Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 7 R. 11(d) — Suit or application whether barred by limitation — When no limitation provided for — Power and duty of court in such a case — Law clarified: Where no limitation stands provided either by specific applicability of the Limitation Act or by the special statute governing the dispute, the trial court must undertake a holistic assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case to examine the possibility of delay. When no limitation stands prescribed, it would be inappropriate for a court to supplement the legislature’s wisdom by its own and provide a limitation, [Choudappa v. Choudappa, (2024) 9 SCC 236]
Constitution of India — Art. 21 — Hygienic, clean and safe environment, Right to — Opposition to garbage processing plant — “Not in my backyard” (NIMBY) objections — Tenability of — Closure of GPP by NGT on basis of — Validity: As closure of GPP in question rather than subserving public interest, would be detrimental to public interest hence, held, order of NGT cannot be approved. If GPP in question is closed, organic waste generated in western part of city would be required to be taken all the way throughout the city to eastern part of city. This will undoubtedly lead to foul odour and nuisance to public. Directions however, issued by Supreme Court to ameliorate impact of said GPP on nearby residents represented by respondent, [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch, (2024) 9 SCC 1]
Constitution of India — Arts. 136, 226 and 227 — Challenge to order passed in appeal by NCDRC under S. 21(a)(ii) of the 1986 Act — Maintainability: Order passed by NCDRC in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction cannot be directly challenged in Supreme Court under Art. 136, except under very exceptional circumstances, [Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, (2024) 9 SCC 148]
Constitution of India — Arts. 217, 32 and 226: Scope of judicial review in appointment of Judges is limited. “Lack of effective consultation” and “eligibility” fall within scope of judicial review, while “suitability” is non-justiciable and consequently “content of consultation” falls beyond scope of judicial review, [Chirag Bhanu Singh v. High Court of H.P., (2024) 9 SCC 41]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 438(2) — Provisional pre-arrest bail — Conditions that may be imposed — Law clarified — Imposition of conditions while granting such bail in complaint case under S. 498-A IPC and S. 4 of the DP Act: Ultimate purpose of putting conditions while granting pre-arrest bail, held, to secure the presence of the accused and thus, eventually to ensure a fair trial and also for the smooth flow of the investigating process. Thus, after forming an opinion, taking note of all relevant aspects, that pre-arrest bail is grantable, conditions shall not be put to make it impossible and impracticable for the grantee to comply with. Thus, courts, held, have to be very cautious in imposing conditions while granting bail upon finding pre-arrest bail to be grantable. This, held, should be done warily, especially when the couple concerned litigating in divorce proceedings, jointly though lukewarmly, agreed to attempt to reconcile and re-unite, [Sudeep Chatterjee v. State of Bihar, (2024) 9 SCC 88]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 436-A to 440 & 167 r/w Ss. 41, 57 and 41-A — Satender Kumar Antil, (2022) 10 SCC 51 acknowledging failings of country’s bail system in recognising issue of undertrials and granting bail: Compliance of directions in Satender Kumar Antil, (2022) 10 SCC 51, emphasized, [Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2024) 9 SCC 198]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 436-A to 440 r/w Ss. 41 and 41-A — Undertrial prisoners (UTPs): Compliance of directions for grant of bail to undertrial prisoners in Satender Kumar Antil, (2022) 10 SCC 51, emphasized, [Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2024) 9 SCC 177]
Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws — Debt, Debt Recovery and Relief — Recovery of Debts/Dues through Public Demands or Revenue Recovery Acts — Generally: Nature of auction-sale conducted by State through its revenue authorities like Tahsildar, etc., explained. Or. 21 R. 90 CPC i.e. the requirement to establish that substantial injury has been caused by material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale is not applicable to writ proceedings, [Al-Can Export (P) Ltd. v. Prestige H.M. Polycontainers Ltd., (2024) 9 SCC 94]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 302 r/w S. 149 and Ss. 143, 147, 148, 120-B: Reversal of acquittal, when permissible, law reiterated, [Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 9 SCC 169]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302, 307, 326, 201, 34 r/w S. 120-B — Firing incident involving Army personnel — Quashing of FIR: Since correctness of the order declining sanction under S. 6 of the AFSP Act found challenged by filing writ before the Supreme Court in case sanction is granted at any stage under S. 6 of the AFSP Act, the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIRs may continue and may proceed in accordance with law and be brought to a logical conclusion. Matter disposed of by declining directions to carry on disciplinary proceedings against the officers concerned, [Rabina Ghale v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 142]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Ss. 7, 12 and 13(2) r/w S. 13(1)(d) — Discharge: In case of absence of prima facie involvement, when respondent-accused sought to be prosecuted with aid of S. 120-B IPC, impugned discharge order, held, justified and affirmed, [CBI v. Dilip Mulani, (2024) 9 SCC 164]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Ss. 50(2) & (3), 51, 63, 65 and 71 — Summoning procedure to be followed by ED under PMLA: Procedure, nature of proceedings and effect of non-compliance of summoning order under S. 50, explained, [Abhishek Banerjee v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 9 SCC 22]
Preventive Detention — Communication of grounds of detention — Documents and materials to be/not to be supplied to detenu — Generally: Non-supply of statements of certain person, which taken into consideration for arriving at subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority affects right of the detenu to make an effective representation under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution, [Jaseela Shaji v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 53]
