Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: October 7, 2024 To October 13, 2024

→'Acknowledge Women's Struggles In Occupying Public Offices': Supreme Court Flags Discriminatory Attitude Towards Women Representatives

MANISHA RAVINDRA PANPATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 783

While granting relief to a female Sarpach of a village who was disqualified on technical grounds, the Supreme Court raised concerns about the discriminatory attitudes which permeate through all levels of administration towards women representatives.

The Court observed that the matter related to the removal of an elected representative should not be taken lightly, especially when it concerns women in rural areas.

→Supreme Court Sets Aside Death Sentence Of Watchman Convicted For Dacoity And Murder

Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 784

The Supreme Court recently set aside the death sentence of a watchman convicted for the dacoity and murder of his employers to life imprisonment.

A bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice PK Mishra, and Justice KV Vishwanathan set aside the death penalty imposed by the Bombay High Court in 2022.

“The learned Trial Judge upon consideration of the material placed on record had come to a considered conclusion that the present case does not fit in the category of the 'rarest of rare' cases. Therefore, unless the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge was found to be perverse or impossible, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the same”, the Court held.

→Supreme Court Disapproves Uttarakhand HC Judge's Proclivity In Making Unjustified Remarks Against Advocates

Siddhartha Singh v. Assistant Collector First Class/Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 785

The Supreme Court recently set aside two orders of the Uttarakhand High Court that contained adverse remarks made by a High Court judge against an advocate.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta ruled that the comments made by Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma of the HC regarding the advocate's conduct were unjustified and illegal.

“We disapprove the proclivity of the learned Judge of the High Court in making remarks against advocates for nothing so serious to take note of”, the Court added.

→When Can Official Superiors Be Liable For Abetment Of Suicide Of Employee? Supreme Court Explains

Nipun Aneja and Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 786

In a recent case, the Supreme Court explained when can the official superiors be held liable for the abetment of suicide of their junior official.

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra reasoned that behind the act of suicide can be categorized into two broad categories i.e., where the deceased is having sentimental ties with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity.

→'No Scheduled Offence In Complaint Or Chargesheet' : Supreme Court Grants Bail To Two Accused In Money Laundering Case

Laxmikant Tiwari v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 787

The Supreme Court on Friday (October 4) granted bail to two accused, Laxmikant Tiwari and Shiv Shankar Naag, in a money laundering case connected with the Chhattisgarh coal levy scam case.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih granted bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and the absence of a scheduled offence at the time of filing of the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

→Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras HC Judgment Which Was Signed & Uploaded After Judge's Retirement

State through the Inspector of Police CBI/ACB/Chennai v. S. Murali Mohan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 788

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 1) restored a quashing petition related to a corruption case to the file of the Madras High Court, noting that the judgment in the case was signed and uploaded after the judge, Justice T. Mathivanan, had retired.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih noted the report of the Registrar General and the Joint Registrar of the Personal Assistance Section of the Madras HC that indicated that the detailed judgment was received from the judge after his retirement on May 26, 2017.

Justice Abhay Oka, after dictating the order, emphasized, “There should not be a single incident like this” referring to the issuance of the detailed judgment after the judge's retirement.

→Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala HC's Orders For Disciplinary Proceedings Against Lakshadweep Judicial Officer

K. CHERIYA KOYA VERSUS MOHAMMED NAZER M.P. & ORS. ETC., SLP (CRL.) NO(S).11916-11919/2023, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 789

The Supreme Court recently set aside orders for disciplinary proceedings against a Judicial Officer, noting that the records pertaining to the case alleged to have been mishandled by him were not considered by the Kerala High Court at the time of passing of orders for suspension and enquiry. The same rendered the initiation of disciplinary proceedings legally invalid, the Court said.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti was dealing with the case of a suspended Sub-Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep.

