Home
/

Top Stories
/
Supreme Court Weekly Round-up:...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: September 1, 2024 To September 8, 2024

Amisha Shrivastava

8 Sept 2024 8:04 PM IST

Judgments

District Judge Selection | HC's Full Court Resolution Can't Introduce Cut-Off For Interview Against Rules: Supreme Court

Case Details: Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur at Imphal | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 294/2015

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 636

After a legal battle of nine years, a District Judge aspirant got relief as the Supreme Court recently held him eligible for appointment after invalidating the decision of the Manipur High Court to prescribe minimum cut-off marks for interview. A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti noted that the relevant statutory rule governing the recruitment of District Judges, the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005, did not provide for a separate cut-off for interview. Hence, such a requirement could not have been introduced through a Full Court resolution without amending the rules. Also, the requirement of a separate cut-off for the interview was not specified in the advertisement and was introduced only after the written test, that too without intimating the candidates.

Supreme Court: Appellate Courts Cannot Create New Issues Not Raised in Pleadings

Case Details: Rama Kt. Barman (Died) Thr. Lrs. v. Md. Mahim Ali & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3500/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 637

The Supreme Court held that the Courts at the Appellate stage of civil suits cannot create a new case for the parties while framing such additional issues that were never raised in the pleadings of the parties.

“It is well-settled principle of law that the Court cannot create any new case at the appellate stage for either of the parties, and the appellate court is supposed to decide the issues involved in the suit based on the pleadings of the parties.”, the bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said.

The Court said that whenever the Appellate Courts create an additional issue then it is incumbent upon them to decide the said issues in contemplation with Order 41 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).

"As per Order XLI Rule 25, the appellate court may, if necessary, frame issues and refer the same for trial to the court whose decree is appealed from, and direct such court to take additional evidence required. Further, as per Rule-27 Order XLI, the Appellate Court may allow evidence or document to be produced or witness examined, in the circumstances stated therein, after recording the reasons for such admission of evidence. However, the Appellate Court can not create a new case for the party, frame the issues and decide the issues without following the procedure contemplated under Order XLI of CPC," the Court explained.

Supreme Court: Indian Spouse's Presence Mandatory for Foreign National's OCI Card Application

Case Details: Union Of India v. Bahareh Bakshi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 638

The Supreme Court has held that the physical or virtual presence of the Indian spouse is mandatory to process the application of a foreign national for an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card as per Section 7-A(d) of the Citizenship Act 1955.

A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court which dispensed with the presence of the husband of an Iranian national to process her application for OCI status on the basis of her marriage to an Indian national.

The Supreme Court noted that the statute itself prescribed that the OCI registration of a foreign spouse of an Indian national is “subject to such conditions, restrictions and manner as may be prescribed”.

Sale Of Lottery By State Not Service; Lottery Wholesalers Not Liable To Service Tax : Supreme Court

Case Details: K. Arumugam v. Union Of India & Others Etc., Civil Appeal Nos.2842-2848 Of 2012 (and connected matters)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 639

The sale of lottery tickets by a State Government is not a service but an activity to earn additional revenue, observed the Supreme Court. Hence, the wholesale lottery purchasers are not promoting or marketing any service rendered by the State so as to attract service tax liability under the head "business auxiliary service."

The appellants before the Supreme Court were wholesale lottery purchasers, who bulk purchase lotteries from the State at a discount and sell them to retailers on a margin.

The issue before the Court was whether the lottery wholesalers were liable to pay service tax under the heading 'business auxiliary service' in terms of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. The tax authorities contended that the activity of the appellants amounted to "promotion or marketing of services provided by the client" which comes under the head "business auxiliary service" as per Section 65(19) of the Finance Act 1994.

A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh observed that there existed no business auxiliary service between the State and the appellants when the lotteries were sold and hence, no service tax could be levied and demanded from the Appellants.

Supreme Court: S. 50 NDPS Act Applies Only to Personal Searches, Excludes Searches of Carried Bags

Case Details: State of Kerala v. Prabhu

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 640

The Supreme Court observed that Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, which outlines the procedure for conducting search of a person, applies only to personal searches and not to searches of bags carried by the person being searched.

“the exposition of law on the question regarding the requirement of compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is no more res integra and this Court in unambiguous term held that if the recovery was not from the person and whereas from a bag carried by him, the procedure formalities prescribed under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not required to be complied with”

Supreme Court Grants Bail to UAPA Accused Held for Over 4 Years, Cites Delayed Trial

Case Details: Mukesh Salam v State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 641

The Supreme Court granted bail to a person charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act over alleged links with Naxalites in Chhattisgarh, taking into account the fact that he has been under custody since May 6, 2020, and the early conclusion of trial was unlikely.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra also noted that 12 out of the 14 co-accused have been granted bail.

Supreme Court Forms Committee to Address Shambhu Border Blockade

Case Details: The State of Haryana v. Uday Pratap Singh, SLP(C) No. 15407-15410/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 642

The Supreme Court ordered the constitution of a High-Powered Committee to hold negotiations with the farmers who are protesting at the Shambhu border between the States of Punjab and Haryana.

The committee will be headed by Justice Nawab Singh, Former Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in a petition filed by the State of Haryana against an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to remove the blockade at the Shambhu border (which was erected by Haryana to prevent the protesters from marching to Delhi).

The bench urged the Committee to reach out to and request the agitating farmers to remove their tractors, trolleys etc from the Shambhu border at the National Highway so as to provide relief to the general public. The protesters are at liberty to shift their agitation to an alternate site identified by the authorities.

Supreme Court: Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Can't Benefit Party Responsible for Collapse

Case Details: Prabhavathi @ Prabhamani v. Lakshmeesha M.C., SLP(C) No. 28201/2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 643

The Supreme Court expressed dismay over the mechanical approach adopted by the Family Court in granting a divorce decree against the wife despite no fault being attributed to her..

The Court said that the husband cannot be benefitted from seeking annulment of the marriage when he was solely responsible for the breakdown of the marital relationship.

“The bogey of irretrievably breaking down of marriage cannot be used to the advantage of a party (husband in this case) who is solely responsible for tearing down the marital relationship”, the bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said.

Delhi Liquor Policy : Supreme Court Grants Bail To Vijay Nair After 23 Months Custody In Money Laundering Case

Case Details: Vijay Nair v. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 644

The Supreme Court granted bail to Vijay Nair, the former communications-in-charge of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), in the money laundering case related to the national capital's excise policy. Nair has been in custody for approximately 23 months.

A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti The court stated that the principle of "bail as the rule and jail as the exception" would be defeated if the petitioner remained in custody without trial.

“The right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a sacrosanct right which requires to be respected even in cases where stringent provisions are incorporated in the special enactments. The petitioner has been in custody for over 23 months and his incarceration as an undertrial cannot be a mode of punishment without trial having commenced in the case. The universal proposition of bail being the rule and jail being the exception will be entirely defeated if petitioner is kept in custody as an undertrial for such long duration particularly when in the event of conviction, the final sentence can only be 7 years in the maximum. We are of the view that petitioner deserves bail. Accordingly bail is granted on the following terms…”, Justice Roy said, dictating the order.

