Top Stories
Supreme Court grants bail to K. Kavitha in Delhi Excise Liquor Policy Scam
Supreme Court sets aside Calcutta HC verdict advising adolescent girls to control sexual urge
Supreme Court designates 39 new Senior Advocates
Supreme Court issues notice to CBI on Arvind Kejriwal’s bail plea
Supreme Court dismisses plea to postpone NEET-PG 2024 Exam
Delhi LG not bound by aid & advice of State Government for appointment of aldermen: Supreme Court
Constitution /Larger Bench Decisions
Mineral Rights
Judgment on States’ power to levy tax on mining and mineral-use activities to apply retrospectively from 2005: Supreme Court
In a matter concerning the question of applicability of the judgment dated 25-07-2024 in Mineral Area Development Authority v. SAIL, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1796 (‘MADA’) , the 8 judges, who wrote the majority view in the 9- Judge Constitution Bench verdict, directed that while the States may levy or renew demands of tax, if any, pertaining to Entries 49 and 50 of List II of the Seventh Schedule in terms of the law laid down in the decision in MADA (supra), the demand of tax shall not operate on transactions made prior to 1-04-2005. Read more
[Mineral Area Development Authority v. SAIL, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1974]
Read Justice BV Nagarathna’s sole dissent in SC’s verdict on ‘royalty’ as tax and States power to levy cess on mineral rights
In a matter concerning the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States on the taxation of mineral rights, the 9-Judge Constitution Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S Oka, BV Nagarathna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih JJ. has held that royalty paid by mining operators to the Central government is not a tax and that States have the power to levy cesses on mining and mineral-use activities. Whereas, Justice BV Nagarathna, gave a dissenting opinion, she held that. Read more
[Mineral Area Development Authority v. SAIL, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1974]
Did you Know? According to National Judicial Data Grid, total number of cases disposed in 2024 till date were 37, 580, out of which 6710 cases were disposed in July.
Sub-classification of SC/STs
‘Only Parliament can include in or exclude from SCs list under A. 341’: A detailed breakdown of Justice Bela Trivedi’s dissent in Sub-classification of SC/STs Verdict
In a batch of civil appeals and special leave petitions, the 7- Judge Constitution Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., by a majority of 6:1 held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes among reserved categories is permissible for granting separate quotas for more backwards within the SC categories and overruled the E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P., (2005) 1 SCC 394. Read more
[State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1860]
Identify and exclude ‘creamy layer’ among SC/ STs from reservation: Supreme Court in Sub-classification of SC/STs Verdict
In a batch of civil appeal and special leave petitions, the 7-Judge Constitution Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., by a majority of 6:1, held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes among reserved categories is permissible for granting separate quotas for more backwards within the SC categories. Justice Bela M. Trivedi dissented, holding that such sub-classification is not permissible. Read more
[State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1860]
‘Indra Sawhney did not limit sub-classification to OBCs; Sub-classification of SC/STs permissible’: A point wise breakdown of Majority Ruling in SC’s 6:1 Verdict
In a batch of civil appeal and special leave petitions, the 7-Judge Constitution Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., by a majority of 6:1, held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes among reserved categories is permissible for granting separate quotas for more backwards within the SC categories. Justice Bela M. Trivedi dissented, holding that such sub-classification is not permissible. Read more
[State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1860
Did You Know? According to National Judicial Data Grid, there are about 447 pending Larger Bench decisions, out of which 274 are pending before Five Judge Bench, 32 before Seven Judge Bench, 136 before Nine Judge Bench. 1
Woman being the sole owner of ‘Stridhan
Position of law vis-a-vis woman being the sole owner of ‘Stridhan’ is consistent and unequivocal: Supreme Court
While considering the instant appeal challenging the order passed by Telangana High Court, refusing to quash proceedings under Section 406 of Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; the Division Bench of J.K Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol*, JJ., pointed out that the position of law has remained consistent throughout since 1985, till date, regarding the sole authority of the woman in respect of her ‘stridhan’ as has also been held recently in Mala Kar v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1049. The jurisprudence as has been developed by the Supreme Court, is unequivocal with respect to the singular right of the female (wife or former wife), being the sole owner of ‘stridhan’ with husband having no right over it. Read more
[Mulakala Malleshwara Rao v State of Telangana]
Habeas Corpus in Child Custody
[Habeas Corpus in Child Custody] SC restores 3-yr-old daughter’s custody to Father after temporary custody with Aunt following mother’s death from COVID-19
