Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court judgments of 2024

379 judgments with AI-generated headnotes, newest first.

• SANJEEVKUMAR HARAKCHAND KANKARIYA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 866

  The Supreme Court held that refund of court fees on settlement of a suit through mediation under Section 89 CPC is governed by Entry 3 of List II (fees taken in courts), not Entry 11A of List III, so Maharashtra's Court Fees Act and the notification under its Section 43(2) allowing only partial refund were not repugnant to the Court Fees Act, 1870. The full refund for Lok Adalat settlements under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act does not extend to mediation. The appeal failed, though the Court ordered refund to the appellant under Article 142 without creating a precedent.

• TIRITH KUMAR & ORS. versus DADURAM & ORS.

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 665

  The Supreme Court held that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not apply to members of the Sawara tribe, a notified Scheduled Tribe, in the absence of a Central Government notification under Section 2(2). It upheld the High Court's grant of a half share to the daughters of a tribal who died in 1951, applying justice, equity and good conscience under Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, and reiterated the call to the Central Government to consider securing equal succession rights for tribal women.

• SUGIRTHA versus GOWTHAM

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2089

  In a mother's appeal against interim visitation directions made during divorce proceedings, the Supreme Court upheld the father's right of visitation but, finding no reasons for fixing the venue 150 km away at Karur, shifted weekly supervised visits to Madurai where the two-year-old child lives, as the child's welfare is paramount.

• MUKESH versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1210

  The Supreme Court held that a Lok Adalat compromise decree in a suit for declaration and injunction, which concerned only the suit land and recognised the plaintiff's pre-existing right rather than creating a new one, was exempt from compulsory registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 and, being a court decree that conveyed nothing, was not chargeable with stamp duty as a conveyance; the stamp duty demand was set aside and mutation directed.

• CHINA DEVELOPMENT BANK versus DOHA BANK Q.P.S.C. & ORS.

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2043

  The Supreme Court held that lenders to other Reliance Communications group companies were Financial Creditors of the Corporate Debtor because the Corporate Debtor, by the last part of clause 5(iii) of the Deeds of Hypothecation, undertook to pay any shortfall in the borrowers' liability after realisation of the hypothecated assets, which amounts to a guarantee under Section 126 of the Contract Act and a financial debt under Section 5(8)(i) of the IBC; the NCLAT's contrary judgment was set aside and the NCLT's order restored.

• AJITH G. DAS & OTHERS ETC. versus THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1148

  The Supreme Court held that the Kerala Public Service Commission's autonomy is confined to conducting the selection process, while determining vacancies is the State Government's prerogative as employer; the Commission's refusal to expand rank lists for Junior Health Inspector Grade-II on the Government's recommendation, in extraordinary circumstances of unfilled vacancies, was an overreach, and the Commission was directed to expand the list.

• RAJEEV KUMAR UPADHYAY versus SRIKANT UPADHYAY & ORS.

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1122

  In a complainant's appeal against a non-speaking High Court order staying criminal proceedings against persons accused of branding a woman a witch, assaulting and disrobing her, the Supreme Court, though the quashing petition had since been withdrawn, deprecated mechanical grants of stay, stressed the heightened duty of investigators and courts in offences against dignity, and directed the trial to proceed day to day.

• JAGGO versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1235

  The Supreme Court directed regularisation of long-serving part-time Safaiwalis and a Khallasi of the Central Water Commission whose services were abruptly terminated without notice, holding that their continuous, unblemished service of over a decade in perennial work could not be defeated by the part-time label, absence of sanctioned posts, later outsourcing or educational qualifications, and that Uma Devi does not bar regularisation of irregular (as opposed to illegal) appointments.

• MALLAVVA AND ANR versus KALSAMMANAVARA KALAMMA (SINCE DEAD) BY LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1884

  The Supreme Court held that a suit for declaration of title in which a prayer for recovery of possession was added by amendment at the first appellate stage is governed by Article 65, not Article 58, of the Limitation Act, 1963; since the plaintiff's title was established and the defendants never pleaded or proved adverse possession, the suit for possession based on title was within limitation.

• NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU versus KASHIF

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1406

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order granting bail to an NDPS accused solely for belated compliance with Section 52A, holding that Section 52A is a provision for early disposal of seized drugs and any delay or lapse in following it is a procedural irregularity that neither vitiates the trial nor by itself entitles the accused to bail, and that bail cannot be granted without the findings mandated by Section 37; the bail application was remitted for fresh decision.

• HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. LTD. versus AWAZ & ORS.

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1482

  The Supreme Court set aside the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's ruling that banks charging credit card holders interest above 30% p.a. on delayed payment commit an unfair trade practice, holding that the complaint by consumer trusts was not maintainable, that fixing or capping interest rates lies in the Reserve Bank of India's statutory domain and is barred from court scrutiny by Section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and that disclosed contractual interest terms involve no deception amounting to an unfair trade practice.

• SHAMBHU DEBNATH versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2083

  The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's grant of anticipatory bail to three accused in a murder case where the FIR specifically alleged that all the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set him on fire, holding that the High Court had acted cryptically and mechanically without considering the record, including a chargesheet stating the case was found true against all accused.

• ANIL BHAVARLAL JAIN & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1436

  The Supreme Court refused to quash a CBI FIR and chargesheet under Sections 409, 420 and 120B IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against company directors and bank employees, holding that a one-time settlement with the bank recorded in consent terms before the DRT does not justify quashing where the bank suffered loss of public money and offences under a special statute like the PC Act are invoked.

• ABDUL REJAK LASKAR versus MAFIZUR RAHMAN & ORS.

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1911

  The Supreme Court held that Section 154(1)(e) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 did not bar a co-owner's civil suit for partition and recovery of his share of a revenue-paying estate where the revenue authority had refused partition because he lacked possession and his co-sharers' consent. Civil courts retain jurisdiction to declare rights and shares, while actual division is left to the Collector under Section 54 and Order XX Rule 18 CPC.

• T.C. JOHN @ YOHANNAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. versus V.J. ANTONY AND OTHERS

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1143

  The Supreme Court held that motor accident claimants could not be denied interest on enhanced compensation for the years their appeal lay pending in the High Court merely because their counsel delayed serving the paper book on the insurer's counsel, while upholding denial of interest for the 708-day delay in filing the appeal.

• PRAKASH AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1160

  The Supreme Court discharged a husband and his in-laws charged with abetting a woman's suicide, holding that their alleged refusal at a Lok Adalat to take her back or settle, made over a month before the suicide even on the prosecution's date, lacked the proximity and evident intent to instigate required under Sections 306 and 107 IPC, so continuing the prosecution would abuse the process of law.

• DWARIKA PRASAD (D) THR. LRS. versus PRITHVI RAJ SINGH

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2075

  The Supreme Court restored a trial court order setting aside an ex parte decree, holding that a defendant who was kept unaware of the decree by his counsel and applied under Order IX Rule 13 CPC within days of learning of it did not need to file a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and that a party should not suffer for the default of his advocate.

• NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY LTD. versus FEDERATION OF NOIDA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1997

  The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order stopping toll collection on the DND Flyway. It held the residents' PIL maintainable, found the award of the concession without tender arbitrary, held that NOIDA could delegate collection but not the levy of fees, severed Article 14 of the Concession Agreement and its Annexure F formula as opposed to public policy, and accepted the CAG Report showing the concessionaire had recovered its costs with substantial profit.

• ASHOK VERMA versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 743

  The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent conviction of a husband for the murder of his wife in the matrimonial home, holding that the finding of homicide was well reasoned despite the unbroken hyoid bone, that a plea of alibi based on presence in a nearby garden fails for want of strict proof, and that his failure to explain the death under Section 106 of the Evidence Act completed the chain of circumstances.

• SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST AND ORS. versus SHRIMANT CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSLE AND ANOTHER

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1445

  The Supreme Court rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC a 2009 plaint seeking declaration of title, possession and annulment of decades-old compromise decrees over Yerawada lands conveyed to the appellant trust by a 1938 court auction and a 1952 registered sale deed, holding that on a meaningful reading of the plaint the pleaded date of knowledge was fictional, the claims were hopelessly time-barred under Articles 58, 59, 60 and 65 of the Limitation Act, and a stranger's challenge to the compromise decrees was barred by Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC.