Supreme Court: Only Advocates Present or Assisting in Court Will Have Online Presence Marked

Case Details: Baidya Nath Choudhary v. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh, Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1188/2018 In C.A. No. 2703/2017

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 645

Deploring the practice of marking the presence of an Advocate who was neither physically nor virtually present during the proceedings , the Supreme Court directed that only the presence of those Advocates would be marked who were either present in the case or assisting in the Court.

In a strict sense, the bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal also said that the presence of those advocates would also not be marked who were though not present in the Court but associated with the Advocates office.

“we forthwith direct that in this Court, online presence of only those advocates be furnished and be marked who are appearing or assisting during hearing as indicated above and not of those who are not present in Court but may be associated in office of the advocates.”, the Court said.

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Kejriwal's PA Bibhav Kumar in Swati Maliwal Assault Case

Case Details: Bibhav Kumar v. State Of NCT Of Delhi, SLP(Crl) No. 9817/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 646

The Supreme Court granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Personal Assistant Bibhav Kumar in the Swati Maliwal assault case.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that there are more than 51 witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution, and hence, the conclusion of the trial will take some time. Also, the petitioner has been under custody for over 100 days. Since the chargesheet has already been filed, his release will not cause any prejudice to the investigation which is already complete, the bench noted.

'Judgment Cannot Be Sustained In Absence Of Reasoning' : Supreme Court Remands Matter To High Court To Decide Afresh

Case Details: State Project Director, UP Education For All Project Board & Ors. v. Saroj Maurya & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3465 Of 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 647

Observing that no decision could be legally sustainable in the absence of a reasoning, the Supreme Court recently set aside the High Court's Division Bench order which was rendered casually without furnishing any reasons therefor.

In the present case, while upholding the single-judge decision, the Division Bench of the High Court didn't express its view on the issues and rather concluded that the Division Bench was in agreement with the approach and view of the learned Single Judge without furnishing any reasons therefor.

Supreme Court Explains Procedure For Admitting Insufficiently Stamped Instruments Under Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957

Case Details: Seetharama Shetty v. Monappa Shetty

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 648

The Supreme Court recently explained the procedure related to admission of insufficiently stamped instruments as evidence as per Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.

A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti extracted the steps to be followed as per Sections 33, 34, 35, 37, and 39 of the Act in the following manner:

[Note: In Karnataka, District Registrar acts as the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps.]

Section 33 provides the impounding of instruments that are insufficiently or improperly stamped, preventing parties from withdrawing such documents once they are notified about the requirement to pay proper stamp duty and penalties.
A party relying on an insufficiently stamped instrument can either:

Pay the required duty and penalty directly under Section 34.

Apply under Section 39 to the District Registrar/Deputy Commissioner to determine and collect the deficient stamp duty and penalty. After payment, the impounded instrument is released and can be used as evidence.

If a party chooses to send the instrument to the Deputy Commissioner to collect the deficit stamp duty and penalty, the court has no option but to send the document to the Deputy Commissioner. However, this choice must be made by the party before the court invokes Section 34.
Section 34 bars the use of insufficiently stamped instruments in evidence until the deficient stamp duty and penalty are paid. The authority collecting the deficit has no discretion but to levy a penalty of ten times the deficit.
Section 35 provides that once an insufficiently stamped instrument is admitted into evidence under Section 34, its admission cannot be challenged.
Section 37 - Dealing with Impounded Instruments:

After the deficit duty and penalty are paid, the court has to forward it to the Deputy Commissioner or District Registrar.

If a case does not fall under Sections 34 or 36 (admission of improperly stamped instruments), the impounding authority must send the original document to the Deputy Commissioner.

Once a party complies by paying the required stamp duty and penalty under Sections 34 or 39, the legal objection related to insufficient stamping under Section 33 is removed, allowing the document to be admitted into evidence without further objections under the Stamp Act.
Under Section 39, the Deputy Commissioner or District Registrar is responsible for stamping impounded instruments and has discretion in levying penalties, which can extend up to ten times the deficient duty but only in extreme cases.
After fulfilling all requirements, including payment of duty and penalties, the document complies with the Act's requirements. The scheme allows a party to directly approach the District Registrar, pay the duty and penalty, and then present the document to the court, removing any objections under Sections 33 or 34.

Motor Accident Claims - Supreme Court Absolves Car Dealer From Liability For Death During Test Drive By Manufacturer's Employees

Case Details: Vaibhav Jain v. Hindustan Motors Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 649

The Supreme Court refused to hold a car dealer liable to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of persons caused due to an accident which took place while the vehicle was taken for a test drive by the employees of the manufacturer.

In this case, an accident took place during a test drive in which the dealer (appellant) of the Lancer car, the driver of the car, and the manufacturer were held to pay compensation jointly and severally by a Tribunal. However, the dealer challenged the liability on the grounds that the deceased was an employee of the manufacturer Hindustan Motors and even though there was a dealership agreement to transfer the ownership of the vehicle, there was no sale at the time of the accident.

The court agreeing with the submissions of the dealer, held: "The appellant was neither the owner nor in control/ command of the vehicle at the time of accident, and the vehicle was being driven by an employee of M/s. Hindustan Motors, we are of the view that apart from the driver, M/s. Hindustan Motors alone was liable for the compensation awarded. Thus, the appellant should not have been burdened with liability to pay compensation."

Income Tax Act | Supreme Court Refuses To Give Retrospective Application To 2022 Amendment To S.80DD Regarding 'Jeevan Adhar' Policies

Case Details: Ravi Agrawal v. Union Of India & Another, Writ Petition (Civil) No.706 Of 2020

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 650

The Supreme Court refused to give the retrospective operation to the amended Section 80DD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”) which provided an option to the subscriber the Jeevan Adhar Policy (“Policy”) upon attaining the age of 60 years to discontinue the deposit made under the policy and make use of the money accumulated for the benefit of the disabled person for whom the policy was purchased.

Specific Relief Act | S.28 Application Can Be Filed In Trial Court Even If Decree Was Passed By Appellate Court : Supreme Court

Case Details: Ishwar (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs and Ors. v. Bhim Singh and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 651

The Supreme Court reiterated that an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, can be filed before the trial court even if the decree for specific performance was passed by the appellate Court.

The Court further held that the Execution Court has the power to grant extension of time stipulated by the appellate court for a property buyer to pay the amount provided that the Execution Court is also the court which tried and decided the original specific performance suit.

Supreme Court Refuses To Appoint Special Public Prosecutor For Senthil Balaji's Trial, Asks Why TN Governor Took 7 Months To Grant Sanction

Case Details: Y. Balaji v. Assistant Commissioner of Police Central Crime Branch (Job Racketing) & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 652

The Supreme Court refused to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor for the trial of former Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji in corruption case arising out of the cash of jobs allegations.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih bench stated that as of now, there is no material on record suggesting that the current Public Prosecutor is not competent enough.