In a criminal appeal against Delhi High Court’s decision whereby the Delhi High Court disposed of the petition filed by the appellant-father, seeking to obtain the custody of his minor daughter from the alleged unlawful custody of respondent/ his sisters-in-law, by granting liberty to the parties to approach the family Court of competent jurisdiction for seeking custody of the child in question, the Division Bench of BR Gavai* and KV Viswanathan, JJ. allowed the appeal and directed the sisters-in-law to handover the custody of the minor daughter opining that at the relevant time, the father had no other option but to look upon the sisters of his deceased wife to nurture his infant child. Read more
[Gautam Kumar Das v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2059]
Arbitration
Arbitrator can award pre-reference & pendente lite interest even when agreement is silent on award of interest or does not specifically prohibit it: SC
In civil appeals against Calcutta High Court’s decision, whereby the appellants appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) against Trial Court’s decision was partly allowed and claims regarding loss of business; uneconomic utilization of plant and machinery; labour charges for uneconomical stoppage of work; interest on delayed payment of running account bills and escalation bill; escalation; interest on the sum awarded; and costs, were partly sustained by upholding Arbitrator’s Awards in some claims and setting aside in others, the Division Bench of PS Narasimha* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. upheld the High Court’s decision in setting aside the Award with respect to claim no. 3 as to loss caused due to idle labour, machinery, etc. The Bench set aside the judgment of the High Court in so far as it rejected and set aside claim no. 4 for interest on delayed payment of running account bills. Read more
[Pam Developments (P) Ltd v State of W.B, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2247]
Judge hearing application under S. 34 Arbitration Act must apply mind to grounds of challenge and deduce whether interference is required: SC
In a special leave petition filed against the judgment and order of the division bench of the Delhi High Court, wherein the Court remand the proceedings to the Single Judge for reconsidering the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, observing that the validity of the award of refund and the grant of interest appears in the context of examining the correctness of the judgment rendered by the Single Judge alone, the Three Judge Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. while agreeing with the reasoning which led the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court to remand the proceedings to the Single Judge, said that interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 must be confined to the grounds which are permissible under the statute. But equally, the Judge hearing an application under Section 34 must apply their mind to the grounds of challenge and then deduce as to whether a case for interference within the parameters of Section 34 has been made out. Read more
[Kalanithi Maran v. Ajay Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1876]
Did You Know? According to National Judicial Data Grid, there are about 1131 pending decisions before three Judge Bench2
Arbitration Act, 1940 doesn’t empower Arbitrator or Court to award interest upon interest or compound interest: Supreme Court
While considering the instant petition concerning a contract of 1984-85 between the petitioner and the respondent, where an Award came to be passed by the Arbitrator on 17-09-1997 under the Arbitration Act, 1940; the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal*, JJ., pointed out the legal position that Arbitration Act, 1940 does not specifically empowers either the Arbitrator or the Court to award interest upon interest or compound interest. Furthermore, there is no other provision which provides for grant of compound interest or interest upon interest. The Court further stated that Section 34 of CPC is silent in this regard whereas Section 3(3) of Interest Act, 1978 specifically prohibits the same. Read more
[D. Khosla & Co. v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1898]
Criminal cases
[Kolkata Rape and Murder case] Supreme Court orders constitution of National Task Force to give recommendations on modalities ensuring safety at workplace
In the suo motu matter concerning the rape and murder of a doctor at the RG Kar Medical College Hospital at Kolkata, the three Judge Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. said that it was deeply concerned about the absence of conditions of safety for doctors and medical professionals across the country, and ordered the constitution of a ten-member National Task Force, comprising doctors all over the country to give recommendations on the modalities to be followed all over the country to ensure safety at the workplace. Read more
[In re: Alleged rape and murder incident of a trainee doctor in R.G. KAR medical college and hospital, Kolkata and related issues]
[Kolkata Rape and Murder case] Supreme Court directs Ministry of Health to open portal for stakeholders to submit suggestions before Task Force committee
In the suo motu matter concerning the rape and murder of a doctor at the RG Kar Medical College Hospital at Kolkata, the Three Judge Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to open a portal where stakeholders can submit their suggestions before the committee. Read more