• MANSOOR SAHEB (DEAD) & ORS. versus SALIMA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 923

  The Supreme Court held that under Mohammedan law an owner cannot partition his property among his heirs during his lifetime, since heirs acquire rights only on his death; a lifetime transfer must be by a valid gift (hiba). The defendants' claim of an oral gift failed because the donor's clear declaration of intention was not proved, and a mutation entry recording a 'partition' could neither be read as a gift nor confer title. The partition decree giving the plaintiffs a 1/6th share was confirmed.

• PANDURANG VITHAL KEVNE versus BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ANR.

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2113

  The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition against the High Court's refusal to condone a delay of 4088 days in filing a second review petition against a 2009 judgment upholding the petitioner's removal from service, holding the petition to be part of a long course of frivolous, repetitive litigation and forum shopping, and imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000.

• GIRIYAPPA & ANR. versus KAMALAMMA & ORS.

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2095

  The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition by defendants who resisted a decree for declaration of title and possession by claiming part-performance protection, holding that Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act could not assist them once the courts below had found the alleged 1968 sale agreement and their possession under it unproved.

• PARSWANATH SAHA versus BANDHANA MODAK (DAS) AND ANR.

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1186

  The Supreme Court restored a decree for specific performance of a registered agreement of sale that the High Court had reversed on the ground of hardship to the vendor's widow and minor son, holding that hardship under Section 20(2)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (pre-2018) is judged by circumstances at the time of the contract, that no issue on hardship had been framed, and that the evidence did not show the property was their only shelter; the balance consideration was enhanced to Rs. 20 lakh.

• BIJOY KUMAR MONI versus PARESH MANNA & ANR.

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1946

  The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of a person prosecuted in his individual capacity under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for a dishonoured cheque he signed as director and authorised signatory on a company's account, holding that only the drawer who maintains the account is liable, that an authorised signatory is not the drawer, and that he could not be held vicariously liable under Section 141 without the company being arraigned; the complainant was left free to lodge an FIR for cheating.

• AMUTHA versus A.R. SUBRAMANIAN

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 755

  The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decree of divorce granted to the husband in second appeal, holding that the wife's false and abandoned criminal complaints amounted to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act and that two decades of separation showed an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. It awarded lump-sum permanent alimony of Rs. 50 lakh to the wife and Rs. 50 lakh to the daughter.

• DIGAMBAR AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

  19/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1533

  The Supreme Court quashed an FIR and chargesheet under Sections 498-A, 312 and 313 IPC against the complainant's parents-in-law, holding that the allegations of cruelty were vague and omnibus, that the allegation of forced miscarriage did not prima facie make out a case when read with the doctor's statement, and that the complaint, lodged after the complainant's divorce notice which was silent on these allegations, was an abuse of process.

• PAWAN KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  18/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1253

  The Supreme Court restored a petrol pump retail outlet dealership awarded by BPCL to the appellant, which the High Court had cancelled for non-disclosure of a co-owner and a pending civil suit over the offered land. Since BPCL, after scrutiny, was satisfied that the dispute had been settled and co-owner consents obtained, and no favouritism, mala fide or perversity was shown, the High Court should have deferred to the tender-issuing authority's understanding of its own documents.

• SIDDHANT @ SIDHARTH BALU TAKTODE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

  18/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 837

  The Supreme Court granted bail to an accused charged under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 who had been in custody for about five years without charges being framed, holding that such prolonged incarceration amounts to punishment without trial despite the Act's twin conditions for bail. It also directed the Bombay High Court and the State to devise a mechanism to ensure production of undertrials before trial courts.

• ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY ETC. versus GEETANJALI TIWARI (PANDEY) & ORS. ETC. ETC.

  18/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1795

  The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's ruling that Regulation 10 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 does not apply when awarding marks for teaching experience in shortlisting candidates for Assistant Professor, holding that the High Court impermissibly 'read down' Regulation 10(f)(iii) without finding it ultra vires, effectively deleted words from it, and relied on an unpleaded anomaly; universities may shortlist using Regulations 4 and 10 with Tables 3A and 3B.

