100 Important Supreme Court Judgments- Part 3 [51 to 75]

Part 1 can be read here. Part 2 can be read here.

51. If Right To Speedy Trial Is Violated, Constitutional Courts Can Grant Bail Despite Statutory Restrictions : Supreme Court In UAPA Case

Case Title – Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 486

In a significant judgment granting bail to an undertrial prisoner facing charges under the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967(UAPA), the Supreme Court held that a constitutional court can grant bail despite statutory restrictions if it finds that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed.

Also from the judgment - UAPA | 'Watali' Judgment Not A Precedent to Deny Bail To Undertrial In Long Custody With No End In Sight Of Trial: Supreme Court

52. NI Act | Large Number Of Cheque Bounce Cases Serious Concern, Courts Must Encourage Compounding If Parties Are Willing: Supreme Court

Case Title – M/s. New Win Export & Anr. v. A. Subramaniam., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 490

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the purpose of making cheque bounce an offence was to ensure reliability of cheques, and compensatory aspect of remedy under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has priority over the punitive aspect in such cases.

A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that courts should encourage settlement in cheque dishonour cases.

53. Proceedings For Cheque Dishonour U/s. 138 NI Act Do Not Constitute Continuing Cause Of Action To Initiate Arbitration: Supreme Court

Case Title – Elfit Arabia & Anr v. Concept Hotel BARONS Limited & Ors., Arbitration Petition (Civil) No. 15 of 2023

The Supreme Court recently observed that initiation of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for cheque dishonour does not constitute continuing cause of action for initiating arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

54. Prior Executive Decision Doesn't Bar Legislature From Taking Contrary View : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S REWA TOLLWAY P. LTD. Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC 495

The Supreme Court observed that a person cannot claim any enforceable legal right based on an executive action that is later modified by the state legislature in the larger public interest.

In essence, the Court stated that neither a right to legitimate expectation nor promissory estoppel can be asserted based on executive actions that the legislature subsequently changes in the public interest.

55. Bail Order Shouldn't Be Normally Stayed During Pendency Of Application To Cancel Bail : Supreme Court

Case Title – Parvinder Singh Khurana v. Directorate of Enforcement., SLP(Crl) No. 8007-8010/2024

In an important judgment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 23) held that bail orders should not be normally stayed. Setting aside an order of the Delhi High Court which stayed the bail granted in a money laundering case, the Court stated that bail orders can be stayed only in exceptional circumstances.

56. Supreme Court Refuses To Cancel NEET-UG 2024, Says There's No Material To Show Systemic Breach

Case Details: VANSHIKA YADAV Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 335/2024 And Other Connected Matters.

The Supreme Court refused to cancel the NEET-UG 2024 exam on the ground of paper leak and malpractices. The Court stated that there was no material to indicate that the leak was systemic affecting the sanctity of the entire exam.

57. Time-Barred Civil Contempt Petitions Can't Be Entertained Mechanically Accepting Bogey Of 'Continuing Wrong': Supreme Court

Case Title: S. Tirupathi Rao vs M. Lingamaiah & Ors., SLP (Civil) Nos.19748-19749 of 2022

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta has interpreted Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and held that the action for contempt should be brought within a year, and not beyond, from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.

58. Insolvency Resolution Of Corporate Guarantor Won't Bar Creditor From Filing CIRP Against Corporate Debtor For Balance Debt : Supreme Court

Case Title: BRS Ventures Investments Ltd. Versus SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. & Anr.

In a notable decision relating to the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code of 2016, the Supreme Court held when that the insolvency resolution of a corporate guarantor will not prevent the creditor from initiating another insolvency process against the corporate debtor for the balance debt.

59. States' Power To Tax Mining Rights & Mineral-Bearing Lands Not Limited By MMDR Act; Royalty Not Tax: Supreme Court Holds By 8 :1

Case Details : Mineral Area Development v. M/S Steel Authority Of India & Ors (CA N0. 4056/1999)., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 512

The Supreme Court 9-judge constitution bench today held by an 8:1 majority that States have the power to levy tax on mineral rights and that the Union law - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 - do not limit such power of the States.