[In re: Alleged rape and murder incident of a trainee doctor in R.G. KAR medical college and hospital, Kolkata and related issues]
Delhi Excise Liquor Policy Scam| Supreme Court grants bail to Manish Sisodia in both ED and CBI cases
In a set of two criminal appeals by Delhi’s former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia against Delhi High Court’s decisions, whereby his applications for bail in the Delhi Excise Liquor Policy Case was dismissed, the Division Bench of BR Gavai* and KV Viswanathan, JJ. granted him bail in both the cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (‘PMLA’) respectively. Read more
[Manish Sisodia v. ED, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920]
“Bail is the rule, Jail is an exception” Supreme Court reiterates; Grants conditional bail to person accused under UAPA
In the instant matter wherein, the appellant who was being prosecuted for offences punishable under provisions of Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 13, 18, 18-A and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA); had applied for bail before the Patna High Court, which was rejected. The Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Agustine George Masih, JJ., while hearing the instant appeal challenging the impugned judgment of Patna High Court, emphatically reiterated that when a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. “The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious, but the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the rule, and jail is an exception” is a settled law”. Read more
[Jalaluddin Khan v Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945]
Supreme Court grants bail to Sunil Agrawal, Promoter of Indermani Group, in Money Laundering case
In a special leave petition filed against the order of dismissal of bail application passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the three Judge bench of Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. has enlarged Sunil Kumar Agrawal (Promoter of Indermani Group of Companies) on regular bail in a money laundering case. Read more
[Sunil Kumar Agrawal v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1917]
Murder over a ‘Mango’: Supreme Court converts life imprisonment to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine
In a criminal appeal filed by the convicts against the Allahabad High Court judgment, wherein the Court upheld the conviction order of the convicts for murder, the division bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. converted the conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) to that of Section 3042 Part-I of IPC, and thereby converted the sentence of life imprisonment of all the convicts to that of seven years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.25,000/- to be given by each convict within a period of eight weeks from today to the victim’s family. Read more
[Man Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1880]
‘Sad that even after years, Courts do not understand the fine distinction’; SC breakdowns key differences & ingredients of criminal breach of trust and cheating
In a criminal appeal against Allahabad High Court’s decision, whereby the application of the present accused entity Delhi Race Club (1940) and its Secretary and President/ accused persons to quash the summoning order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, was dismissed, the Division Bench of JB Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order holding that the entity being a body corporate was liable and Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of Secretary and President of the Club who are accused 2 and 3 herein. Read more
[Shabna Abdulla v Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2057]
Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail to journalist Shajan Skaria in SC/ST Act case for making derogatory remarks against MLA PV Sreenijin
In an appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Kerala High Court, wherein the High Court affirmed the order passed by the Special Judge, declining to grant anticipatory bail to Journalist Shajan Skaria for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) respectively of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘Act, 1989’), the division bench of J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ. while setting aside the impugned order, granted anticipatory bail to Shajan Skaria. Read more
[Shajan Skaria v State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249]
Incriminatory Statement given by PMLA accused in custody is inadmissible in another money laundering case: Supreme Court
In an appeal filed against the Judgment passed by the Jharkhand High Court, wherein the Court dismissed the bail application of the accused for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’), the division bench of BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, JJ. held that a statement given by an accused, while under custody in a case under the PMLA, to investigating officers of the Enforcement Directorate (‘ED’) incriminating oneself in another money laundering case would be inadmissible in evidence. Read more
[Prem Prakash v Union of India]
‘Civil dispute painted with the brush of criminality’: SC quashes charges against KECML vis-a-vis misappropriation of coal rejects worth Rs 52.37 crore
