As is the annual tradition, LiveLaw brings to you the list of 100 crucial judgments delivered by the Supreme Court in 2023. Join us as we explore these landmark rulings and uncover the profound impact they have on our legal landscape. The list of 100 judgments will be published in four video parts and this is the third part. [Find Part 1 here] [Find Part 2 here]51. Filing Incomplete...
As is the annual tradition, LiveLaw brings to you the list of 100 crucial judgments delivered by the Supreme Court in 2023. Join us as we explore these landmark rulings and uncover the profound impact they have on our legal landscape. The list of 100 judgments will be published in four video parts and this is the third part. [Find Part 1 here] [Find Part 2 here]
Case Title : Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India And Ors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 352.
The Supreme Court held that without completing an investigation of a case, a chargesheet or prosecution complaint can't be filed by an Investigating Agency only to deprive an accused of his right to default bail under Section 167 of CrPC. It may be noted that a 3-judge bench of the Court later effectively kept this judgment in abeyance by directing that Courts should not grant bail relying on Ritu Chhabaria.
Case Title : Vikas Mishra v. CBI, Citation : 2023 LiveLaw SC 283
The Supreme Court opined that its decision in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, wherein it was observed that there cannot be police custody beyond 15 days from the date of arrest, requires to be re-considered.
Case Title : Qamar Ghani Usmani v. The State of Gujarat , Citation :2023 LiveLaw (SC) 297
The Supreme Court held that an accused cannot claim the benefit of default bail, when he did not challenge the first extension of time granted for investigation and the second extension was granted in his presence and when the chargesheet was subsequently filed within the period of extension.
Case Title : The Director (Admn and HR) KPTCL & Others vs CP Mundinamani and others, Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 296
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that government employees cannot be denied the annual increment merely because they are to retire on the very next day of earning the increment.
[Case Title: All India Judges Association And Ors. v. Union of India And Ors. WP(C) No. 1022/1989]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 385
The Supreme Court refused to issue directions to the High Courts to fill 50% of the seats in the respective High Courts from the Bench (service judges, district judiciary), if vacancy from the Bar quota lies vacant for more than 6 months.
[Case Title: Union of India vs Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 388
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 140(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 and held that that the provision is "neither discriminatory, arbitrary and/or violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India".
Case Title: Peethambaran v. State of Kerala & Anr. Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 402
The Supreme Court stated that the power to order further investigation rests with either with the concerned magistrate or with a higher court and not with an investigating agency.
[Case Title: Sanket Kumar Agarwal & Anr v APG Logistics Private Limited] Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 406
The Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of computing limitation for filing of appeal under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the time taken by Tribunal for providing certified copy of order to be challenged ought to be excluded from computation of limitation.
[Case Title: M/s. Shree Vishnu Constructions vs The Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service & Ors.]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 417
The Supreme Court has ruled that where the notice invoking arbitration is issued prior to the coming into force of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, i.e., prior to 23.10.2015, and the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), seeking appointment of an arbitrator, is made post the enforcement of the Amendment Act, the 2015 Amendment Act shall not be applicable.
[Case Title : Government of NCT of Delhi vs Union of India] Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench held that the National Capital Territory of Delhi has legislative and executive power over administrative services in the National Capital, excluding matters relating to public order, police and land. The Lieutenant Governor shall be bound by the decision of Delhi government over services, apart from public order, police and land, it held. All reports about the judgment can be found here.
[Case Title: Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra And Ors. WP(C) 493/2022]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422
In the matter pertaining to the Shiv Sena rift, the Supreme Court Constitution bench held that it cannot order the restoration of the Uddhav Thackeray government as he resigned without facing floor test. Since Thackeray voluntarily resigned, the Court held that the Governor was right in inviting Ekanth Shinde form the government with the support of BJP. All Other reports about the judgment can be read here.
62. Be Vigilant Before Invoking Stringent Laws Like SC-ST Act : Supreme Court 'Reminds' Police Officers
[Case Title: Sri Gulam Mustafa vs State of Karnataka]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 421
The Supreme Court observed that the police officers have to be vigilant before invoking provisions of stringent laws like SC-ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act.
