- Home
- /
- Supreme court
- /
- 100 Important Supreme Court...
100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2023 -Part 2[26-50]
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
21 Dec 2023 10:16 AM IST
![100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2023 -Part 2[26-50]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2023/12/23/750x450_511806-100-important-supreme-court-judgments-of-2023-part-2.webp "100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2023 -Part 2[26-50]")
As is the annual tradition, LiveLaw brings to you the list of 100 important Supreme Court judgments of the current year - a much awaited article by our dear readers.The judgments are selected based on the following criteria - (i) importance to the general public; (ii) settlement of a contested position of law; (iii) utility for practising lawyers, judges and students.A disclaimer is added...
As is the annual tradition, LiveLaw brings to you the list of 100 important Supreme Court judgments of the current year - a much awaited article by our dear readers.
The judgments are selected based on the following criteria - (i) importance to the general public; (ii) settlement of a contested position of law; (iii) utility for practising lawyers, judges and students.
A disclaimer is added here that the judgments included in the list are not necessarily good or the best judgments; some of them are controversial and regarding some others, there are strong counter-views. Yet, these judgments are worthy of being noted and discussed upon, considering their general importance and impact on litigation and general socio-political arena. Hence, the inclusion in this list. The judgments are arranged in the chronological order. The reports about the judgments are hyperlinked at the case description.
The list of 100 judgments will be published in four parts and this is the second part. Part 1 can be read here. Part 3 can be found here. Part 4 can be found here.
Case Title: Union of India And Ors. v. Parashotam Dass |Civil Appeal No. 447 of 2023| 21st March, 2013
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 224
The Supreme Court overruled its decision in Union of India And Ors. v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma And Anr. which barred the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in cases assailing orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Case Title : State Bank of India vs Rajesh Agarwal and connected cases
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 243
In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court held that borrowers must be heard before their accounts are classified as fraud. The Court held that the principles of "audi alteram partem" must be read into the Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India on the classification of bank accounts as fraud accounts.
Case Title : Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan
Citation. : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 249
Answering a reference on a significant point of law, the Supreme Court has held that the day of remand is to be included for considering for considering a claim for default bail.
Case Title: Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra |Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 157324 of 2018 in Review Petition (Criminal) Nos. 1139-1140 of 2000 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 25-26 of 2000
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 244
The Supreme Court released a death row convict upon finding that even though he was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence he was tried as an adult and was sentenced to death.
Case Title: Lok Prahari v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 1141/2020 PIL
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 254
The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL which challenged the open ballot system for Rajya Sabha elections. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala was considering a petition filed by the NGO Lol Prahari challenging Rule 39AA of the Conduct of the Election Rules 1961.
Case Title: Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 915 of 2023
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260
The Supreme Court of India, while enlarging on bail an undertrial prisoner who was arrested seven years ago under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for his alleged involvement in peddling a prohibited substance, observed that a plain and literal interpretation of the rigorous conditions under Section 37 would make granting of bail impossible
Case Title: SCBA v. Ministry of Urban Development And Ors. WP(C)No. 640/2022
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 236
The Supreme Court held that it cannot consider on the judicial side the plea of the Supreme Court Bar Association to convert the entirety of 1.33 acres of the land allotted to the Top Court by the Central Government as space for lawyers' chambers.
33. Mere Membership Of Unlawful Organization Is UAPA Offence : Supreme Court Overrules 2011 Precedents
Case Title : Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234
In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court on Friday overruled its 2011 judgments in Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam, Indra Das vs State of Assam and State of Kerala vs Raneef which held that mere membership of a banned association is not sufficient to constitute an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 or the Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, unless it is accompanied with some overt violent.
34. Affinity Test Not Essential To Determine Correctness Of Caste/Tribe Claim : Supreme Court
Case Title: Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra And Ors. SLP (C) No. 24894 of 2009
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 241
The Supreme Court answered the reference pertaining to the question - whether the affinity test is integral to the determination of caste status made by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
Case Title : Anil Kumar vs State of Haryana | W.P.(Crl.) No. 46/2022
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 237
The Supreme Court held that period of parole granted to prisoners during the COVID-19 pandemic period to prevent the overcrowding of prisoners cannot be counted towards the period of actual imprisonment underwent by the prisoner.