While considering the instant appeals challenging the decision of Special Judge, CBI rejecting their application for seeking discharge in the proceeding to frame charges against them along with the other co-accused, for having entered into a criminal conspiracy aiming to facilitate illegal sale of coal rejects by GCWL that were generated during washing of coal and for gaining undue pecuniary advantage; the Division Bench of Hima Kohli* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ., reproached the CBI for “Embarking on a roving and fishing inquiry on the strength of the Audit Report of the CAG and then working backwards to sniff out criminal intent against the appellants”. Read more
[Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Ltd v CBI]
Supreme Court acquits persons accused in 13-year-old murder case as prosecution fails to establish guilt convincingly
While considering the instant appeals challenging the impugned judgments of Trial Court and Gujarat High Court convicting the accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); the Division Bench of B.R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., acquitted the accused of all charges holding that the prosecution failed to lead convincing evidence establishing the guilt of the accused persons beyond all manner of doubt to hold them responsible for the crime. Therefore, the Court decided that the accused persons deserve to be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. Read more
[Allarakha Habib Memon Etc. v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1910]
‘Delay in compliance of NGT orders not wilful’; SC sets aside initiation of penal proceedings against CECB officers
The instant appeal challenged the order of National Green Tribunal (NGT) dt 21-8-2023, whereby the NGT had refused to extend time for compliance of its order dated 3-2-2023 and went on to consider the provisions of Section 26 of the NGT Act, 2010, stating that the Chairman and Member Secretary of Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board (CECB) had committed the offence of failing to comply with its orders and directed necessary penal action being initiated against. Read more
[P. Arun Prasad v Union of India]
Need to balance the requirement of furnishing multiple sureties with an individual’s fundamental rights under Article 21: SC
While considering the instant petition wherein the Court had to consider whether the petitioner was entitled to the relief of treating the personal bond and one set of sureties already furnished as holding good, for the other bail orders as well; the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan*, JJ., took note of the petitioner’s genuine difficulty in finding multiple sureties stating that Sureties are essential to ensure the presence of the accused, released on bail. At the same time, where the Court is faced with the situation where the accused enlarged on bail is unable to find sureties, as ordered, in multiple cases, there is also a need to balance the requirement of furnishing the sureties with his or her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. “An order which would protect the person’s fundamental right under Article 21 and at the same time guarantee the presence, would be reasonable and proportionate. As to what such an order should be, will again depend on the facts and circumstances of each case”. Read more
[Girish Gandhi v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2142]
Did You Know? According to National Judicial Data Grid there are about 82887 total pending cases, out of which 65087 are Civil Cases and 17800 are Criminal Cases3
Patanjali Misleading Ads Case
[Patanjali Misleading Ads Case] Supreme Court drops contempt charges against Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna
In a writ petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (‘IMA’) against Patanjali, its Managing Director — Acharya Balkrishna and its primary proponent, Baba Ramdev stating that they have been indulging in a campaign of misinformation and disparagement against the modern system of medicine in an orchestrated and systematic manner resulting in misleading the common man, the division bench of Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. While closing the contempt proceedings opined that though the initial conduct of the contemnors prior to their tendering an apology to the Court showed that the same was in violation of the undertakings given to this Court, subsequent thereto, after they tendered an unqualified apology, efforts have been made by them to take steps to make amends. Read more
[Indian Medical Association v Union of India]
NEET UG 2024
Explained| Supreme Court verdict on NEET UG 2024
While hearing petitions seeking the cancellation of the National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test (‘NEET’) for the Under-Graduate (‘UG’) 2024 over an alleged paper leak, irregularities and grant of grace marks over alleged ‘loss of time’, the Three Judge Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra JJ. has refused to order a reexamination for the NEET UG 2024 stating that at the present stage there is absence of material on record to lead to the conclusion that the result of the exam was vitiated or that there was a systemic breach of the sanctity of the exam. Further, as it is possible to separate the beneficiaries of malpractice or fraud from the honest students, the Court refused to direct a re-exam. Read more
[Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1870]
