attempt of auction shall be annulled.
Case title: Pawan Kumar v. State of UP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1003
The Supreme Court recently reviewed and accepted the plea of juvenility by a convict after 27 years in an assault and murder case that took place in 1995. Although Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was in force at the time of offence and conviction, a 5-judge Constitutional bench in the Pratap Singh case (2005) had clarified that the 2000 Act applied to pending proceedings initiated under the 1986 Act.
It is pertinent to note that JJ Act, 2000 had raised the age of juvenility from 16 to 18 years. In this case, the medical report showed the appellant's age to be 19 years, the school register to approximately 16 years, and the panchayat register to 20 years.
Case Title: Shah Originals v. Commissioner of Income Tax-24, Mumbai
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1004
Recently, the Supreme Court (on November 21), while interpreting Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, held that the profit from exchange fluctuation is independent of export earnings. Pertinently, Section 80 HHC provides for the deduction of profits that the assessee derives from exporting goods/merchandise.
The Court, while stressing upon the wordings of Section 80 HHC, held that the same enables deduction to the extent of profits derived by the assessee from the export of such goods and merchandise and none else.
Case title: Nanhe v. State of UP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1005
The Supreme Court recently invoked the doctrine of transferred malice to uphold the conviction of the appellant in a murder case under section 302 IPC. The appellant had no intention to kill the deceased as he had fired with an intention to settle his score with another person Mahendra with whom he had entered into a harsh argument.
However, the court held that it made no difference since 'The Doctrine of Transfer of Malice or Transmigration of Motive' provides that where there is 'mens rea' of committing an offence, it can be transferred to another.
Case Title: SARR FREIGHTS CORPORATION V. CJDARCL LOGISTICS LTD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1006
The Supreme Court recently held that when it comes to tender clauses, the interpretation of a tendering authority must prevail unless there is any malafides alleged or proved.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517 while making this observation.
Case Title: Ramkrishna Forgings Limited v Ravindra Loonkar & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1007
The Supreme Court has set aside an order whereby the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) kept the approval of a resolution plan in abeyance while directing an Official Liquidator to conduct a re-valuation of the Corporate Debtor's assets. Consequently, the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) affirming the NCLT's order has also been set aside.
Case Title: The State Of Punjab v Principal Secretary To The Governor Of Punjab
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008
The Supreme Court has held that if a Governor decides to withhold assent to a Bill, then he has to return the bill to the legislature for reconsideration. This clarification by the Court is important because Article 200 of the Constitution does not expressly state what should be the next course of action after a Governor withholds assent for a Bill.
Case Title: Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1009
The Supreme Court recently held that no title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an Agreement to Sell or on the basis of a General Power of Attorney.
Case title: Amandeep Singh Sran v. State of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1012
The Supreme Court recently declined to club multiple FIRs where the offenses against the petitioner involved not only provisions of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) but also invoked various state enactments designed to protect investors. Each state had designated special courts for these offenses, making clubbing of FIRs challenging, as it would undermine the jurisdiction of these specialized courts.
Case Title: Aditya Kumar v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1013
The Supreme Court recently denied anticipatory bail to IPS officer and former Superintendent of Police Aditya Kumar who had allegedly involved a conman to pose as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court in order to influence a corruption probe against him.
News Updates
The Chief Guest's Address was delivered by Justice Dipankar Datta, Judge of the Supreme Court of India, who remembered Nani Palkhivala as one of the 'foremost thinkers of modern India.
On the relationship between parliamentary supremacy and the basic structure doctrine, Justice Datta pointed out, "No one would accept, with grace, the curtailment of power of the institution to which they belong. As Frederick Douglas had said, power concedes nothing without a demand, it never did, and it never will. Lawmakers must realise that they cannot fundamentally alter the tenets of the Constitution. Articles 141 and 144 must be followed. As Nani Palkhivala would have placed it, the Constitution is not a jellyfish, it cannot lose its identity in the process of amendment.
In a commemorative event marking the centenary of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's law practice, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud pointed out the challenges faced by individuals from marginalized backgrounds in the legal profession.
“They don't have social, or cultural capital or access to resources. Example- Coaching centres", he said. Pointing out that people from marginalised backgrounds are not conversant in English, CJI DY Chandrachud referred to the Common Law Admission Tests, which are entirely conducted in English.
"Our CLAT examination, which is the bedrock for entering the legal profession, is entirely conducted in English. Now, with the very fact that the medium of examination is in English, we are making our profession urban-centric and wholly and completely biased against those who come from rural or marginalised backgrounds" he said.
In a tribute to the Chief Architect of the Constitution of India, President Droupadi Murmu unveiled a statue of Dr. BR Ambedkar on the premises of the Supreme Court on the Constitution Day.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, and Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal were also present during the ceremony.
