Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The right to sue under Article 113 of the Limitation Act accrues when there is an accrual of rights asserted in the suit and an unequivocal threat by the defendant to infringe the right asserted by the plaintiff in the suit.”
Puja has been accused of cheating and wrongly availing Other Backward Classes (‘OBC’) and disability quota benefit under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (‘PwBD’) category in the sub-category of visual impairment.
2024 was a year of pathbreaking verdicts on several issues such as Electoral Bonds, Citizenship Act, Tax/Royalty on Mines, Minority Institutions etc. Some major issues saw unanimous and near unanimous verdicts by the Supreme Court; however, there were notable Dissenting Opinions in 2024 which shed light on several key legal concepts.
The wife claimed that her husband’s net worth is Rs 5000 crores, but the Court decided to grant permanent alimony of Rs. 12 crores noting that the wife in the instant case has sought equalisation of status not just with the husband but also with his ex-wife and opined that this cannot be an acceptable approach.
The Court held that NIA could investigate non-scheduled offence, or a person involved in a non-scheduled offence, provided there is a connection with the scheduled offence. This nexus between any other offence and the Scheduled Offence is of critical importance and must be present to enable the NIA to investigate any other offence committed by an accused in connection with the Scheduled Offence.
Bose has been provided with ‘X’ category security since 10-04-2019 because of the perception of threat, both on account of his enmity with the TMC’s sitting MP Kalyan Banerjee due to matrimonial feud as well as his alliance with the party at the Centre (BJP).
“Unless and until private ownership and control of the material resources are transformed or converted into the “material resources of the community” which is a condition precedent, there cannot be distribution of the said resources by the State. Otherwise, the State would merely transfer privately owned material resources from one owner to another person, without first making it a “material resource of the community” which, is not the intent of the framers of the Constitution and neither is the same envisaged under Article 39(b).”
The 9-Judge Bench unanimously held that Article 31-C of the Constitution remains in force to the extent that it was upheld in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
Nagarathna, J., was of the view that Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P., (1990) 1 SCC 109, did not require overruling and it continues to be good law in the context of what is comprised in the expression “industrial alcohol” and “intoxicating liquors”.
“A duty is cast on the State to pay compensation to the land losers as otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution.”
Regarding the reinstatement of other two judicial officers, the Court will hear the matter on 24-09-2024, as the Full Court decided to not revoke their earlier resolutions and would place the adverse remarks and other materials against them before the Supreme Court in a sealed cover.
“The applications before the High Court, seeking permission to travel abroad shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously.”
“Royalty is in the nature of a tax or an exaction. It is not merely a contractual payment but a statutory levy under Section 9 of the MMDR Act.”
Supreme Court said that authorizing the Central Government to lay down the terms of mining leases and grant approval to concessions, the MMDR Act seeks to ensure that there is uniformity in the terms for working of mines and extraction of minerals.
“The payments made to the Government cannot be deemed to be a tax merely because the statute provides for their recovery as arrears”.
“When a legislative body enacts a legislation there is a presumption of constitutionality unless proven otherwise, similarly, a policy decision when taken by the competent authority enters the fray of enforcement with a presumption in its favour of being in public interest, unless otherwise shown, demonstrated and proven to be among other grounds, manifestly arbitrary.”
This matter was the oldest pending nine-judge Bench case before the Supreme court. The Bench had reserved its judgment in the matter on 14-03-2024
“The failure to adequately assess health and environmental impact of Genetically Modified crops seriously infringes upon intergenerational equity as it potentially endangers the ability of future citizens to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health.”
Regulation 4 of the Gender Sensitization & Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), Regulations, 2013, provides for constitution of the Gender Sensitization & Internal Complaints Committee for sensitizing the public to gender issues and to address any complaints made with regard to sexual harassment at the Supreme Court precincts.