Hijab Ban
Supreme Court partly stays hijab ban by Mumbai College; Issues notice to College
In the special leave petition challenging the order passed by the Bombay High Court, wherein the Court upheld the circular issued by a Mumbai College, imposing ban on students wearing burqa, hijab or niqab on campus, the division bench of Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. partly stayed clause 2 of the impugned circular to the extent it directs that no Hijab, Cap or Badge will be worn in the campus. Read more
[Zainab Abdul Qayyum Choudhary v. Chembur Trombay Education Societys, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1940]
Custody
SC stays Andhra Pradesh HC’s order granting 4.5-year-old child’s custody to father and allowing to take him back to USA
In a criminal special leave to appeal against Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision, whereby the four-and-a-half-years child’s custody was granted to his father and the permission to take him to USA for his all-round welfare was granted, the Division Bench of Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan, JJ. allowed the appellant- mother’s appeal and stayed the operation of the High Court’s decision. Read more
[Lalitha Kumari Singaladevi v. Srinivas Ramineni, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1882]
Reservation
Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation: SC holds restriction on meritorious reserved category candidates’ migration to unreserved seats unsustainable
The Division Bench of B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., considered instant the appeals revolving around non-allotment of MBBS Unreserved (UR) Category Government School (GS) quota seats to the meritorious reserved category candidates, who had passed from the Government Schools by the Department of Medical Education. The Court, considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 4 SCC 542 and reiterated in Sadhana Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati, (2022) 12 SCC 401, held that the methodology adopted by the respondents in compartmentalising the different categories in the horizontal reservation and restricting the migration of meritorious reserved category candidates to the unreserved seats was totally unsustainable. Read more
[Ramnaresh v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2058]
Non-fixation of cut-off marks for persons with disability under Overall Horizontal Reservation does not violate Fundamental Rights: SC
In civil appeals against the Rajasthan High Court for declaring the result of Civil Judge Preliminary Examination showing the cut off marks for each of the categories mentioned in the advertisement in question, and for not showing the cut off marks for the category of Persons with benchmark disabilities, the division bench of Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. held that the High Court has declared the cut off marks for the persons falling under Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation and not for the Overall Horizontal Reservation under which the appellants fall. Such action could neither be said to be arbitrary nor violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court. Read more
[Rekha Sharma v Rajasthan High Court, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2109]
Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Main) Examination, 2016
SC issues contempt notice to Manipur Chief Secretary over service continuity & consequential benefits to re-appointed MPSC officers
In a contempt petition against Chief Secretary of Manipur for contempt of Court’s directive in State of Manipur v. Shalini Chingtham, whereby it was directed that the candidates who were already appointed on the basis of results of the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Main) Examination, 2016 conducted in September, 2016, if successful in the re-conducted main examination, they would be given continuity of service and consequential benefits upon being appointed against the concerned posts, the Division Bench of CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, JJ. issued notice to the Chief Secretary, Manipur and the Secretary, Land Resources Department. Read more
[Laishram Tarajeet Singh v Vineet Joshi]
Look Out Circular
Default borrowers, served with look out circular by MHA at the instance of Public Sector Banks, to seek permission from HC to travel abroad: Supreme Court
In a batch of special leaves to appeals by the Union/ petitioners against a decision of the Bombay High Court in Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1195, wherein disposing of several petitions, Clause 8(b)(xv) of the 2010 amended Office Memoranda (equivalent to Clause 6(B)(xv) of the 2021 consolidated OM) which includes the Chairmen, Managing Directors and Chief Executive Officers of all public sector banks as authorities who may request the issuance of a Look Out Circular (‘LOC’), was quashed, the Division Bench of BV Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ. said that while an interim stay is imposed on the impugned decision, the respondents/writ petitioners before the High Court shall seek permission from the High Court if they wish to travel abroad. Read more
[Union of India v Viraj Chetan Shah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2136]
Reference to larger bench
Coordinate Bench’s view of same HC cannot be ignored even if considered to be incorrect in law; Reference to larger bench the only option: SC