The majestic 7-foot-tall statue, positioned on the front lawn and garden within the Supreme Court premises, captures Dr. Ambedkar adorned in a lawyer's gown, holding a copy of the Constitution in his hand.
All India Judicial Service Can Select Brilliant Youngsters For Judiciary: President Draupadi Murmu
In the inaugural session of Constitution Day celebrations at the Supreme Court, President Droupadi Murmu put forth a proposal for the establishment of an All India Judicial Service examination. She envisioned a mechanism that would identify and nurture talented individuals from the legal fraternity to become judges.
The President expressed her desire to support young, talented, and loyal individuals and stated that since there was an All India examination to become IAS and IPS officers, the same opportunity should be extended to those aspiring to serve in the judiciary.
On the occasion of India's 75th Constitution Day, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Sunday (November 26) assured that the doors of the Supreme Court are and will always remain open for citizens to ventilate their grievances. He also insisted that individuals should not be afraid of going to court or view it as a last resort, expressing the hope that owing to the efforts to make the judicial infrastructure more 'citizen-centric', citizens of all classes, castes, and creeds can repose their trust in the court system and view it as a "fair and effective forum to enforce their rights".
Case Title: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 162 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday (November 24) reserved its judgment in a batch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) seeking a Court-monitored investigation into the allegations made by US-based short-selling firm Hindenburg Research against the Adani group of companies regarding violations of stock market regulations.
Case Title: State Of Kerala v Honble Governor For State Of Kerala And Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 1264/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday asked Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan to refer to the recent judgment passed in the case related to the Punjab Governor's inaction on bills and adjourned the hearing of the petition filed by the State of Kerala till next Tuesday (November 28).
Case Title: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 162 of 2023
During the hearing of the Adani-Hindenburg matter, the Supreme Court on Friday (November 24) expressed disapproval of the allegations made by a petitioner against the impartiality of the members of the Expert Committee constituted by the Court.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, the presiding judge of the bench, went to the extent of terming the allegations "unfair" and told Advocate Prashant Bhushan that such statements should be made with a sense of responsibility.
Case Title: Dhananjay Pratap Singh v. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal
Citation: Diary No.- 41082 - 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition filed by the editor and publisher of Patrika Daily Newspaper against a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court holding them guilty of contempt of court for a report published in 2012 leveling allegations against judges.
Case Title: Government Of NCT Of Delhi v Union Of India And Ors
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 1268/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday (24.11.2023) recommended a unique solution to solve the tug of war between the Delhi Lieutenant Governor (LG) and the Delhi Government over the appointment of Delhi's Chief Secretary.
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra suggested that the Delhi LG and the Union Government could propose a panel of names for the post of Chief Secretary and the Delhi Government could choose one name from the panel.
Case title: Ashutosh Bansal v. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition(C) No. 872 of 2022
The Supreme Court recently closed a petition concerning the Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) epidemic among cattle, deeming the measures taken by the Union and States satisfactory in preventing and addressing the outbreak.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, while delivering the keynote address on “Identity, the Individual and the State: New Paths to Liberty,” said that lack of State intervention allowed socially dominant groups to oppress historically marginalized sections.
“Traditionally, liberty has been understood as an absence of State interference in a person's right to make choices. However, contemporary scholars have come to the conclusion that the role of the State in perpetuating social prejudices cannot be ignored. In effect, where State does not intervene it automatically allows communities with social and economic capital to exercise dominance over communities who have been historically marginalized.”
Lawyer Utkarsh Saxena and his partner Ananya Koti have filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against the judgment in Supriyo v. Union of India which refused to legalise same-sex marriages. They were petitioners in the case that was decided on 17.10.2023 by a 5 judge bench.
"..by refusing to grant queer couples access, on equal terms, to one of the most significant social institutions in our society - both intrinsically, and as a gateway to other crucial rights - the Court resiles from the promises of equal moral membership that it made to queer individuals in Navtej Johar vs Union of India, and entrenches once again a doctrine of 'separate and unequal' ", the most recent review petition states.
Case Title: All India Judges Association v. UoI And Ors.
Citation: WP(C) No. 643/2015
The Supreme Court today (23.11.2023) gave the Chief Secretaries of defaulting States and Union Territories a "final chance" to comply with its order in All India Judges Association v. Union of India matter, in which the Apex Court had provided a timeline for the Center and the States to pay retired judicial officers pension as per the enhanced pay scale as recommended by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC).
Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1269 of 2017
The Supreme Court on Thursday (November 23) dissolved the bench constituted to consider a batch of applications seeking reconsideration of its Vijay Madanlal Choudhary ruling, which upheld the powers of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).