60. S. 143A NI Act | Company's Authorized Signatory Not 'Drawer' Of Cheque, Can't Be Directed To Pay Interim Compensation: Supreme Court

Case Details: SHRI GURUDATTA SUGARS MARKETING PVT. LTD. Versus PRITHVIRAJ SAYAJIRAO DESHMUKH & ORS., Crl.A. No. 003070 - 003071 / 2024

The Supreme Court held that an authorized signatory of the company could not be considered as a 'drawer' of cheque, and therefore, could not be directed to pay the interim compensation to the complainant under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881 (“NI Act”).

61. Requirement That Judicial Officers Must Be Adept At Local Language Is Valid : Supreme Court

Case Title : THE LEGAL ATTORNEYS AND BARRISTERS LAW FIRM VS. UNION OF INDIA DIARY NO. - 53141/2023

The Supreme Court on Friday approved the requirements in various States that persons seeking appointment as judicial officers should be conversant with the local language.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra dismissed a petition challenging the condition imposed by the Public Service Commissions of the States of Punjab, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Odisha.

62. Pollution Under Control(PUC) Certificate Not Mandatory For Third Party Insurance : Supreme Court Recalls 2017 Direction

Case Title – MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029/1985

The Supreme Court removed the condition it had imposed by an order dated August 10, 2017, that required a Pollution Under Control (PUC) certificate as a prerequisite for availing third-party insurance for vehicles.

The bench comprising Justice AS Oka and AG Masih allowed an application filed by the General Insurance Council, which highlighted concerns about the 2017 order.

63. Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas For SIT Investigation Into Electoral Bonds 'Quid Pro Quo', Says Ordinary Remedies Not Invoked

Case Details : COMMON CAUSE AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 266/2024 and Other Related Matters

The Supreme Court dismissed petitions seeking to set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the alleged instances of quid pro quo arrangements between corporate and political parties through Electoral Bonds donations.

The Court said that it would be "premature" and "inappropriate" to order an investigation under the monitoring of a retired judge when the remedies available under the ordinary law governing criminal law procedure have not been invoked.

64. LG Can Nominate Members To Delhi Municipal Corporation Without Delhi Govt's Consent : Supreme Court

Case Title: Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, WP(C) No. 348/2023

The Supreme Court held that the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi has the power to nominate aldermen to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi without the aid and advice of the Delhi Government.

The Court ruled that the power was a statutory power flowing from the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and hence the Governor need not act as per the aid and advice of the Delhi Government. Since it was a statutory power given to the LG and not an executive power of the Government, the LG was expected to act as per the statutory mandate and not as per the aid and advice of the Delhi Government.

65. Banks Can't Classify MSMEs Loan Accounts As NPAs Without Following Procedure In Centre's 2015 Notification : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. PRO KNITS VERSUS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CANARA BANK & ORS., SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 7898 OF 2024) & Other Connected Matters.

In an important ruling concerning the revival of the entities registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act”), the Supreme Court observed that the Banks are not empowered to classify the loan accounts of the MSMEs, as Non-Performing Assets (NPA), without following the mandatory procedure laid down in the Instructions for Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of MSMEs issued by the Ministry of MSME.

66. Delimitation Commission's Orders Aren't Immune From Judicial Review : Supreme Court

Case Details: KISHORCHANDRA CHHANGANLAL RATHOD Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., CIVIL APPEAL No.7930 OF 2024

The Supreme Court held that nothing precludes the constitutional courts from checking the validity of orders passed by the Delimitation Commission on the touchstone of the Constitution if an order is found to be manifestly arbitrary and irreconcilable to constitutional values.

67. 'We Are Pained' : Supreme Court Expunges P&H High Court's Unwarranted Observations Against SC's Stay Order

Case : In Re : Order of Punjab and Haryana High Court Order Dated 17.07.2024 and Ancillary Issues | SMW(c) 8/24

Taking suo motu notice of an unusual order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 7) expunged the "unwarranted" remarks in the High Court's order criticizing a stay order passed by the Top Court.