In a criminal appeal against a decision of the Kerala High Court whereby the appellant’s/ detenu’s sister-in-law’s application was dismissed upholding the detention order of the detenus issued under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (“COFEPOSA”), the three Judge Bench of BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan, JJ. allowed the appeals and quashed the detention orders along with the order of confirmation of the said detention orders. The Court held that when the Coordinate Bench of the same High Court based on same grounds of detention and on the basis of the same material, which was relied on by the detaining authority, had come to a considered conclusion that non-supply of certain documents had vitiated the right to make an effective representation of the detenus, another Coordinate Bench in the impugned decision could not have ignored the same. Read more
[Shabna Abdulla v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2057]
Banking
Directions issued by Govt and RBI under S. 9, MSMED Act and Ss. 21 & 35-A, Banking Regulation Act respectively, have statutory force: SC
While considering the instant appeals revolving around whether the Notification dated 29-05-2015 containing instructions for the “Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of MSMEs”, issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 9 of the MSMED Act, as revised from time to time, is mandatory or directory; the Division Bench of Bela M. Trivedi* and R. Mahadevan, JJ., held that Instructions/Directions issued by the Central Government under Section 9 of the MSMED Act and by the RBI under Section 21 and Section 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, have statutory force and are binding to all the Banking companies. Read more
[Pro Knits v. Board of Directors of Canara Bank, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1864]
Sikmi Rights
[Sikmi Rights] Supreme Court directs Tehsildar to carry out measurement of disputed property; Maintains status quo
In a special leave petition filed against the judgment and order passed by the Calcutta High Court, wherein the Court dismissed the Second Appeal holding that defence of Sikmi tenancy cannot be raised at the stage of Second Appeal as the same was not raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Court and the Civil Court, the division bench of Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. while continuing the status quo, directed the District Revenue Officer/Tehsildar of the area to carry out the measurement of the entire property and to associate the expert revenue officials. The measurement process was directed to be videographed. Read more
[Rajat Chowdhury v. Dhananjay Chowdhury, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2107]
Detention Under COFEPOSA
[Detention Under COFEPOSA] SC disposes of challenge against Delhi HC’s decision quashing detention orders for being infructuous by efflux of time
In a batch of two petition for special leave to appeal (‘criminal’) by the State authorities/ detaining authorities against Delhi High Court’s decision, whereby the detenus’ petitions were allowed and the detention orders under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (“COFEPOSA”) were quashed, viewing that the detaining authority gravely erred in relying upon illegible documents which was equivalent to non-placement of relied upon documents (‘RUDs’), the Division Bench of BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, JJ. disposed of the SLP’s upon noting the State’s submission that by efflux of time, the question for consideration was only of academic nature. The Court said that the petitions became infructuous, however, the question of law was kept open. Read more
[Union of India v. Zakir Khan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2108]
Condonation of delay
Cause, not length, of delay to be examined while considering condonation pleas: Supreme Court
While considering the instant appeal revolving around application for condonation of delay of 425 days, the Division Bench of Aravind Kumar* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., stated that it is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of “sufficient cause”, irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned. Read more
[Mool Chandra v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1878]
Higher Pay Scale
SC issues notice in PE teacher’s plea for a higher pay scale after attaining Master’s degree subsequent to joining
In a special leave petition filed against the judgment of Calcutta High Court, wherein the Court while upholding the order passed by the single judge said that the Petitioner was not entitled to higher pay scale which she acquired prior to her joining the post as she was fully aware that her post was approved as a Pass Graduate, and allowing such claim would amount to a back door entry to higher scale of pay, the division bench of Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. I while permitting to file the petition for Special Leave to Appeal, issued notice to the opposite party. Read more
[Nupur Sikdar v. State of W.B., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1881]
Audit of Maharashtra Slum Areas Act
SC calls for performance audit of Maharashtra Slum Areas Act; Emphasises on review of implementation of Statute to ensure Rule of Law