• MUSKAN ENTERPRISES & ANR. versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

  18/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1273

  The Supreme Court held that a second petition under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable despite withdrawal of the first without leave where there is a change in circumstances such as a change in law, since res judicata and Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC do not apply to criminal proceedings. It also held that Section 148 of the NI Act leaves the appellate court a limited discretion not to order any deposit in exceptional cases for recorded reasons, but any deposit ordered must be at least 20%.

• M/S BHAGWATI MEDICAL HALL & ANR. versus CENTRAL DRUGS STANDARD CONTROL ORGANIZATION & ORS

  18/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2102

  The Supreme Court held that local drug and excise authorities could not treat aromatic tincture of cardamom, a licensed medicinal preparation, as a prohibited article because of its alcohol content and alleged misuse. Only the Central Government may prohibit or restrict a drug, by Gazette notification under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and no such notification existed; Section 22(1)(d) gives Inspectors no power to ban a drug.

• BHERULAL BHIMAJI OSWAL(D) BY LRS. versus MADHUSUDAN N. KUMBHARE

  18/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1875

  The Supreme Court restored the State Commission's award of Rs. 3,50,000 against an eye surgeon, holding that his failure to detect and treat post-operative endophthalmitis over five visits in a week, while assuring the patient that the cataract operation had succeeded, was medical negligence in post-operative care. The NCDRC's finding that the patient caused the infection by changing his own dressing rested on an uncorroborated defence.

• IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  18/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1838

  In the T.N. Godavarman forest litigation, the Supreme Court directed the State of Rajasthan to complete the survey, mapping and notification of sacred groves (Orans, Dev-vans, Rundhs) and classify them as 'forests' under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 irrespective of their size, implementing all three CEC recommendations of 2005, recommended their declaration as community reserves under the Wildlife Protection Act, and constituted a five-member committee to oversee compliance.

• GEETA DUBEY & ORS. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

  18/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 652

  The Supreme Court restored a motor accident compensation award that the High Court had set aside by a cryptic order on the ground that involvement of the offending truck was not proved. It held that a first appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires full appraisal of the evidence, that claimants need prove the vehicle's involvement only on a preponderance of probability, and that an insurer alleging collusion must prove it.

• RINKU BAHETI versus SANDESH SHARDA

  18/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1355

  On the husband's application in the wife's transfer petition, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage under Article 142(1) on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, despite the wife's opposition. The parties had barely cohabited, faced multiple criminal and civil proceedings including the husband's arrest on the wife's FIR, mediation had failed and there was no child. Rejecting the wife's claim to alimony matching the husband's wealth or his first wife's settlement, it fixed permanent alimony at Rs. 12 crores and quashed the FIRs she had lodged.

• COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM versus M/S MADHAN AGRO INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.

  18/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 893

  On a reference from a two-Judge Bench that had split, a three-Judge Bench held that pure coconut oil sold as edible oil in small packs (5 ml to 2 litres) is classifiable under Heading 1513 (coconut oil) of the Central Excise Tariff, not Heading 3305 (preparations for use on the hair). Since the post-2005 tariff is aligned with the HSN, the HSN Explanatory Notes apply, and multi-use coconut oil falls under Heading 3305 only if its packaging carries labels, literature or other indications of hair use or is in a form clearly specialised to that use; small pack size alone is not enough.

• P. MANIKANDAN versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.

  18/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1553

  The Supreme Court held that a High Court hearing an appeal against conviction under Section 386(b) CrPC may order a retrial in exceptional cases but has no power to order reinvestigation, and could not, while acquitting the accused, direct a de novo investigation by the CBI. The direction, the transfer to the CBI without special circumstances, and the fresh chargesheet and trial were quashed as violating the appellant's protection under Article 20(2), and his acquittal was restored.

• SAMBHUBHAI RAISANGBHAI PADHIYAR versus STATE OF GUJARAT

  17/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1072

  The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for kidnapping, aggravated penetrative sexual assault and murder of a four-year-old boy on circumstantial evidence, but commuted the death sentence to 25 years' rigorous imprisonment without remission, holding that the case did not fall in the rarest of rare category since reformation was not ruled out.

