Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 8 and 11 — Arbitrability of dispute — Determination of — Reference to arbitration for cancellation of instrument: Law clarified on relevance of action instituted under S. 31 of the Specific Relief Act for cancellation of an instrument, not amounting to, an action in rem, [Asian Avenues (P) Ltd. v. Syed Shoukat Hussain, (2024) 6 SCC 630]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 114 and Or. 47 R. 1: Scope for exercise of power under review jurisdiction is limited, it is to be exercised with circumspection and on rare occasions, [State of Telangana v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim, (2024) 6 SCC 461]
Constitution of India — Art. 21 — Right to speedy trial — Facet of fair trial: Period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be as short as possible so that accused is not subjected to unnecessary or unduly long incarceration prior to his conviction, [Amandeep Singh Saran v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2024) 6 SCC 541]
Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Maintainability — Alternative remedy/Exhaustion of remedies: Restoration by High Court of securitisation application withdrawn earlier before DRT is not permissible, [PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, (2024) 6 SCC 579]
Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Maintainability: Fresh filing of writ petition after withdrawal of earlier petition, permissible when liberty granted though petition filed after delay, [EMBIO Ltd. v. Director General of Foreign Trade, (2024) 6 SCC 633]
Consumer Protection — Services — Housing and Real Estate — Delay in delivery of possession: Interest on balance amount payable by homebuyer is not grantable, when possession is delayed, [Sanjay Chaudhary v. Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd., (2024) 6 SCC 398]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 432, 433 and 433-A — Remission policy for premature release: Directions issued re implementation of Remission policy for premature release, [Rashidul Jafar v. State of U.P., (2024) 6 SCC 561]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 432, 433 and 433-A — Remission policy for premature release — Implementation of: Consolidated chart, tabulating: (i) offence for which petitioners were convicted; (ii) date of trial court judgment; (iii) year of filing appeal in High Court; (iv) period of imprisonment undergone, with/without remission; (v) whether petitioners were on bail; and (vi) current status of application for premature release, directed to be placed before Court, [Rashidul Jafar v. State of U.P., (2024) 6 SCC 568]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 432, 433 and 433-A — Remission policy for premature release: Directions issued re wilful non-compliance with court orders alleged in contempt petitions, [Murari Lodh v. Awanish Kumar Awasthi, (2024) 6 SCC 571]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 432, 433 and 433-A — Remission policy for premature release — Parity: Supreme Court in Dev Nath Singh, (2024) 6 SCC 578 and Rajkumar, (2024) 6 SCC 576, directing consideration of petitioners’ cases for premature release as per their eligibility in terms of Policy dt. 1-8-2018. State Government on 16-12-2021 deciding that cases of life convicts for premature release would be considered as per Policy dt. 1-8-2018 before introduction of Policy dt. 28-7-2021. Respondents directed to consider case of petitioners for premature release within stipulated time in terms of Policy dt. 1-8-2018, [Brij Bhushan v. State of U.P., (2024) 6 SCC 574]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 432, 433 and 433-A — Remission policy for premature release of life convicts: State Government on 16-12-2021 deciding that convicts undergoing sentence of life imprisonment who were earlier eligible for remission under unamended premature release jail Policy dt. 1-8-2018 would be considered eligible for premature release as per their eligibility before introduction of Policy dt. 28-7-2021 restricting benefit of remission to only those convicts who had attained 60 yrs of age. Petitioners directed to submit representations for release, and competent authority directed to consider same expeditiously, [Rajkumar v. State of U.P., (2024) 6 SCC 576]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 432, 433 and 433-A — Remission policy for premature release: In terms of amendment dt. 28-7-2021 to premature release jail Policy dt. 1-8-2018, male convicts who had not attained age of 60 yrs were not eligible for remission. State Government on 16-12-2021 deciding that convicts undergoing sentence for life imprisonment would be entitled to premature release as per their eligibility before introduction of Policy dt. 28-7-2021. Respondent directed to consider case of petitioner for premature release accordingly within stipulated time, [Dev Nath Singh v. State of U.P., (2024) 6 SCC 578]
Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 — Challenge to: Interim order dt. 12-4-2019 seeking information on donations received through Electoral bonds, clarified. Election Commission directed to produce up-to-date data until 30-9-2023 in terms of the interim directions, [Assn. for Democratic Reforms (Electoral Bond Scheme) v. Union of India, (2024) 6 SCC 539]
Electricity Act, 2003 — S. 14(b) r/w proviso introduced by Noti. No. SO 528(E) dt. 3-3-2010: Law clarified on necessity of application by SEZ developer for distribution licence, [Sundew Properties Ltd. v. Telangana State ERC, (2024) 6 SCC 443]
Evidence Act, 1872 — Ss. 135 and 138: Witness, shown in the prosecution list but not examined on behalf of the prosecution, can be permitted to be examined as a defence witness, [Sunder Lal v. State of U.P., (2024) 6 SCC 639]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Ss. 2(s) and 10(1)(c) — “Workman” — Determination: Matters to be considered for determination of “workman”; Relevance of absence of power to appoint, dismiss or hold disciplinary enquiries against other employees, [Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. A.S. Raghavendra, (2024) 6 SCC 418]
Insurance — Contract of Insurance/Policy/Terms/Cover Note — Commencement of Policy/Policy when Operative — Coming into existence of concluded insurance contract: Principles laid down in Vasireddy, (1984) 2 SCC 719 and D. Srinivas, (2018) 3 SCC 653 re rules of offer and acceptance in the context of insurance contracts, explained. Law clarified re presumption of acceptance of the policy by the insurer, as opposed to the rule that acceptance must be communicated to the insurer, when may arise, [Bhumikaben N. Modi v. LIC, (2024) 6 SCC 385]
Statute Law — Legislation by Incorporation or by Reference — Difference between — Explained: The effect of incorporation means the bodily lifting of the provisions of one enactment and making it part of another so much so that the repeal of the former leaves the latter wholly untouched. However, in the case of a reference or a citation of the provisions of one enactment into another without incorporation, the amendment or repeal of the provisions of the said Act referred to in a subsequent Act will also bear the effect of the amendment or repeal of the said provisions, [IBBI v. Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu, (2024) 6 SCC 508]
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 — Or. XXI R. 3 — SLP — Disclosure of material facts: It is the obligation of party to make full and correct disclosure of material facts and of advocate to fairly assist court in carrying out its function. SLP is liable to be dismissed on ground of misrepresentation of material facts for challenging High Court order, in absence thereof, [Saumya Chaurasia v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 6 SCC 401]
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — S. 43-D(5) proviso and Ss. 13, 15 r/w Ss. 2(k), 2(m) and 16, 17, 18, 18-B, 20, 38, 39, 40 and Chs. IV, VI and First Schedule — Bail — Rejection of prayer by applying restrictive provision contained in S. 43-D(5): While deciding bail application, as per S. 43-D(5) proviso, the court, held, must be satisfied as to existence of reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true or otherwise, [Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 6 SCC 591]
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — S. 43-D(5) proviso r/w Ss. 2(1)(l), 2(1)(m), 13, 15, 16, 18, 20 and Sch. 1 — Bail — Rejection of prayer: As per provisions of S. 43-D(5) proviso, for granting bail, the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the accused are prima facie, not true. Considering charge-sheet and the criminal antecedents of the accused in a case of similar nature, bail, held, not merited and, therefore, the impugned rejection order, held, justified, [Mazhar Khan v. NIA, (2024) 6 SCC 627]