B.Ed. Degree Not A Qualification For Primary School Teacher : Supreme Court Reiterates

Case Details: Navin Kumar & Ors v. Union of India & Ors Etc, SLP (C) Nos__ of 2024 Arising Out of Diary No. 17948 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 653

The Supreme Court upheld a judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court which quashed the appointments of B.Ed. Degree holders candidates as primary school teachers and reiterated that the essential qualification for such appointments is a Diploma in Elementary Education.

Doctors Directed To Stop 'Two-Finger Test' On Rape Victims, Violators Will Be Punished : Meghalaya Govt Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Sunshine Kharpan v. State of Meghalaya, Diary No. - 48388/2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 654

The State of Meghalaya informed the Supreme Court that it has issued circular in compliance with the earlier directions of the Court prohibiting the 'Two Finger test' on rape survivors.

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Sanjay Karol was hearing a criminal appeal arising out of the High Court of Meghalaya filed by a person convicted of offense rape and charges under the POCSO. Notably, earlier a bench of CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal expressed dismay over a shocking incident where a two-finger test was applied to the rape victim in the case.

Supreme Court: Court Cannot Delay Bail Implementation After Granting Bail To Accused

Case Details: Jitendra Paswan Satya Mitra v. State of Bihar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 655

The Supreme Court ruled that once a court concludes that an accused is entitled to bail, it cannot delay the implementation of the bail order, as doing so may violate the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih deleted the condition imposed by Patna High Court while granting bail to an accused that the bail order will be executed after six months. The HC in the impugned judgment did not provide any reason for imposing such a condition.

“The impugned judgement proceeds on the footing that the appellant is entitled to bail and in fact the impugned order grants bail. However, it is observed in paragraph 9 that the order granting bail be implemented after 6 months. Once court comes to the conclusion that an accused is entitled to bail, the court cannot postpone the grant of bail. If after holding that an accused is entitled to bail, the courts start delaying the order granting bail it may amount to violation of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution of India,” the Court held.

Bail Cannot Be Denied On The Ground That Trial Is Expedited: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki@ Rabin v. State of West Bengal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 656

The Supreme Court emphasized that bail cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the trial will be expedited.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih said this while issuing notice in an SLP by a dacoity accused challenging Calcutta High Court's decision to reject his bail plea but expedite the trial.

The Supreme Court noted that despite the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of High Court Bar Association v. State of UP, which held that High Courts and the Supreme Court should not fix a time-bound schedule for the completion of trials, several High Courts continue to do so after denying bail.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Of Ex-Vigilance Commissioner For Chief Secretary's Pay Scale

Case Details: Metongmeren Ao v. State of Nagaland

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 657

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by a former State Vigilance Commissioner of Nagaland seeking a pay scale equivalent to that of the Chief Secretary of the State observing that he is not entitled to the Chief Secretary's pay scale merely because some predecessors were getting that pay scale.

A bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the appellant voluntarily accepted the offered pay scale, and he was not obliged to join the post if the pay scale being offered was not acceptable to him.

Supreme Court Holds Landowners Liable Along With Builder For Deficiencies In Flat Constructions

Case Details: Akshay & Anr. v. Aditya & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos.3642-3646/2018

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 658

The Supreme Court held that a revocation of power of attorney executed between landowners and builder for developing their land would not absolve the landowners from being jointly and severally liable along with the builder in a consumer case for deficiency of service.

The Court observed that the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) between the builder and the landowners remained operative even after the revocation of the power of attorney. It was also held that the expression 'henceforth' used in the revocation letter to the builder meant that landowners would be ceased of any liability for builder's actions that occurs subsequent to the termination and that would not exclude the landowners' liability for the agreements that the builder entered into with the buyers before the termination.

S.149 IPC | When Accused Is Roped In For Being Member Of Unlawful Assembly, Whether He Caused Injury Is Irrelevant : Supreme Court

Case Details: Nitya Nand v. State of U.P. & Anr., Crl Appeal No. 1348 of 2014

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 659

The Supreme Court upheld the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court convicting and sentencing the appellant for murder along with rioting armed with deadly weapon.

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a criminal appeal where the appellant argued that although he had carried a country-made pistol at the crime scene, where other accused had committed murder, his pistol did not cause any injury as it was fired to frighten and flee from the crime scene.

Rejecting his defence, the court held that since he was present at the crime scene where unlawful assembly took place with the object of murdering the deceased, the presence of the accused was enough for him to be booked for murder.

No overact has to be imputed to a particular person in an unlawful assembly, the court observed.

S. 401 CrPC | High Courts Can't Convert Order Of Acquittal To Conviction Under Revision Jurisdiction : Supreme Court

Case Details: C.N. Shantha Kumar v. M.S. Srinivas

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 660

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court while exercising a Criminal Revision jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C. (now Section 442 of BNSS) cannot order a decision of acquittal to conviction.

The Court said that if the High Court believes that the acquittal was wrong, then instead of reversing the acquittal it could have remanded back the matter for re-appreciation by the appellate court.

The bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti heard a matter where the High Court while exercising the criminal revisional jurisdiction had overturned the acquittal of an appellant to a conviction in a cheque dishonour matter without remanding a matter back to the appellate court for re-appreciation.

'No Minimum Sentence Prescribed For Conviction Under S.304A & 338 IPC' : Supreme Court Alters Sentence In Negligent Driving Case

Case Details: George v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 661

The Supreme Court ordered the release of a convict charged for causing the death of a pillion rider of a motorcycle due to his rash and negligent driving by reducing his period of sentence to a period already suffered by him during custody.

Noting that there's no minimum punishment of sentence prescribed for under Sections 304 A and 338 of the IPC, the bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma upon placing reliance on the case of Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police reported in LL 2021 SC 279 ordered for substitution of sentence to only fine.

IBC | 'Auction-Purchaser Entitled To Benefit Of COVID Limitation Extension' : Supreme Court Refuses To Cancel Sale Over Delayed Deposit

Case Details: V.S. Palanivel v. P. Sriram CS Liquidator etc, Civil Appeal Nos. 9059-9061 of 2022

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 662

The Supreme Court refused to cancel an e-auction despite the Auction Purchaser making a glaring default in making a deposit of the balance sale consideration on grounds that the subject matter of the auction has been utilised and the appellant failed to approach the court on time.

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted: "Much water has flown under the bridge by now. The subject land has been utilized by the Auction Purchaser to build a 200-bed Mother and Child hospital which is operational. Huge amounts have been pumped into the project by the Auction Purchaser. The hospital is fully functional providing medical facilities to seven surrounding districts."

In contrast, it noted that the appellant who moved the court in appeal to cancel the auction has not been a vigilant litigation.

The Supreme Court interpreted Rule 12 of Schedule 1 under Regulation 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 as mandatory in character. Rule 12 relates to how assets of the Company (Corporate debtor) are to be sold by the Liquidator.