In an appeal against a decision of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee and the Bombay High Court, upholding the terminating the development agreement was made in exercise of power under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, the Division Bench of PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar, JJ. dismissed the appeal for being devoid of merits and upheld the impugned decisions. The Court requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to constitute a Bench to undertake the comprehensive statutory audit of the Act. Read more
[Yash Developers v. Harihar Krupa Coop. Housing Society Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1840]
Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980
SC issues notice on tenant’s plea concerning his right to receive notice of demolition u/S. 400 of KMC Act after regularisation; Stay on demolition continues
In a special leave petition filed against the judgment and order passed by the Calcutta High Court, wherein the Court has observed that the petitioner being a tenant has no right to participate in the demolition proceeding nor is there any requirement to serve him any notice or communication of the demolition of the disputed building under Section 400(3) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (‘KMC Act, 1980’) as the Petitioner being the tenant/occupier has never contributed in the construction of the subject premises, the division bench of Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ. before permitting the petitioner to apply for regularization, directed the petitioner and all adult members of his family occupying the premises to file an undertaking on oath in this Court stating that in the event, their application for regularization is rejected, within one week from the date on which the order of rejection is communicated to them, they shall unconditionally vacate the premises subject matter of this special leave petition. Read more
[Bijay Biswakarma v. Rajkumari Devi Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1941]
NDPS case
SC quashes NDPS case against man falsely implicated in 1.75 Kg ganja dealing after 4 years due to lack of evidence
In a criminal appeal against a decision of the Rajasthan High Court, whereby the accused person’s application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) was dismissed, Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar, JJ. quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused person who was being investigated for offence under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Read more
[Rajkumar Sansi v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1936]
Compensation
Mere attempt to overtake vehicle not Negligence; Supreme Court enhances MACT compensation from Rs.1,01,250 to Rs.11,25,000
In the instant appeal regarding enhancement of compensation in a motor accident claim, the Division Bench of C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol*, JJ., while taking note of the facts of the case and finding of contributory negligence by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, opined that merely because a person was attempting to overtake a vehicle, cannot be said to be an act of rashness or negligence with nothing to the contrary suggested from the record. Read more
[Prem Lal Anand v. Narendra Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1900]
Supreme Court directs NGT and NHRC to oversee the impact of Silicosis prone industries and compensation processes respectively
While considering the instant petition filed by People’s Rights and Social Research Centre, a Delhi based NGO seeking intervention vis-a-vis addressing the grave issue of “Silicosis” among workers in various industries across the country; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., directed National Green Tribunal (NGT) to oversee the impact of silicosis prone industries and factories across India and ensure that the Central and State Pollution Control Boards comply with the earlier directions of the Court. The Court also directed the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to oversee the compensation process across the respective States. Read more
[Peoples Rights & Social Research Centre (PRASAR) v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1895]
Certified Copy of Judgment with SLP
Proof of application for Certified Copy from HC must while seeking exemption in filing Certified Copy of Judgment with SLP: Supreme Court
In a criminal special leave petition against a decision of the Calcutta High Court, wherein, the present petitioner’s application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was dismissed, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. noted that in majority of matters arising from the High Courts, the special leave petitions are accompanied by applications seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the judgments and orders impugned in such petitions. The Court’s mild approach in accepting these applications has generated a sense of belief among litigants that they can get away scot-free even by making statements which are far from the truth. Read more
[Harsh Bhuwalka v. Sanjay Kumar Bajoria, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1916]
Employee’s pay scale
Decision to reduce employee’s pay scale and recover excess amount can’t be applied retrospectively after a long time gap: SC