• ATHAR PARWEZ versus UNION OF INDIA

  17/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1093

  The Supreme Court granted bail to an alleged PFI member charged under the IPC and the UAPA, holding that on the chargesheet and the protected witnesses' statements there were no reasonable grounds to believe the accusations prima facie true, so Section 43-D(5) UAPA did not bar bail. It also held that over two years and four months of custody, with charges not framed and 354 witnesses cited, attracted Article 21; its co-accused had been granted bail on almost the same material.

• NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus M/S S.A. BUILDERS LTD.

  17/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1581

  The Supreme Court dismissed the municipal corporation's challenge to execution of an arbitral award, holding that the arbitrator's clarification, issued about seven years after the award under court permission and after the corporation took part in the proceedings, fell within the words 'unless another period of time has been agreed upon by the parties' in Section 33(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, so the arbitrator was not functus officio. Under Section 31(7), as construed in Hyder Consulting, post-award interest at 18% runs on the principal plus pre-award interest.

• AYUB KHAN versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

  17/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 680

  The Supreme Court expunged adverse remarks made by the Rajasthan High Court, while deciding a bail application, against a Sessions Judge who had not set out the accused's antecedents in the tabular format directed in Jugal Kishore v. State of Rajasthan. It held that those directions are only suggestions, that constitutional courts cannot dictate the form of trial court bail orders, and that explanations from judicial officers can be called for only on the administrative side.

• RAJESH KUMAR versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

  17/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1108

  The Supreme Court restored the State Commission's award of the full insured declared value for a car that capsized and later caught fire after the insured left it to rush an injured co-passenger to hospital. The National Commission had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappraising concurrent findings of fact, and the policy condition against leaving a vehicle unattended did not apply in those compelling circumstances.

• STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. versus SURESH CHANDRA TEWARI & ORS.

  17/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 708

  The Supreme Court restored a ceiling-surplus declaration under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, holding that once the family-settlement plea had been rejected in an earlier round that attained finality, the tenure-holder's son could not reopen it by claiming lack of separate notice; the second round was an abuse of process and barred by res judicata.

• RAJENDRA KUMAR BARJATYA AND ANOTHER versus U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD & ORS.

  17/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1320

  The Supreme Court upheld the Allahabad High Court's direction to demolish commercial shops built without sanction on a residential plot of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and sold to the appellants. It held that unauthorised construction cannot be legitimised by passage of time, official inaction or investment, that the purchasers could not plead estoppel, lack of notice or delay, and it issued general directions to authorities across the country to prevent and act against unauthorised construction.

• ANKUSH VIPAN KAPOOR versus NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

  16/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1743

  The Supreme Court upheld the Central Government's orders under Section 6(5) read with Section 8 of the NIA Act transferring to the NIA the investigation of Punjab NDPS cases against the petitioner as offences connected with a Gujarat narco-terror case in which Sections 17 and 18 UAPA were invoked, holding that 'the accused' in Section 8 is not confined to persons already being investigated for the Scheduled Offence. It also upheld the cancellation of his bail, and added observations on the menace of drug abuse.

• OM PRAKASH YADAV versus NIRANJAN KUMAR UPADHYAY & ORS.

  13/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 777

  The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's quashing, for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, of murder-conspiracy proceedings against Madhya Pradesh police officers accused of registering a bogus Excise Act case to give the main murder accused an alibi. Lodging a false case and fabricating evidence is no part of official duty; the officer not posted at the police station needed no sanction at all, and sanction for the others was left to be decided at trial.

• UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus ROHIT NANDAN

  13/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 617

  Following Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that the Bihar notification moving the Tanti caste from the OBC list into the Scheduled Caste list was illegal, so the respondent, appointed as an OBC candidate, could not claim Scheduled Caste status for a departmental promotion; equitable protection given in earlier cases was refused as his benefit was brief and accrued only during the appeal.

• BHARTI ARORA versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

  13/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1044

  The Supreme Court quashed adverse observations and Section 58 NDPS Act proceedings initiated by a Special Judge against a former Superintendent of Police, holding that an offence under Section 58 carrying at most two years' imprisonment is to be tried summarily by a Magistrate under Section 36-A(5), that her acts of forwarding a representation for inquiry were protected by the good-faith immunity in Section 69, and that the findings were recorded without notice in gross breach of natural justice.