Rule 12 reads: "On the close of the auction, the highest bidder shall be invited to provide balance sale consideration within ninety days of the date of such demand: Provided that payments made after thirty days shall attract interest at the rate of 12%. Provided further that the sale shall be cancelled if the payment is not received within ninety days."

The Supreme Court clarified that the advice offered by the Stakeholders Consultation Committee (SCC) constituted in liquidation proceedings is not binding on the Liquidator.

Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Professor Who Couldn't Join Duty Due To COVID

Case Details: Kerala Agricultural University & Anr. v. TP Murali @ Murali Thavara Panen & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 663

The Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court's decision quashing the termination of an Assistant Professor who was unable to resume his duties after Leave Without Allowance (LWA) due to COVID-19 pandemic.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal noted that the relevant disciplinary provision - Rule 15(2)(a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, mandated that the relevant authority must record prima facie satisfaction that there is a case for taking action before holding a departmental inquiry, which was not done in this case.

High Court Chief Justice Cannot Individually Reconsider Judges' Appointment, Must Be Collectively Done By Collegium : Supreme Court

Case Details: Chirag Bhanu Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 664

While directing the Himachal Pradesh High Court Collegium to reconsider the elevation of two District Judges, the Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice of a High Court cannot individually reconsider a recommendation.

The Court reiterated that the decision has to be taken collectively by the Collegium (comprising CJ and two senior judges) after deliberations.

"The process of judicial appointments to a superior court is not the prerogative of a single individual. Instead, it is a collaborative and participatory process involving all Collegium members.The underlying principle is that the process of appointment of judges must reflect the collective wisdom that draws from diverse perspectives. Such a process ensures that principles of transparency and accountability are maintained," observed the bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra.

APSRTC Employees Appointed In Regions Forming Part Of Telangana Will Be TSRTC Employees Following Andhra Pradesh Bifurcation : Supreme Court

Case Details: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors v. V.V. Bramha Reddy & Anr, Civil Appeal No. 5267 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 665

The Supreme Court held that the employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), who were appointed at regional levels in areas which formed part of the State of Telangana, will continue as employees of the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC), which is the successor corporation following the bifurcation of the State of AP.

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which allotted the employees to the APSRTC based on the fact that they were serving in AP on 02.06.2015(date on which TSRTC was formed).

A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal held that the division bench applied incorrect law.

'Parties' Rights Can't Override Child's Welfare' : Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Giving Father Toddler's Custody From Maternal Relatives

Case Details: Somprabha Rana & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Crl. A. No. 3821/2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 666

Observing that the welfare of a child is of paramount importance, the Supreme Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order which had granted the custody of a 2.5-year-old child to her father on the sole ground of he being a 'natural guardian' of the child.

"As far as the decision regarding custody of the minor children is concerned, the only paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor. The parties' rights cannot be allowed to override the child's welfare. This principle also applies to a petition seeking Habeas Corpus concerning a minor," the Court observed.

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Prosecution Against Company Granted Immunity Under S.32K Central Excise Act

Case Details: Baccarose Perfumes And Beauty Products Pvt. Ltd v. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 3216 Of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 667

The Supreme Court quashed criminal prosecution against a company engaged in manufacturing and exporting cosmetics, accused of causing a loss of INR 8 crore by underpaying Countervailing Duty (CVD) based on invoice value instead of Maximum Retail Price (MRP). The prosecution was initiated under Section 120B and Section 420 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The company received immunity from prosecution under Section 32K of the Central Excise Act on August 20, 2007. However, despite this immunity, the trial court proceeded with the case, and the High Court upheld this decision.

On the grant of immunity, there arises an explicit bar from prosecution in cases where the proceedings for any offence have been instituted after the date of receipt of the application seeking such immunity under the relevant law.

The immunity was granted on 20.08.2007. The FIR was registered on 04.04.2005. Addressing the issue whether the registration of FIR would amount to the initiation of proceedings prior to the grant of immunity, the Supreme Court noted that merely registering an FIR does not constitute initiation of legal proceedings. Formal proceedings require submission of a Final Report or Chargesheet.

The Court found that since the immunity was granted and there was no fiscal liability on the company, the prosecution should not have continued.

Karnataka Stamp Act | Supreme Court Approves Levy Of Ten Times Penalty On Deficit Stamp Duty To Admit Document In Evidence

Case Details: NM Theerthegowda v. YM Ashok Kumar And Others, Civil Appeal No. 10038 Of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 668

The Supreme Court justified the imposition of ten times penalty on a deficit stamp duty being unpaid by the litigant under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (“Act”).

The Appellant wanted the suit agreement to be admitted in evidence at the interlocutory stage, however, the agreement was not sufficiently stamped. Therefore, in terms of Section 34 of the Act, the Appellant was directed to pay ten times of deficit stamp duty by the trial court as a penalty for not paying sufficient stamp duty. The trial court's order was sustained by the High Court. Following this, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, it was argued by the Appellant/litigant that the deficit stamp duty should alone be collected at the time of the passing of the judgment and decree, and the levy of penalty is illegal and erroneous.

Rejecting the Appellant's contention, the bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti observed that since the Appellant's case squarely falls within Section 34 of the Act, which makes instruments not duly stamped to be inadmissible in evidence, the levy of penalty by the trial court i.e., ten times the deficit stamp duty amount could not be interfered with.

Take Steps To Ensure Speedy Trial In Heinous Crimes & Crimes Against Women & Children: Supreme Court To Allahabad HC CJ

Case Details: Mubarak Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 669

The Supreme Court requested the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to take measures to ensure the speedy conclusion of trials, particularly in cases involving heinous crimes and crimes against women and children.

A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that delays in the trial were enabling accused persons charged with heinous crimes to seek bail on the grounds of prolonged trial.

Supreme Court Orders State to Enforce S.136A Motor Vehicles Act for Electronic Road Safety Monitoring

Case Details: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 670

The Supreme Court directed all state governments to take immediate steps to implement Section 136A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which pertains to the electronic monitoring and enforcement of road safety. The Court also directed all state governments to ensure compliance Rule 167A(A) of Central Motor Vehicle Rules by issuing challans on the basis of footage from electronic enforcement devices.

Section 136A mandates that state governments ensure electronic monitoring and enforcement of road safety on national highways, state highways, and roads in urban areas with a population prescribed by the Central Government. Further, the Central Government has to make rules for electronic monitoring and enforcement including speed cameras, closed-circuit television cameras, speed guns, body wearable cameras and such other technology.

Inquiry About Mesne Profits Continuation Of Original Suit; Application For Such Inquiry Not Barred By Limitation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Choudappa & Anr. v. Choudappa Since Deceased By Lrs. & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3056 Of 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 671

The Supreme Court permitted the decree-holder to file an application regarding the determination of mesne profits after almost 26 years of passing the decree.

The Court said that filing an application as a reminder to the court to complete the inquiry into the determination of mesne profit cannot be said to be filing a fresh suit but a continuation of the suit and cannot be barred by limitation.