→New Act Will Not Take Away Rights Accrued Under Repealed Law Unless Such Intention Is Expressed In New Statute: Supreme Court

RAJESH MITRA @RAJESH KUMAR MITRA & ANR. VERSUS KARNANI PROPERTIES LTD., CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3593-3594 OF 2024, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 790

The Supreme Court observed that the rights accrued under an old Act cannot extinguished with the enforcement of the new Act unless a retrospective effect was given to the New Act.

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale said so while deciding a tenancy dispute where the rights inherited by the Appellants/tenants under the Old Tenancy Act after the death of the main tenant were extinguished by way of the New Tenancy Act i.e., the provision of the New Tenancy Act was given a retrospective effect without making a provision in the New Tenancy Act regarding its retrospective application.

→Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Judgment Can't Be Delivered Based On Unclear, Ambiguous & Conditional Admissions: Supreme Court

RAJESH MITRA @RAJESH KUMAR MITRA & ANR. VERSUS KARNANI PROPERTIES LTD., CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3593-3594 OF 2024, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 790

Recently, the Supreme Court observed that as per Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“C.P.C.”), a judgment can't be delivered based on an unclear and ambiguous admission.

According to the court, when the testimony supplied in an admission contains both mixed questions of fact and law then such an admission against the law can never be an “admission” as visualized under Order XII Rule 6.

→Juvenile Justice Act | Plea Of Juvenelity Can Be Raised Even After Conviction & Sentence Attained Finality: Supreme Court

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VERSUS RAMJI LAL SHARMA & ANOTHER, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 791

The Supreme Court observed that the plea of juvenility can be filed even after the judgment and order of conviction and sentence granted against a person has attained finality.

While holding so, the bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kostiswar Singh acquitted the accused in a murder case who had filed a plea for juvenility after the order of conviction and sentence was passed against him.

→Supreme Court Upholds Manipur HC Direction Setting Aside Selection Of 242 Primary Teachers

KHUNJAMAYUM BIMOTI DEVI VERSUS THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 792

Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the Manipur High Court's decision which annulled the selection of 242 candidates for Primary Teacher positions in the OBC category due to procedural flaws.

The bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti held that the State should draw up a fresh selection list following the High Court's judgment limiting appointments to the originally stated 1,423 vacancies.

→HCs Fix Deadline For Trial Just For Psychological Satisfaction Of Parties, Such Orders Don't Work & Are Impermissible: Supreme Court

Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki@ Rabin v. State of West Bengal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 793

The Supreme Court on Friday (October 4) said that the trend of High Courts directing trial courts to conclude trial within a set time frame instead of granting bail, without considering the trial courts' case backlogs is impermissible.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih granted bail to two accused in a case of dacoity and attempt to murder, citing their prolonged incarceration and the slow progress of the trial.

“Now we will tell you the trend in High Courts. That case is made out for grant of bail, courts are reluctant to grant then courts say alright decide the case within 6 months without knowing what is the pendency in trial court just to give psychological satisfaction to everybody. Such orders don't work and such orders are not permissible in light of the Constitution Bench judgement”, Justice Oka remarked.

→Arbitration | Arbitral Award Must Carry Post-Award Interest As Per S. 31(7)(b) : Supreme Court

R.P. GARG VERSUS THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM DEPARTMENT & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10472 OF 2024,  2024 LiveLaw (SC) 794

The Supreme Court held that the post-award period shall carry a rate of interest decided as per Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).

“For the reasons to follow, while allowing the appeal we have held that as this is a case arising out of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by operation of Section 31(7)(b), the sum directed to be paid under the Arbitral Award shall carry interest. This is a first principle. A sum directed to be paid by an Arbitral Award must carry interest. In this view of the matter, we have restored the judgment of the District Court granting 18% interest from the date of the award to its realization.”, the Court held.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta set aside the High Court's findings, which had denied the post-award interest to the award holder noting that the contract between the parties does not permit the grant of post-award interest.

The Court observed that even an agreement between the parties not to grant post-award interest cannot eliminate the statutory right to post-award interest.