[Case Title: Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India MA 709/2022 in WP(C) No. 454/2015]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 425
The Supreme Court passed directions in pleas seeking modifications in the guidelines regulating the conferment of designation of Senior Advocates as laid down in its 2017 judgment.
[Case Title: Aureliano Fernandes Versus State Of Goa And Others | Civil Appeal No. 2482 Of 2014]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424
In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court of India has issued a slew of directions for the proper implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 [POSH Act] all over the country.
[Case Title: M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v Canara Bank & Ors.]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 428
The Supreme Court has held that if the existence of a financial debt and its default on the part of Corporate Debtor has been proved, then the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) is left with no option apart from admitting the petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).
[Case Title: Raj Kumar @ Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi)]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 434
The Supreme Court recently opined that while recording the statement under Section 313 of CrPC in cases involving a large number of prosecution witnesses, the Judicial Officers should take benefit of Section 313 (5) of CrPC, which will ensure that the chances of committing errors and omissions are minimized.
[Case Title: Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12779-12781 of 2022 and other connected matters]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 440
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has turned down a plea to refer the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India, which upheld several provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, to a larger bench.
[Case Title: The Animal Welfare Board of India And Ors. v. UoI And Anr. WP(C) No. 23/2016]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the State amendments made to the central law Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act by the States of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra to allow the conduct of animal sports like Jalikattu, Kambala and bull-cart racing in these respective States.
[Case Title: KC Ninan vs Kerala State Electricity Board and others C.A 2109-2110/2004]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that electricity dues of the previous owner of a property can be recovered from the subsequent owner or an auction purchaser.
[Case Title: All India Judges Association v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 643/2015]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452
The Supreme Court, in its judgement accepting various recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) on pay, pension, gratuity, age of retirement etc. of judicial officers, remarked that the functions of District judges were essentially the same as High Court judges. Hence, the increase in the salary of the High Court judges should reflect in the pay scale of district judges in the same proportion. The inability of a judicial officer to reach the prescribed targets of disposal or not satisfying the quantitative norms during the initial stage of the career need not be viewed seriously.
71. State Monopolies, Govt Companies & PSUs Can't Violate Competition Act : Supreme Court
[Case Title : Coal India Ltd v Competition Commission of India]
Citation. : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 484
The Supreme Court has observed that State Monopolies, Government Companies and Public Sector Units cannot be allowed to indulge in anti-competitive practices in violation of the Competition Act 2002. It held that Coal India Ltd. would come under the purview of the Competition Act, 2002 despite being a Public Sector Undertaking.
Case title: Vernon v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575
The Supreme Court's decision to grant bail to Bhima Koregaon-accused and activists Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira appears to have carved out a crucial exception in an otherwise unyielding interpretation of the court's bail-granting powers under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which flows from the Zahood Ahmad Watali judgment.
In Vernon, the bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia held that a plea for bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act would not pass muster of the prima facie test envisioned in Watali without “at least surface-analysis of the probative value of evidence” and if the court is not satisfied of the worth of the probative value of such evidence.
Case Details: Md Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 583
The Supreme Court of Indi reiterated the guidelines laid down by the top court for arrest under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and for other offences punishable by a maximum jail term of seven years in its 2014 Arnesh Kumar judgment.
Not only this, a bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar has also directed high courts and police chiefs to issue notifications and circulars in terms of the 2014 judgment to ensure strict compliance.
Case Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611
In the Senthil Balaji case, the Supreme Court has questioned the interpretation given by the 1992 judgment in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni that the police or investigating agency can't seek custody of the accused after the first 15 days from the arrest.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, while dismissing Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji and his wife's plea against custody by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), held that the prescribed 15-day-period of police custody can be an aggregate of shorter periods of custody sought over the entire period of investigation lasting 60 or 90 days, as a whole. Therefore, the bench has referred Anupam Kulkarni (1992) to a larger bench for reconsideration.
Case Title: A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 614
The Supreme Court recently held that a Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (PC Act) can proceed against an accused for offences under the Indian Penal Code 1860 even if sanction for prosecution has not been granted in respect of PC Act offences as per Section 19 of the said Act.