“Now, such an inquiry is nothing but a continuation of the suit and is in the nature of preparation of the final decree and as such, it cannot be said that any application moved as a reminder for completing the inquiry is barred by limitation or is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay or laches.”, the bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan said.

Supreme Court Directs CBI To Investigate Death Of Chhattisgarh Senior Judicial Officer's Wife

Case Details: Mandakini Diwan and Anr. v. The High Court of Chhattisgarh & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 672

The Supreme Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate into the death of the wife of a senior judicial officer in Chhattisgarh.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale passed the direction allowing an appeal filed by the mother and the brother of the deceased, Ranjana Diwan.

Supreme Court Accepts Magistrate's Apology, Imposes Rs 25K Fine on Police Officer for SC Order Violation

Case Details: Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat, SLP(Crl) No. 14489/2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 673

The Supreme Court passed the sentence in the contempt case against a Police Officer and the Judicial Magistrate from Gujarat for the arrest and remand of an accused in violation of its order granting him interim anticipatory bail.

While the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the Magistrate, it imposed a fine Rs. 25,000 on the Police Officer.

On August 7, the Court had held them guilty of contempt of court and directed their presence today for hearing on sentence.

Orders

Supreme Court Rejects Kerala District Judges' Plea Against HC Collegium Elevation Decision

Case Details: Saidalavi PP v. High Court Kerala At Ernakulam

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by two District Judges from Kerala against the Kerala High Court collegium not considering their names for elevation as judges of the High Court.

A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti expressed displeasure at the petition filed by District Judges PP Saidalavi and KT Nizar Ahamad.

Supreme Court to Create Pan-India Guidelines on 'Bulldozer Actions,' Asserts Houses Can't Be Demolished Solely Based on Accusations

Case Details: Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 (and connected matters)

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 2) expressed the intention to lay down pan-India guidelines to address the concerns that authorities in several States are resorting to the demolition of houses of persons accused of crimes as a punitive action.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, hearing a batch of petitions challenging the "bulldozer actions" in various States, asked the parties to submit draft suggestions which can be considered by the Court to frame the pan-India guidelines. The proposals are to be submitted to Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi, who has been asked to collate them and present to the Court.

RG Kar Protests: Supreme Court Rejects West Bengal Govt's Appeal on HC Releasing Student Leader

Case Details: State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Anjali Lahiri and Anr. SLP(Crl) No. 11938/2024

The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge by the State of West Bengal against the bail granted to student leader Sayan Lahiri in relation to the protests over RG Kar Hospital Rape-Murder.

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing West Bengal's challenge against the Calcutta High Court order directing the release of Sayan Lahiri the alleged leader of the 'Paschim Banga Chhatra Samaj', an organization which led a call for protests and march towards the State secretariat in Nabanna.

Supreme Court Directs Union to File Affidavit on Ration Card Compliance for Migrant Workers

Case Details: In Re Problems And Miseries Of Migrant Labourers MA 94/2022 In SMW(C) No. 6/2020

The Supreme Court directed the Additional Solicitor General, Aishwarya Bhati to file a comprehensive affidavit on behalf of the Union of India on whether the directions passed by the court in suo moto proceedings on granting ration cards to migrant workers and unskilled labourers and the subsequent passed orders have been complied with.

Supreme Court Ruling on West Bengal VC Appointments: Experts Known to Applicants Excluded from Selection Committee

Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023

In the dispute pending between the West Bengal government and Governor CV Anand Bose regarding appointment of Vice-Chancellors (VCs) to Universities, the Supreme Court directed that two experts known to an applicant for the VC-post shall not be part of the Selection Committee when his application is considered.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order on an interim application filed by one Dr. Indrajit Lahiri (an applicant for the VC-post for 36 Universities), wherein he stated fairly that two of the experts constituting the Committee knew him well and the same could lead to a presumption of bias.

Justice Kant dictated the order thus: "He (applicant) has fairly pointed out that two experts namely...are close to him, and that respondent No.34 has also worked under them. He has pointed out that there may be a presumption of bias by others...it is clarified that [the two named experts] will not be there in the Search-cum-Selection Committee at the time of consideration of candidature of Dr. Indrajit Lahiri".

Supreme Court Notice on RJD Leader Ram Bali Singh's Plea Against Expulsion from Bihar Legislative Council

Case Details: Ram Bali Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council, Patna, SLP(C) No. 016760/ 2024

The Supreme Court issued notice on RJD leader Ram Bali Singh's plea challenging his expulsion from the Bihar Legislative Council over statements against state policies while his party formed the government.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order. The matter is next listed for consideration on October 25.

Supreme Court Seeks Report From Madras HC After CBI's Claim That Detailed Order Was Uploaded After Judge's Retirement

Case Details: State through the Inspector of Police CBI/ACB/Chennai v. S. Murali Mohan

The Supreme Court directed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to submit a report following CBI's claim that the HC passed a single-line order in a case, and the detailed order was not made available till the judge demitted office.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by the CBI challenging an order of the HC Single-Judge Justice T. Mathivanan quashing a corruption case against an IRS officer.

The Supreme Court directed the Registrar General of the Madras HC to provide the following information:

1. The date on which the detailed judgment was received by the Registry from the judge's office.

2. The date when the detailed judgment was uploaded.

3. Whether there was any administrative direction from the Chief Justice of the HC for a de novo hearing of nine cases that were heard by the judge, and whether the case that is the subject matter of the current SLP is included among those cases.

'If Canada Willing To Take Him, You Shouldn't Object' : Supreme Court To Union On Plea Of Myanmar National Detained In India Since 2012

Case Details: Abdul Rashid v. State Of Manipur And Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 178/2024

The Supreme Court sought Union government's response in a plea filed by a detained Myanmar national, claiming that Canada is willing to take him in as a refugee, but the process is stuck as he is detained in a Manipur detention centre since 2012.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati (for Ministry of Home Affairs) to obtain instructions, expressing that under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the authorities should not object if Canada is willing to take in the petitioner as a refugee.

The order was dictated by Justice Gavai as follows: "A perusal of the paper book would reveal that the High Commission of Canada has accepted the present petitioner as a refugee for resettlement to Canada. We request the ld. ASG to take instructions as to what is the impediment in sending the petitioner to Canada when the High Commission of Canada has approved the same."

Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Space Allotted To Senior Advocates Council At Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Details: Senior Advocates Council v. Amit Patel And Ors Diary No. 24091-2024

The Supreme Court ordered status quo on the allotment of space for the Senior Advocates Council at the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the interim order while issuing notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by the Senior Advocates Council challenging the High Court's judgment which resulted in the cancellation of the allotment of space to them.

MP High Court Tells Supreme Court That It Has Reinstated 4 Out Of 6 Women Judges Whose Services Were Terminated

Case Details: In Re: Termination Of Civil Judge, Class-II (Jr. Division) Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Service, SMW(C) No. 2/2023

The Supreme Court heard the suo motu writ petition registered regarding the simultaneous termination of services of 6 female civil judges in Madhya Pradesh.