While considering the instant appeal wherein the order by the Bihar Government directing reduction in the pay scale and recovery of excess recovery of excess amount and the order of Patna High Court upholding the same, was challenged by the appellant; the Division Bench of Sandeep Mehta* and R. Mahadevan, JJ., opined that that any decision taken by the State Government to reduce an employee’s pay scale and recover the excess amount, cannot be applied retrospectively and that too after a long time gap. The Court further stated that any step of reduction in the pay scale and recovery from a government employee would be like a punitive action because the same has drastic civil and evil consequences. Read more
[Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1909]
Never Reported Judgments
NRJ Series | When Supreme Court dismissed specific performance suit due to ‘flimsy’ oral evidence for existence of agreement to sell immovable property
The present appeal was filed by the appellant, in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell certain immovable property, entered between Respondent 1 and the appellant, the three-Judges Bench of M.C. Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea and B. Jagannadhadas*, JJ., stated that the actual evidence in the present case relating to the agreement was entirely oral and of a very flimsy character. The earlier mention of this arrangement was when it was put forward in the notice dated 29-5-1942 issued by the appellant. Meanwhile, Respondent 1 mortgaged the suit properties on 31-12-1940 and sold one item to Respondent 3 on 1-7-1941. There was no written protest about these transactions issued by the appellant to Respondent 1. Read more
[Jagadambal Ammal v. Narayanaswami Ayyar, (1953) 2 SCC 257]
NRJ Series| Evidence of related eyewitness can be accepted without corroboration
An appeal by special leave was filed from the judgment of the High Court of Pepsu (‘High Court’) affirming appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and the sentence of death passed against him by the Sessions Judge of Bhatinda. The 4-Judges Bench of M.C. Mahajan*, S.R. Das, Vivian Bose, and N.H. Bhagwati, JJ., held that it was difficult to subscribe to the proposition that where the eyewitnesses happen to be relations their evidence could not be accepted without corroboration. The rule of corroboration applicable to the case of accomplices or such like persons could not be extended and made applicable to cases where the eyewitnesses happen to be relations or inmates of the house and whereby reason of the nature and time of the occurrence no independent witnesses could possibly be present. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent that it commuted the sentence of death to one of transportation for life and the sentence under the Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms Act’) would run concurrently. Read more
[Harnam Singh v. State of Pepsu, (1953) 2 SCC 604]
NRJ Series | When Supreme Court expressed disapproval on Tribunal’s improper way of drawing up statement of case for partial partition
In an appeal filed against the judgment dated 11-5-1950 passed by the Allahabad High Court (‘the High Court’), the five-Judges Bench of Patanjali Shastri, CJ.* and B.K. Mukherjea, Chandrasekhara Aiyar, Vivian Bose and Ghulam Hasan, JJ., stated that there was no clear finding as to how the partition of the brocade business was actually affected. The Supreme Court stated that whether the partition was affected by a division in shares, each branch holding its share in severalty and the business being carried on as before on a partnership basis, or whether by an actual distribution and allotment of specific assets and liabilities among the branches resulting in the disruption and closing of that business. It was regrettable that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (‘the Tribunal’), did not draw up a proper statement of the case setting out clearly the facts as found by it, to enable the Court to determine the questions of law referred to them on a correct view of the true facts. Read more
[Sohan Pathak and Sons v. CIT, (1953) 2 SCC 213]
Never Reported Judgment | When Supreme Court declared a sale deed sham/fictitious as no consideration money passed to vendor
An appeal was filed against a judgment and decree passed by the Madras High Court (‘High Court’) on 30-8-1950, which reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Anantapur (‘Subordinate Judge’), dated 17-3-1947, and decreed the suit, declaring Respondent 1, Ratchepalli Atchamma to be the owner of the properties, movable and immovable, and restraining Appellant 1, Yerraguntala Ramireddi from interfering with Respondent 1’s possession of the said properties. The Division Bench of M.C. Mahajan and S.R. Das*, JJ., agreed with the High Court’s conclusion that the sale deed was without any consideration and was not acted upon. The Supreme Court also agreed with the High Court that there was evidence on record that Respondent 1’s husband, Ratchepalli Nagireddi, continued to cultivate the lands with hired bulls and the presence of agricultural implements and grains in the house which was in possession of Respondent 1’s husband also supported the High Court’s conclusion. Thus, the High Court’s judgment was upheld, and the present appeal was dismissed with costs. Read more
[Yerraguntala Ramireddi v. Ratchepalli Atchamma, (1953) 2 SCC 21]
Know Thy Judge
Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
SCC Weekly
Appointments & Transfers
Supreme Court Collegium recommends appointment of 3 Advocates as Judges of Delhi High Court
Supreme Court Collegium recommends appointment of Judges for three High Courts
1. National Judicial Data Grid