• CELIR LLP versus MR. SUMATI PRASAD BAFNA & ORS.

  13/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1618

  In contempt proceedings by an auction purchaser whose sale the Supreme Court had upheld in Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (2023), the Court held that the borrower could not revive a challenge to the SARFAESI auction in its pending securitisation application, having abandoned it before the High Court and not raised it in the earlier appeal (Henderson principle and election). The borrower's assignment of the property to a third party during the pendency of the SLP was hit by lis pendens despite no registered notice under the Maharashtra amendment to Section 52 TPA, and was declared void. The borrower and transferee had acted in contempt, but in view of their apologies and amends they were given a last chance to comply with detailed directions.

• INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus DR. HEMANT MANDOVRA

  13/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1038

  The Supreme Court set aside consumer fora orders that had directed a development authority to accept dues and deliver a plot allotted under a 1994 tender. The allottee had repeatedly defaulted, final relief could not be granted on an interlocutory application, and a direction to allot after 28 years was unsustainable; the authority was directed to re-tender the plot.

• GEORGE versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS

  13/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 769

  The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder because the High Court had convicted him on the sole testimony of the deceased's father while disbelieving the same witness, on the same overt act, as against the two co-accused; conviction resting on that rejected account and on conjecture, plus a knife recovered from an open place, was unsustainable.

• MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERS versus VIVEK V. GAWDE ETC. ETC.

  13/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 843

  The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court order that framed nine points for decision by the Inquiry Officer in eviction proceedings under Chapter V-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 against retired municipal employees and their heirs. The writ petitions were not maintainable under Article 226 against the appellate order of the City Civil Court, no case for Article 227 interference existed, and by framing issues in a summary proceeding the High Court took over a function the Act gives the statutory authority.

• URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST versus SMT. VIDHYA DEVI AND ORS.

  13/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 993

  The Supreme Court upheld the quashing of acquisitions of two parcels in Alwar under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, condoning the landowners' long delay because the process was patently illegal. For the Moongaska land, the defective Section 52(2) notice denied two co-owners any hearing. For the Nangli Kota lands, where the owners took part in the proceedings, the defective notice was cured, but possession was handed to the Trust before compensation was paid and compensation was not paid within six months as Section 60A(4) required.

• PARTHA CHATTERJEE versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

  13/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 627

  Hearing a former West Bengal Education Minister's bail plea in a money laundering case arising from the teacher recruitment scam, the Supreme Court balanced his custody of over two years against the gravity of the allegations and a witness's fear for her life. It directed the trial court to decide on charges by 31.12.2024 and examine the vulnerable witnesses in January 2025, and ordered his release on bail on 01.02.2025 or earlier once those witnesses were examined, on conditions.

• NAVRATAN LAL SHARMA versus RADHA MOHAN SHARMA & ORS.

  12/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 453

  The Supreme Court held that a party aggrieved by a compromise decree has a statutory remedy of moving the court that recorded the compromise to recall it and restore the proceeding, and a court cannot defeat that remedy by recording that no liberty to restore is granted; the High Court's refusal to restore a first appeal on that ground alone was set aside and the recall application remanded.

• AMAR SARDAR versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

  12/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1267

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment that dismissed a criminal appeal against conviction under Sections 354 and 376 read with 511 IPC without independently evaluating the evidence, holding that a first appellate court under Section 374(2) CrPC must reappraise the evidence and give its own reasons, and remanded the appeal for fresh hearing.

• PROPOSED VAIBHAV COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  12/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 732

  The Supreme Court quashed the State's allotment of a government plot at Bandra to a proposed co-operative housing society, holding that the allotment of a plot the society never applied for, made under the discretionary quota without reasons, without public notice or draw, and after repeated changes in membership to meet eligibility, was arbitrary and in breach of the 1971 Rules and the Government Resolution of 09.07.1999.

• UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus N.M. RAUT & ORS.

  12/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1517

  The Supreme Court held that non-functional upgradations to a higher Grade Pay granted under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 to Pharmacists and Superintendents after two or four years of service must be counted as financial upgradations when applying the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, so the employees could not also claim MACPS upgradations that ignored them. Recovery from retirees and those retiring within a year was barred, and no interest is to be charged on other recoveries.