The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh was informed that the full court bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reconsidered the terminations of the 6 officers and has agreed to re-instate 4 out of the 6 of them. The bench at the outset appreciated that the High Court gave due regard to its earlier request of reconsideration of the terminations.

'Lawyers' Strike Gross Contempt' : Supreme Court Comes Down On Faizabad Bar Association Over Resolutions To Abstain From Work

Case Details: Faizabad Bar Association v. Bar Council Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors., SLP(C) No. 19804-19805/2024

Expressing serious displeasure at the Faizabad District Association, Uttar Pradesh for allegedly calling strikes and abstaining from judicial work, the Supreme Court yesterday called on its officer bearers to file an affidavit, undertaking that they shall never pass any such resolution in future.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the Association's plea against an Allahabad High Court judgment, whereby an Elders Committee was constituted to take over its affairs and ensure that the elections to its Governing Council were held by December 2024.

After hearing the submissions, the Court ordered:

"...every office bearer of the petitioner – Bar Association will file an undertaking by way of an affidavit before the District Judge, High Court and this Court that they shall never ever pass any resolution for abstaining from work and if there is any grievance of the Members of the Bar Association, they shall approach the District Judge or if need be the Administrative Judge/portfolio Judge of the High Court, for redressal of their grievances".

MBBS : Supreme Court Asks Medical Board To Examine If Candidate With Speech Disability Can Complete Medical Education Course

Case Details: Omkar v. Union of India & Ors Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 39448/2024

The Supreme Court directed the constitution of a medical board by the Dean, Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College, Pune to examine whether a student suffering from speech and language disability beyond 40% would be eligible for admission to MBBS Course.

The bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan was hearing a challenge against the order of the Bombay High Court which denied interim relief against the cancellation of the admission to the MBBS Course. The High Court has adjourned the matter for three weeks.

Before the High Court, the petitioner challenged the 'Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 1997' framed by the Medical Council of India holding that persons with equal to or more than 40% disability would not be eligible to pursue MBBS course. He contended that the regulations were contrary to Section 32 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and sought a declaration that such regulations were ultra-vires Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), 21 and 29(2) of the Constitution of India.

Supreme Court Stays Gujarat HC Order Refusing Apology Published By 'Times Of India' For Wrong Reporting

Case Details: Bennett, Coleman And Co. Ltd. v. The Registrar High Court Of Gujarat, Diary No. 40230-2024

The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Gujarat High Court which directed the 'Times of India' newspaper to publish a fresh apology for wrong reporting of a Court hearing.

A Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and VK Viswanathan was hearing a petition filed by Bennet, Coleman and Co Ltd (the company which owns and publishes the Times of India) against the order passed by the High Court on September 2.

While granting leave on the petition to the Registrar General of the High Court, the bench directed that the impugned order will remain stayed.

The Supreme Court however clarified that the main proceedings in the High Court relating to the amendments to the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act will continue.

Supreme Court Puts On Hold Enforcement Of Order On Marking Advocate Presence For A Week

Case Details: Baidya Nath Choudhary v. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh

The Supreme Court put on hold its order that only the presence of advocates who are either present or assisting in court proceedings will be marked.

The Court allowed the exemption after Supreme Court Bar Association President Kapil Sibal sought time to streamline the issue.

After Sibal's request, the bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal said that the directions won't be given effect to for one week. The issue was mentioned before the bench by SCBA Vice President Ranjana Srivastava. President of Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) Vipin Nair represented the SCAORA.

'We Are Not In Feudal Era' : Supreme Court Questions Uttarakhand CM On Rajaji National Park Director Appointment

Case Details: In Re: TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., WP.(C) No. 202/1995

The Supreme Court expressed displeasure at the decision of the Uttarakhand Chief Minister to appoint Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer Rahul (who uses his first name only) as Director of Rajaji Tiger Reserve overlooking the pending disciplinary proceedings and the adverse reports against him.

The Court was hearing the issue of illegal constructions and tree felling at the Jim Corbett National Park. During the hearing, the Court was informed that while departmental proceedings were pending against the IFS Officer, he was appointed to the post of Director at Rajaji National Park.

The bench led by Justice BR Gavai comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Misra and VK Viswanathan noted that the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) had objected to the posting of Chief Conservator of Forest Rahul to Rajaji National Park from Jim Corbett, yet the Chief Minister proceeded to allow the posting despite multiple recommendations by the Forest Ministry, Chief Secretary and CEC against it.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Arvind Kejriwal's Bail Plea

Case Details: Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation

The Supreme Court on September 5 reserved judgment on the petitions filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest and seeking bail in the case registered by the CBI over the alleged Delhi Liquor Policy scam.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter the whole day.

Kejriwal's petition before the Supreme Court challenged the Delhi High Court order of August 5, whereby his plea against CBI arrest was dismissed by a Single Judge bench with liberty to approach the trial Court for bail. He also filed another Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court's refusal to consider his bail plea.

Supreme Court Stays Bail Condition That Felix Jerald Should Close YouTube Channel

Case Details: Felix Jerald v. State | SLP(Crl) No. 11762/2024

The Supreme Court stayed the condition imposed by the Madras High Court that YouTuber Felix Jerald should shut down his YouTube channel “RedPix 24x7” for getting bail in the criminal case over alleged scandalous remarks in the interview of 'Savukku' Shankar uploaded on the channel.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed the interim order while issuing notice to the State of Tamil Nadu on a petition filed by Jerald against the High Court's condition.

Although the bench granted interim relief, it questioned the petitioner for allowing the publication of scandalous remarks against the judiciary and women police officers.

Supreme Court Dismisses Ex-RG Kar Hospital Principal Sandip Ghosh's Plea Against HC Order For CBI Probe Into Irregularities

Case Details: Sandip Ghosh v. State of West Bengal | Diary No. 38744-2024

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by ex-RG Kar Medical College Hospital Principal Sandip Ghosh challenging the Calcutta High Court's order transferring to the CBI the investigation of alleged financial irregularities by him.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra orally observed that an accused does not have the locus standi to be heard in a plea seeking the transfer of investigation.

Supreme Court Orders Release Of Ex-Bhushan Steel MD Neeraj Singal In PMLA Case, Says ED Violated Law On Arrest

Case Details: Neeraj Singal v. Directorate Of Enforcement, Diary No. 15175-2024

The Supreme Court ordered the release of former Managing Director of Bhushan Steel Limited-Neeraj Singal in a money laundering case. The order was passed citing Singal's long incarceration of about 16 months and the unlikelihood of completion of trial in a short span.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar was hearing Singal's challenge to his arrest and dismissal of bail by the Delhi High Court. He was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on June 9 last year, for alleged involvement in a bank fraud case coupled with the offence of money laundering.

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Singal and argued that he has been in custody for about 16 months. It was further submitted that Singal's case was covered by the Pankaj Bansal judgment.