After the union government sought more time, the special bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, and Bela M Trivedi decided to defer the hearing, in view of the retirement of Justice Kaul next month. The bench requested the Chief Justice of India to constitute another bench to hear the matter. The next posting will be after two months
The Supreme Court today (23.11.2023) noted that the issue of whether the payment of pensions to judicial officers purely on basis of contribution pension scheme would be consistent with norms of financial dignity did merit consideration.
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was passing an order in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, in which the Apex Court had provided a timeline for the Center and the States to pay retired judicial officers pension as per the enhanced pay scale as recommended by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC).
Case Title: Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6561 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday (November 24) adjourned the hearing of Satyendar Jain's bail plea until Monday, December 4. However, it agreed to extend the interim bail granted earlier this year to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader until the next date of hearing.
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Law Students Accused Of Injuring Two Advocates
Case Title: MIR SHUJATH ALI KHAN ETC. vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Citation: Diary No.- 43095 - 2023
The Supreme Court recently (on November 22) granted anticipatory bail to law students who were accused of injuring two advocates inside their chamber.
Earlier, the students had filed the plea seeking anticipatory bail before the Hyderabad bench of Telangana High Court. However, the Court, after taking note of the fact that the accused persons had trespassed into the advocates' office and assaulted both the advocates, dismissed the petition.
Supreme Court Judge Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed that the Enforcement Directorate cannot invoke the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against an accused citing Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (which deals with the offence of criminal conspiracy), if the alleged conspiracy is not related to a scheduled offence under the PMLA
Case Title: M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. v. RAMBHA DEVI Citation: Civil Appeal No(s).841/2018.
A Supreme Court Constitution Bench today (22.11.2023) directed that the decision in its 2017 judgment of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited will continue to hold field during the pendency of reference on the issue related to "Light Motor Vehicle" (LMV) driving license requirements for transport vehicles.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal on Wednesday (November 22) urged the Supreme Court to refer to a larger bench to reconsider its Vijay Madanlal Choudhary ruling, which is known for bolstering the powers of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED). Raising concerns about the wide-ranging powers of the central agency, the senior counsel said –
“The issues involved are very serious and affect the right to liberty. The judgment in ADM Jabalpur was set aside after 40 years. AK Gopalan was set aside in Minerva Mills after many years. Judgments are set aside because new paradigms emerge, and the court has to think of the consequences of those paradigms in the context of our Constitution and the liberty of the people.”
Case Title: In Re: Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances To Be Considered While Imposing Death Sentence
Citation: SMW(Crl) No. 1/2022 PIL-W
The Supreme Court today (22.11.2023) decided to list in January 2024 the petitions pertaining to whether same-day sentencing could be permissible in the cases of capital punishment or the death penalty. The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud stated that the registry shall notify the exact date of hearing in the matter in January 2024.
In a panel discussion on the future of marriage equality in India organised by Caucus, a discussion forum of the Hindu College, Senior Advocate (Retd Justice) S Muralidhar stated that the recent judgement in Supriyo v Union of India was a first step in the larger process. He added that the Central Government could have been directed to come out with a Committee Report on the issue of marriage equality in a time bound manner.
Case title: Nanhe v. State of UP
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2791 OF 2023
The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction of a convict for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after carefully considering the impact of intoxication on him at the time of the incident. The Court noted that despite being heavily intoxicated, the appellant was able to walk properly and even moved away 15-20 steps from the quarrel scene before returning to fire the fatal shot. The court concluded that there was no evidence indicating the appellant's incapacity to understand the consequences of his actions due to intoxication.
Marriage Equality Petitioners Seek Open Court Hearing Of Review Petition; CJI Agrees To Consider
In another development in the pleas concerning marriage equality in India, the petitioners who recently filed a review petition against the Constitution Bench judgement of the Supreme Court which refused to grant legal recognition for queer marriages in India, sought for an open court hearing of the review pleas.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Kaushal V. Chief Manager
Citation: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 25434/2023
The Supreme Court is set to examine whether while returning money deposited by the highest bidder, in an auction sale conducted by the bank, the rate of interest should match with the rate that the bank is charging from the borrower.
Case Title: TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. ADITYA THACKERAY
Citation: Diary No.- 34554 - 2012
Recently, the Supreme Court (on November 22), directed the filing of relevant regulations in an appeal against the telecom appellate tribunal's 2012 decision quashing the cap of 200 text messages per day.
India's First Female Supreme Court Judge Justice Fathima Beevi Passes Away
Justice M. Fathima Beevi, the first female Judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court of India, passed away today at the age of 96.
In her long and decorated career, (Late) Justice Beevi served as a role model and icon for women across the country, and she even left her mark on the political arena by being appointed as the Governor of Tamil Nadu after her superannuation as Supreme Court judge.