• BABY SAKSHI GREOLA versus MANZOOR AHMAD SIMON AND ANOTHER

  11/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 958

  The Supreme Court enhanced compensation for a seven-year-old girl left with 75% permanent disability (moderate mental retardation, incontinence) after being hit by a car on a zebra crossing from Rs. 11,51,000 to Rs. 50,87,000, treating her disability as 100% for practical purposes and, following Kajal and Master Ayush, using the minimum wage of a skilled workman with future prospects and multiplier 18 and awarding higher sums for pain and suffering, full-time skilled attendant, future treatment and loss of marriage prospects.

• SMT. NARESH KUMARI & ORS. versus SMT. CHAMELI & ORS.

  11/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 693

  The Supreme Court dismissed the donor's heirs' suit, filed 45 years after a 1953 oral gift of land in lieu of services, to resume the land for alleged stoppage of services. It held that the plaintiffs proved neither the services nor any refusal, and that a condition of perpetual unpaid service by the donees and their heirs would amount to begar barred by Article 23, so 'services' must be read as past services or at most services to the donor in his lifetime.

• DUSHYANT JANBANDHU versus M/S HYUNDAI AUTOEVER INDIA PVT. LTD.

  11/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 492

  The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at an employer's instance, holding the petition an abuse of process. The wage and termination disputes were already pending before the Payment of Wages authority and the Industrial Tribunal and were non-arbitrable, while the alleged breach of a non-disclosure clause was an afterthought never raised before termination, so no such dispute existed.

• DALIBEN VALJIBHAI & ORS. versus PRAJAPATI KODARBHAI KACHRABHAI & ANR.

  11/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2123

  The Supreme Court restored the first appellate court's refusal to reject, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a plaint seeking cancellation of a 2004 registered sale deed alleged to be forged. The plaintiffs pleaded that they learnt of the deed only in 2017 through a revenue notice; since limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act runs from knowledge, the question was triable, and the High Court wrongly decided it on facts in second appeal and presumed knowledge from the date of registration.

• ARJUN S/O RATAN GAIKWAD versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

  11/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 637

  The Supreme Court quashed a twelve-month preventive detention order under the Maharashtra MPDA Act passed against an alleged bootlegger, holding that six excise cases of illicit liquor manufacture, in none of which he was arrested, and two vague, identical statements of unnamed witnesses showed at most a law and order problem and not a threat to public order.

• JAICHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. versus SAHNULAL & ANR.

  10/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 719

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment in second appeal that had restored a decree for specific performance, holding that the question framed was not even a question of law, that the High Court overlooked the first appellate court's findings doubting the plaintiff's readiness and willingness, and that it should not have disturbed a well-reasoned first appellate judgment; the defendants were instead directed to pay the plaintiffs Rs. 3,50,000.

• JYOTI LIMITED versus BSE LIMITED & ANR

  10/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1117

  The Supreme Court upheld the refusal of BSE to list equity shares allotted to an asset reconstruction company on conversion of debt, holding that since the conversion was agreed to and initiated by the company itself, a special resolution of shareholders under Section 62(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 was required, and that BSE's in-principle approval under Regulation 28 of the SEBI LODR Regulations was also necessary.

• PARVIN KUMAR JAIN versus ANJU JAIN

  10/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 543

  In appeals by a husband against enhanced interim maintenance, the Supreme Court found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down after some twenty years of separation and dissolved it under Article 142, with both parties agreeing. As interim maintenance was now infructuous, it fixed permanent alimony as a one-time settlement of Rs. 5 crores for the wife and Rs. 1 crore for the adult son, applying the Rajnesh v. Neha and Kiran Jyot Maini factors.

• DARA LAKSHMI NARAYANA & OTHERS versus STATE OF TELANGANA & ANOTHER

  10/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 559

  The Supreme Court quashed an FIR, chargesheet and pending trial under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against a husband and five of his relatives. The allegations were vague and omnibus, the relatives lived in other cities and faced no specific accusation, and the FIR, lodged after the husband sent a legal notice seeking divorce, was a retaliatory complaint falling within category (7) of Bhajan Lal.