Supreme Court Stays HC Order Which Set Aside Discharge Of TN Ministers KKSSR Ramachandran & Thangam Thenarasu In DA Case

Case Details: T. Thennarasu (A) Thangam Thennarasu v. State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors | SLP(Crl) No. 11664/2024

The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Madras High Court which set aside the discharge of Tamil Nadu Ministers KKSSR Ramachandran, Thangam Thenarasu and their spouses in disproportionate assets cases.

A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra passed the interim order while issuing notice on their special leave petitions.

Is There Any Prohibition On Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal Performing His Duties From Jail? Supreme Court Asks

Case Details: Harpreet Singh v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

The Supreme Court asked whether there was any restriction on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal performing his official duties from jail while hearing a plea related to a delay in deciding the remission of a convict.

During the hearing, the counsel for the Delhi Government told the bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih that the file cannot be forwarded to the Lieutenant Governor unless it is signed by the CM, who is currently jail in the alleged Delhi Liquor Policy scam.

Evening Courts & Virtual Hearings At District Level Matters Of Policy, Can't Pass Uniform Directions : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kishan Chand Jain v. Union Of India And Ors. W.P.(C) No. 497/2024

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking provisions for virtual hearings at district courts as well as 'evening courts' at the district level.

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra orally observed that uniform directions can't be issued across all district courts ignoring the complexities of administration.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Delhi HC Order On Interim Chairman Of SCBA Multi-State Co-operative Group Housing Society

Case Details: Satish Pandey v. Supreme Court Bar Association Multi State Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. And Ors. SLP(C) No. 20553/2024

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition by Satish Pandey, Chairman of the Supreme Court Bar Association(SCBA) Multi-State Co-operative Group Housing Society, challenging the order of the Delhi Court to appoint an interim Chairman amidst the ongoing internal conflict between Pandey and the Board of Directors.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the challenge to the order of the Delhi High Court which directed the appointment of an interim chairman for the Group Housing Society under the supervision of Senior Advocate Dr. S Murlidhar .

'Cricketers Can Take Care Themselves' : Supreme Court Dismisses Advocate's Plea For Facilities At Mumbai Cricket Grounds

Case Details: Rahul Rajendraprasad Tiwari v. Mumbai Cricket Association

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by a practicing advocate seeking the provision of toilets and other facilities at various cricket grounds in Mumbai.

The petitioner challenged the Bombay High Court order refusing to grant relief in his PIL. The PIL sought directions to the Mumbai Cricket Association and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to provide basic amenities such as clean drinking water and toilets for players, especially women, during practice matches and unofficial games held on public grounds.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih concurred with the HC's reasoning that there is no reason why the players cannot seek redressal of their grievance on their own.

Supreme Court Seeks Report From Madras High Court On Rehearing And Reserving Judgment In Previously Allowed Quashing Petition

Case Details: MS Jaffar Sait v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court sought a report from the Madras High Court after being told that the HC reheard a case and reserved judgment despite having already allowed the petition earlier.

Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra for the petitioner informed the bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih that the HC had initially quashed the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) complaint on August 21, 2024. However, despite objections, the case was reheard, he said.

The Supreme Court issued notice returnable on September 30, 2024. The Court stayed all proceedings in the case before the HC and directed that no judgment be pronounced in the matter. The Court also directed the Registrar General of the HC to examine the case records and submit a sealed report, confirming whether the petition had been disposed of on August 21, 2024.

'Political Interest Litigation' : Supreme Court Rejects PIL For CBI Probe Against TV Channels For Alleged Manipulation Of Exit Polls

Case Details: BL Jain v. Union Of India And Ors. Diary No. 26323-2024

The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking probe against several media houses for broadcasting exit polls and allegedly misleading the stock market investors.

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra refused to entertain the PIL terming it to be a 'Political Interest Litigation'.

Supreme Court Directs Project Proponents Who Obtained Tree Felling Permissions To Submit Data On Compensatory Afforestation

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court directed the Centrally Empowered Committee to call upon various project proponents that have received tree felling permissions from the Court to upload data on compliance with Court conditions regarding compensatory efforts.

The Court stated it will initiate contempt proceedings against those project proponents who fail to upload the data on CMIS within three months of receipt of notice from the CEC.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Rating Of GST Payers

Case Details: Pradeep Goyal v. Union Of India And Ors. W.P.(C) No. 533/2024

The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to the Union to formulate and implement a centralized rating mechanism of taxpayers under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (CGST Act).

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra refused to entertain the PIL since such a relief would fall outside the scope of the Writ Jurisdiction.

Supreme Court Directs NEERI To Define And Classify Non-Polluting Industries With Assistance From CPCB And Experts

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court directed the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) to define and classify non-polluting industries with the assistance of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and consultation with relevant experts.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih highlighted the critical nature of the task and directed NEERI to call meetings with all stakeholders involved. The Court ordered NEERI to submit a preliminary report by October 3, 2024, setting out the outer limit for completion of the task. The court kept the matter on October 4, 2024.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Jharkhand Chief Secretary In Contempt Plea Against Appointment Of Acting DGP

Case Details: Naresh Makani v. Lalbiaktluanga Khiangte & Ors. Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No.35226/2024

The Supreme Court sought the response of the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand in a contempt petition challenging the appointment of IPS Anurag Gupta as the Acting Director General of Police (DGP) to be violative of the decision in Prakash Singh v. Union of India.

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued notice in the contempt petition and sought responses from the State's Chief Secretary as well as the Acting DGP within two weeks. The Court however dispensed the requirement of physical presence of the respondents.

PMLA | Is Accused Entitled To Documents Which Prosecution Isn't Relying Upon In Trial? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Case Details: Sarla Gupta and Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the issue of entitlement of accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to get seized documents that the prosecution does not rely on before the commencement of trial.

This issue emerged in an appeal against a Delhi High Court judgment, which held that the prosecution is not obligated to provide such documents at the pre-trial stage.

During the hearing, a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice AG Masih questioned whether withholding "clinching" documents in the favour of an accused would violate the right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On CBI's Challenge To HC Order Declaring Arrest Of Chanda Kochhar, Husband Illegal

Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Chanda Kochhar And Anr., Diary No. 24077-2024

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against grant of bail to ex-ICICI Bank CEO and MD Chanda Kochhar and her husband (Deepak Kochhar) in the ICICI Bank-Videocon Loan Fraud case.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar passed the order upon hearing Additional Solicitor General SV Raju (for CBI), who raised objections to the High Court order, insofar as it also declared the Kochhars' arrest "illegal" calling it an "abuse of power".

Other Developments

President Unveils New Flag & Insignia Of Supreme Court To Mark Its 75th Year

The President of India Droupadi Murmu unveiled the new flag and insignia of the Supreme Court of India to commemorate its 75th year.

The new flag and the insignia, symbolizing justice and democracy, were conceptualised by the National Institute of Fashion Technology, New Delhi. The flag features the Ashok Chakra, the Iconic Supreme Court building and the book of the Constitution.