68. Supreme Court Grants Bail To Manish Sisodia, Says Right To Speedy Trial Denied In Liquor Policy Case

In a significant development, the Supreme Court today allowed the bail plea of former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia in relation to the liquor policy case.

The Court allowed the bail applications filed by Sisodia in both the CBI and ED cases considering the delay in commencing the trial in the liquor policy case. The judgment also laid down important principles regarding bail under PMLA. Other reports about the judgment can be read here.

69. Bar Councils Can't Collect Any Amount Exceeding Fee Specified Under S.24 Of Advocates Act For Enrolment : Supreme Court

Case Details : Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 352/2023 and connected cases.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 519

The Supreme Court held that the enrolment fee cannot exceed Rs.750 for advocates belonging to the general category and Rs.125 for advocates belonging to SC/ST categories.

The Court categorically held that State Bar Councils cannot charge any amount over the above-specified amounts under the head of "miscellaneous fee", "stamp duty" or other charges. The Court specified that all fees charged by the bar councils, under whatever name, as a pre-condition for enrolment, would qualify as 'enrolment fee'. Therefore, money collected by Bar Councils in the name of verification fee, building funds, benevolent fund etc., which are stated to be one-time payments, at the time of enrolment, would be enrolment fee. Reports about the judgment can be read here.

70. Banks Can't Classify MSMEs Loan Accounts As NPAs Without Following Procedure In Centre's 2015 Notification : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. PRO KNITS VERSUS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CANARA BANK & ORS., SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 7898 OF 2024) & Other Connected Matters.

In an important ruling concerning the revival of the entities registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act”), the Supreme Court observed that the Banks are not empowered to classify the loan accounts of the MSMEs, as Non-Performing Assets (NPA), without following the mandatory procedure laid down in the Instructions for Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of MSMEs issued by the Ministry of MSME.

71. 'Bail Is The Rule, Jail Is The Exception' Even In Special Statutes Like UAPA : Supreme Court

Case Title – Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India

The Supreme Court held that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.

If the conditions in the special statute for the grant of bail are met, then bail should be granted, the Court stated.

72. Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta High Court Judgment Containing Controversial Remarks About Adolescent Sexual Behaviour

Case Details: In Re: Right to Privacy Of Adolescents, Suo Moto WP(C) No. 3 of 2023

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 20) delivered its judgment in a suo motu case titled "In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents," which was initiated over the controversial remarks made by the Calcutta High Court in a judgment delivered on October 18, 2023. The Court reminded that judges should decide cases as per law and should not preach or ventilate personal opinions in their judgments. The Court also criticised the HC suggestions to decriminalise 'consensual' sex among adolescents.

73. Not Declaring Separate Cut-Off For PWD Category Falling Under Overall Horizontal Reservation Isn't Arbitrary : Supreme Court

Case Title: REKHA SHARMA VERSUS THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR & ANR., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5051 OF 2023 (and connected matter)

The Supreme Court held that non-fixation of the cut-off marks for the category of persons with benchmark disability falling under an Overall Horizontal Reservation could neither be said to be arbitrary nor violative of Fundamental Rights.

74. If Accused Given Bail In Multiple Cases Is Unable To Find Sureties, Condition Of Multiple Sureties Be Balanced With Article 21 : Supreme Court

Case Details: Girish Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., WP (Crl) No. 149 of 2024.

The Supreme Court today (August 22) held that if an accused, involved in multiple cases, is enlarged on bail and is unable to find multiple sureties, the court must balance the requirement of sureties with his right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.

75. Mere Insult To SC/ST Member Not Offence Under SC/ST Act Unless Intent Was To Humiliate Based On Caste Identity : Supreme Court

Case Title: Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601

The Supreme Court held that mere insult of a member of a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) is not an offence under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 unless the accused had the intention to humiliate based on caste identity.

Other Supreme Court annual round-up stories can be read here.