Constitution of India — Art. 141 — Decision on question of sentence: Decision on question of sentence can never be regarded as precedent, [Baba Natarajan Prasad v. M. Revathi, (2024) 7 SCC 531]
Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Quashing of FIR — When warranted: When allegations in FIR do not disclose necessary ingredients of any cognizable offence, continuance of proceedings pursuant to FIR would amount gross abuse of process of law and therefore, FIR deserves to be quashed, [Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand, (2024) 7 SCC 555]
Constitution of India — Arts. 226 and 14 — PIL — Entertainability of — Tender jurisdiction: Principles summarized re entertainability of PIL and scope of judicial review of commercial transaction of State instrumentality with private parties, [Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices, (2024) 7 SCC 543]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 167 — Remand of person arrested by ED: Remand of person arrested by ED under PMLA, when permissible and matters to be established by ED, explained. Grounds of arrest must be informed to person arrested under PMLA, Remand order by itself will not validate an otherwise illegal arrest, [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576]
Family and Personal Laws — Guardians and Wards — Custody of Child/Minor — Generally: Concepts of custody, guardianship and stability of child, explained. Question of custody is different from question of guardianship. Father can continue to be natural guardian of children; however, considerations pertaining to welfare of child may indicate lawful custody with another friend or relative as serving his/her interest better, [Shazia Aman Khan v. State of Orissa, (2024) 7 SCC 564]
Family and Personal Laws — Hindu Law — Marriage, Other Unions and Children — Marital Status, Determination/Proof/Presumption of — Proof of alleged marriage between plaintiff’s mother and his alleged father: In a suit for partition and separate possession claiming that appellant-plaintiff was son of Respondent 1-Defendant 1, born from his marriage with plaintiff’s mother, a very heavy burden lies on appellant-plaintiff to prove this fact, when factum of marriage was denied by Respondent 1-Defendant 1, as he was married to Respondent 4-Defendant 4. Aa appellant-plaintiff failed to discharge that burden, appellant-plaintiff could not be held entitled to partition and separate possession of suit property, [Ram v. Sheshrao Baburao Neharkar, (2024) 7 SCC 512]
Income Tax — Capital or Revenue Expenditure — Licence or right to carry on business of telecommunication service: Expenditure for acquisition of licence to carry on business of telecommunication service is a capital expenditure under New Telecom Policy, 1999, [CIT v. Bharti Hexacom Ltd., (2024) 7 SCC 621]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — S. 19(1) — Duty “as soon as may be” to inform grounds of arrest to/supply written statement/copy of the grounds of arrest to the arrestee: Law clarified on meaning and connotation of “as soon as may be” in S. 19(1) PMLA, and thus time within which such duty must be discharged. The law as laid down in this regard by the three-Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, (2023) 12 SCC 1, holds the field. Performance of the said duty must meet the “as soon as may be” standard, and must be performed at the outermost within 24 hours of the arrest, which would also be compliant with Art. 22(1) of the Constitution, [Ram Kishor Arora v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 7 SCC 599 ]
Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (10 of 1973) — S. 21 — Bar on jurisdiction of civil court under — Scope of — Clarified — Suit for declaration regarding ownership of land — Bar under S. 21 — Whether applicable: In a suit for a declaration that land belonged to religious and charitable shrine and there was no challenge to validity of any order under the Act, Civil court alone has jurisdiction to decide and declare whether land belonged to religious shrine or to any person in his personal capacity. S. 21 is not a bar to such suit, [Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab, (2024) 7 SCC 617]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — S. 16(c) — Suit for specific performance filed on verge of limitation coming to an end — Readiness and willingness: Continuous readiness and willingness is a condition precedent to grant relief of specific performance. Failure to prove same will disentitle the plaintiff to equitable relief of specific performance, [Pydi Ramana v. Davarasety Manmadha Rao, (2024) 7 SCC 515]
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — S. 52 — Transfers pendente lite — Validity: It is settled law that a registered sale deed cannot be held to be void merely because it was executed during pendency of a suit in relation to property. Doctrine of lis pendens under S. 52 does not render pendente lite transfer void. It merely renders rights arising from such transfers as subservient to rights of parties to pending litigation and subject to any direction that court may pass thereunder, [Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind, (2024) 7 SCC 524]