'When Person Is In A Higher Office, Some Restraint Is Expected' : Supreme Court On Telangana CM Revanth Reddy's Remarks

Case Details: Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy and Ors v. State of Telangana and Ors., T.P.(Crl.) No. 152-153/2024

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of certain remarks stated to have been made by Telangana Chief Minister-A Revanth Reddy in the official WhatsApp Group of the Telangana Congress party.

A bench of Justices Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea for transfer of trial pending against Reddy in the 2015 cash-for-votes case(s), when it expressed its displeasure over his alleged remarks.

More specifically, the Court was dealing with an interim application filed by the petitioner BRS MLA Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy for bringing on record additional facts/documents. The application alleged that Revanth Reddy made some remarks in the official WhatsApp group of the Telangana Congress, referring to the order granting bail to BRS leader K Kavitha.

RG Kar Case | Centre Moves Supreme Court Alleging Non-Cooperation By West Bengal Authorities With CISF, Seeks Contempt Action Against State

Case Details: In Re : Alleged Rape and Murder of Trainee Doctor in RG Kar Medical College Hospital, Kolkata and related issues | SMW(Crl) 2/2024

The Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has filed an application in the ongoing suo motu case in the Supreme Court pertaining to the RG Kar Hospital Rape-Murder seeking better accommodation and facilities for the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel stationed at the hospital and hostels of resident doctors.

The MHA has contended that due to long distance between the accommodation place and RG Kar Hospital, the personnel have been facing difficulties in ensuring efficient administration and prompt mobility during contingencies. The Union has sought for the initiation of contempt proceedings against West Bengal Officials in violation of the orders of August 20 and 22 in the event of failure to cooperate with the needs of the CISF troops.

Supreme Court Questions Remission Condition That Convict Must Behave "Decently"

Case Details: Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court expressed surprise at a condition imposed to grant remission to a convict that he should behave "decently". The Court orally said that vague conditions cannot be imposed.

While reserving judgment in the case, the Court also remarked that principles of natural justice should be read into the provisions of section 432 of the CrPC.

“Principles of natural justice will have to read into section 432(3) of CrPC. It cannot be that on every default remission will be cancelled”, Justice Abhay Oka orally remarked.

Supreme Court Reluctant To Allow ED Attachment Of Sahara Properties, Says Investors Will Get Nothing

Case Details: Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Subrata Roy Sahara and Ors., Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1820-1822/2017

During the hearing of contempt pleas filed against Sahara India, the Supreme Court called on the conglomerate to place before it a scheme as to how it plans to deposit the outstanding sum in the Sahara-SEBI Refund Account. The Court also asked the company to give a list of its unencumbered properties.

The matter was before a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, MM Sundresh and Bela M Trivedi, which heard it for almost the entire day and listed it again on September 4. The hearing witnessed substantial arguments on how the amount remaining to be deposited by Sahara can be recovered.

Pertinently, certain applications were filed by ED before the court pursuant to a criminal complaint by SEBI.

While considering the applications, which sought permission to pass attachment orders, Justice Khanna orally said,

"To be very frank, if we allow PMLA to commence, all the investors will get zero. Enforcement Directorate also has to realise which cases they have to move, which cases they should restrain themselves. Because as long as the Supreme Court is taking care in ensuring that ill-gotten money is not taken care of, that's fine. They don't have to always, as per their stand before us, attach a property to proceed under PMLA".

Supreme Court Lists Review Petitions Against Judgment Upholding PMLA Provisions On Sept 18

Case Details: Karti P Chidambaram v. The Directorate of Enforcement | RP(Crl) 219/2022

Pursuant to a mentioning, the Supreme Court tentatively listed the review petitions pending against the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgement, which upheld various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), on September 18.

The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal.

'India Should Suspend Military Exports To Israel' : Plea In Supreme Court By Ex-Bureaucrats, Academics

Case Details: Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors v. Union of India

Former bureaucrats, activists and senior academics moved the Supreme Court seeking to "cancel any existing licences/permissions and halt the grant of new licences/permissions, to various companies in India, for exports of arms and other military equipment to Israel".

The writ petition under Article 32 is filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan. It is submitted in the petition that the ongoing export of arms and other military equipment to Israel during Israel's siege in Gaza violates Articles 14 and 21 read with Article 51(c) (foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another of the Constitution)

Can HC Hold That Candidate's SC Status Was Wrong When Caste Certificate Wasn't Challenged In Election Petition? Supreme Court Asks

Case Details: A. Raja v. D. Kumar C.A. No. 2758/2023

The Supreme Court on September 4 heard a plea by Kerala CPI(M) MLA A. Raja challenging the March 23, 2023 order of the Kerala High Court which annulled the elections from the Devikulam Assembly constituency.

During the hearing, the Court wondered if the High Court could have made a finding on his caste status when the caste certificate was not challenged.

Can Alimony Be Granted When Marriage Is Declared Void Under Hindu Marriage Act? Supreme Court To Consider On October 3

Case Details: Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur

The Supreme Court posted the issue of whether alimony can be granted under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) when a marriage has been declared void for hearing on October 3, 2024.

A three-judge bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih also directed the parties to file written submissions and compilation of judgments they will rely upon.

Plea In Supreme Court To Allow Public Inspection Of General Power Of Attorneys In Property Transactions

Case Details: Abishek Nath Sarvaria v. Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1076/2022

The Union Government on September 2 told the Supreme Court that it will explore if a legislative intervention is required to address the issues raised in a petition seeking public inspection of General Power of Attorney (GPA) issued in property transactions.

The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a petitioner-in-person seeking directions to allow GPAs entered by parties in relation to immovable properties to be open for public inspection and verification under the Right To Information Act 2005.

'Bihar Has 85% OBC Population' : RJD Approaches Supreme Court Against HC Striking Down Law On 65% Reservation

Case Details: Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) v. State of Bihar And Ors. Diary No. 35551-2024

The Supreme Court issued notice on the petition by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) challenging the striking down of the Bihar Amendment Laws on reservation which increased the reservation percentage for OBCs/ST/SCs to 65%

The Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Patna High Court's order which had set aside the Bihar Amendment Laws increasing reservation for Backward Classes, Scheduled Tribes(STs), Scheduled Castes(SC) and Extremely Backward Classes to 65% from 50%.

Supreme Court To Lay Down Procedure To Avoid Delays In Execution Of Death Penalty After Mercy Petition Is Rejected

Case Details: State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade

The Supreme Court said that it will lay down procedure to be followed by the state and the judiciary after the Supreme Court confirms death sentence of a convict and mercy petition is rejected, in order to avoid delay in execution of the sentence.

During the hearing, the Court asked what procedure would be followed if the Sessions Court issued a warrant without verifying whether any mercy petitions were pending. The bench suggested that once the Supreme Court confirms the death sentence, the State must approach the Sessions Court for an execution warrant. The convict would then be notified, informed of the right to legal representation, and allowed the opportunity to confirm whether any mercy petition is pending.