Case Title: INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 000645 - / 2022
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 21) reprimanded the Patanjali Ayurved for continuing to publish misleading claims and advertisements against modern systems of medicine.
“All such false and misleading advertisements of Patanjali Ayurved have to stop immediately. The Court will take any such infraction very seriously, and the Court will also consider imposing costs to the extent of Rs. 1 crores on every product regarding which a false claim is made that it can “cure” a particular disease,” Justice Amanullah orally said.
Delhi Pollution: Supreme Court Suggests Excluding Farmers Burning Stubble From Minimum Support Price
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 21) suggested excluding farmers burning their stubble from the purview of the minimum support price (MSP) infrastructure, as a part of a carrot-and-stick policy to disincentivize stubble burning in Punjab and other states adjacent to Delhi.
It also recommended completely subsidizing baling machines for poor farmers and financing their operating costs to convert stubble into a useful byproduct that could then be sold for a profit by the state government
The Supreme Court recently held that the place where the wife lives and seeks shelter after leaving her husband's home due to cruelty will have jurisdiction to entertain complaints under Section 498-A, depending on the factual situation.
Case Title: National Investigation Agency New Delhi v The State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 7024/2022
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (21.11.2023) refused to entertain an appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) challenging a fresh FIR registered, in 2020, by the Chhattisgarh police to probe the allegations of larger political conspiracy behind a Maoist attack that had killed several senior Congress leaders in Bastar in 2013.
Case Title: SALES TAX BAR ASSOCIATION (REGD.) v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 40083/2023
Recently, the Supreme Court has issued notice in a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 149 and 150 of the Finance Act, 2023 that seek to substitute Sections 109 and 110 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). These provisions relate to the appointments and conditions of service of members to the Appellate Tribunal under the CGST Act.
Case title: Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9431 of 2023)
"When the detention of the accused is continued by the Court, the courts are also expected to conclude the trials within a reasonable time, further ensuring the right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution," said the Supreme Court while rejecting the bail application in a money laundering case.
Case Title: The Temple of Healing v. Union of India
Citation: WP(C) 1003/2021
The Supreme Court on Monday (20.11.2023) directed the Secretary in charge of nodal departments responsible for the implementation of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act in all States to carry out bi-monthly identification drives to identify children who were orphaned, abandoned, or surrendered so that such children could enter the loop of adoption in India. It was stated that the first of these identification drives should be carried out on December 7, 2023.
Case title: Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9431 of 2023)
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's plea for bail on the grounds of parity with other co-accused who had been granted bail in a money laundering case. The Court emphatically stated that the principle of parity is not an absolute law but depends on individual circumstances and roles in the alleged offense.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 21) pulled up the Delhi Government for not fulfilling its assurance to allocate funds for the Regional Rapid Rail Transit System Project.
Expressing great disappointment with the stand of the Delhi Government, the Court passed an order to transfer the advertisement funds of the Government for the project.However, the Court kept the order in abeyance for one week, stating that it would come into operation if the Government did not voluntarily transfer the funds for the project within a week.
The Supreme Court on Monday (November 20) questioned the delay on the part of the Tamil Nadu Governor in disposing of the bills submitted for his assent since January 2020.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra noted that the Governor decided to "withhold" assent on ten bills, only after the Court issued notice on the writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Government on November 10. It may be noted that while issuing notice, the Court had observed that the Governor's inaction was a "matter of serious concern"
Case Title: The State Of Kerala And Anr. v Honble Governor For State Of Kerala
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 1264/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday (20.11.2023) issued notice on the plea filed by the Government of Kerala alleging that the Governor of Kerala, Arif Mohammed Khan, was delaying the consideration of bills that the State Assembly had passed.
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra also sought for the assistance of Attorney General R Venkatramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in the matter. The plea will now be heard on Friday (24.11.2023)
Case Title: Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra & Anr
Citation: Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 867 of 2021 in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2419 of 2019
The Supreme Court on Monday (November 20) questioned the central government over its delay in notifying the transfer of certain judges, most of them from the Gujarat High Court, even as it cleared the collegium's recommendation to transfer judges from other high courts.
Case Details: Sanjay Singh v. Union of India & Anr
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 14510 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday (November 20) issued notice in a plea by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Sanjay Singh, challenging his arrest and remand on charges of money laundering over alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of a now-scrapped liquor policy in Delhi. Singh has been in custody since last month, when he was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Case Title: Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: Interlocutory Application No. 149401 of 2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940 of 2022
The Centre has informed the Supreme Court that 28 states have appointed nodal officers in terms of directions in the 'Tehseen Poonawalla' guidelines in which the Court had issued guidelines to prevent mob violence and lynching. The status report was filed by the Centre in a batch of petitions seeking directions to prevent/curb hate speech.