Case Title: Rajendra Kumar Shrivas v. State of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.| 2023 LiveLaw (SC)181 |Civil Appeal No. 1514 of 2023
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 181
The Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to comply with the directions of the Apex Court in All India Judges' Association And Ors. v. UoI And Ors. (2010) 15 SCC 170, particularly, the one asking the High Courts to reserve only 10% seats in the higher judiciary to be filled up by limited departmental competitive examination.
Case Title : State of Goa vs Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd and others
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184
In a notable judgment explaining the concept of 'cause of action' under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court held that only those facts, which are relevant to the grant of the relief, will give rise to 'cause of action'.
Case Title: S. Athilakshmi vs. The State Rep. By The Drugs Inspector [SLP (Criminal) No. 9978 of 2022]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 194
The Supreme Court has held that a doctor's act of storing small quantities of medicines will not amount to an offence of unauthorized stocking of medicines under Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.
Case Title: Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through the Secretary, Land and Building Department And Anr. v. M/s. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited And Ors.| Diary No. 32257 of 2021
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 204
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court took a divergent view on the scope of review, when the judgment relied on in the impugned order and all subsequent judgment that followed it is eventually overruled by a superior court.
[Case Title : Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd vs Union of India and others]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269
[Case Title : Income Tax Officer vs Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia and 114 connected cases]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 274
In a significant judgment on taxation law, the Supreme Court held that the amendment brought to Section 153C of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the Finance Act 2015 will retrospectively apply to searches conducted prior to the date of the amendment, i.e, 01.06.2015.
42. Consumer Protection Act 1986 | Commercial Enterprises Can Raise Consumer Disputes In Relation To Goods Or Services Unconnected To Profit Generation : Supreme Court[Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors And Ors.| Citation: 2023 LiveLaw SC 313]
In a notable verdict, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar held that an enterprise is not excluded from the definition of "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 merely because it is a consumer enterprise. A commercial enterprise can raise consumer disputes under the Act in relation to any goods purchased or services availed which are not for commercial purposes. To decide whether it is for "commercial purpose" it has to be seen if the goods or the services had a close and direct nexus with the profit generating activity.
43. Supreme Court Deprecates High Courts Entertaining Writ Petitions In SARFAESI Matters; Frowns Upon Borrowers Approaching HCs To Consider Offers To Banks
[Case Title: M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. And Ors. v. Naveen Mathew Philip And Anr.| 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320]
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and MM Sundresh deprecated the interference of the High Courts in commercial matters, more particularly pertaining to the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act, 2002”).
[Case Title: State of Uttarakhand v. Umesh Kumar Sharma And Ors.| Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 335]
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar observed that police need not file closure reports in cases where criminal proceedings or FIR have been quashed by the High Court.
[Case Title: M/s. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. And Ors.| Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 343]
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T. Ravikumar answered the reference, which pertains to the issue - whether the arbitration clause in a contract, which is required to be registered and stamped, but is not registered and stamped, is valid and enforceable. It may be noted that this decision was later overruled by a 7-judge bench on December 14.
[Case Title: State of Gujarat And Ors. Etc. v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt And Ors. Etc.| 2023 LiveLaw SC 350]
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal held that Allopathy doctors and doctors of indigenous medicine cannot be said to be performing equal work so as to be entitled to equal pay.
[Case Title: In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.| Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351]
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices B. R. Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol modified its order dated June 3, 2022 to the extent that directions in the said order mandating a 1 km Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around protected forests would not be applicable to the ESZs in respect of which a draft and final notification has been issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) and in respect of the proposals which have been received by the Ministry.
48. Irretrievably Broken Down Marriage Can Be Dissolved On Ground Of 'Cruelty' : Supreme Court
[Case Title: Shri Rakesh Raman v. Smt. Kavita| Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 353]
In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and JB Pardiwala held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage can be read as the ground of "cruelty" under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for the dissolution of marriage.
[Case Title: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [TP(C) No. 1118/2014] and other connected matters]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that it can invoke its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which is not yet a statutorily recognised ground. It also that the Court can invoke the special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to waive the waiting period of 6 to 8 months prescribed for seeking divorce through mutual consent as per Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
[Case Title: Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh @ Jasbir and others vs National Investigation Agency and others | Crl.A. No. 1011/2023]
The Supreme Court pronounced a judgement holding that an accused person would not be entitled to default bail on the ground that the chargesheet filed against them is without a sanction of valid authority and hence is an incomplete chargesheet.