• CHADURANGA KANTHRAJ URS AND ANR. versus P. RAVI KUMAR AND ORS.

  10/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1287

  In contempt petitions by heirs of the former Maharaja of Mysore and others, the Supreme Court found that the State of Karnataka and its authorities had wilfully delayed and failed to implement orders of 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 directing grant of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) 'as per TDR Rules' for Bangalore Palace land used for road widening, rejected the TDR issued at a value derived from the 1996 acquisition Act, and gave a final six-week opportunity to issue TDR at the Stamp Act guidance value, recalling the extra condition added on 19.03.2024 and awarding costs.

• JAYEDEEPSINH PRAVINSINH CHAVDA & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

  10/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 439

  The Supreme Court discharged a husband and his parents of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC because the only specific harassment alleged, the sale of the wife's streedhan and ill-treatment when she sought its return, occurred about a year before her death and showed no proximate link or intention to instigate suicide; but it upheld the charge of cruelty under Section 498A IPC, which the material prima facie supported.

• BANWARI AND OTHERS versus HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (HSIIDC) AND ANOTHER

  10/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 463

  The Supreme Court restored a Land Acquisition Collector's order redetermining compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the basis of a High Court judgment in first appeal enhancing compensation for land under the same notification, holding that the case was covered by the three-Judge decision in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, which the later three-Judge decision in Ramsingbhai Jerambhai had not noticed.

• CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATOR & ORS. & ETC. ETC. versus MANJIT KUMAR GULATI & ORS. & ETC. ETC.

  10/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 947

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that had restored a Chandigarh booth site whose lease was cancelled for non-payment of instalments. The allottees had been given repeated opportunities and a final chance to pay, and the alleged tenant who also challenged the resumption had produced no proof of tenancy, so no separate notice to it was required and its litigation was a proxy action for the defaulting allottees.

• JAMI VENKATA SURYAPRABHA & ANR. versus TARINI PRASAD NAYAK & ORS.

  09/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 646

  In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiffs sought under Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC to make the defendants lead evidence first. The Supreme Court upheld the refusal, as the defendants, while admitting the document, pleaded it was a sham and denied agreeing to sell. It added that the rule gives the plaintiff a right to begin but does not bind the court to call on the plaintiff first.

• LT. COL. SUPRITA CHANDEL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  09/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 381

  The Supreme Court held that a Short Service Commission officer of the Army Dental Corps who, like the successful applicants in an earlier AFT Principal Bench batch, lost her third chance for permanent commission because of the 20.03.2013 amendment to the age criteria was entitled to the same relief even though she had not been a party; using Article 142, it directed that she be granted permanent commission with consequential benefits.

• TEJ BHAN (D) THROUGH LR. & ORS. versus RAM KISHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

  09/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 500

  A two-Judge Bench, finding at least two divergent lines of Supreme Court authority on the interplay between sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, one following V. Tulasamma and the other flowing from Karmi v. Amru through Bhura, Gumpha and Sadhu Singh, did not decide the appeal and directed that it be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench to reconcile and restate the law.

• AJAY KUMAR JAIN versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  09/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 478

  The Supreme Court rejected a miscellaneous application filed in a writ petition disposed of years earlier, holding that such applications cannot revive concluded proceedings on the basis of subsequent events, and directed the Registry not to circulate post-disposal applications without a sworn averment of the limited ground on which they lie.

• STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. versus PRADEEP YASHWANT KOKADE & ANR.

  09/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 574

  Undue, unexplained and inordinate delay after the death sentence is confirmed violates Article 21 and can justify commutation. This includes executive delay in processing mercy petitions and a Sessions Court's delay in issuing the execution warrant. Here there was avoidable delay at all three stages, close to four years in all, so the High Court's commutation to a fixed 35-year term was upheld. The Court also directed States to set up dedicated mercy-petition cells and laid down a procedure for Sessions Courts issuing execution warrants.

• NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus G ATHIPATHI AND OTHERS

  09/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 520

  The Supreme Court held that an engineer who served the National Highways Authority of India on deputation, was repatriated to his State department, and re-entered more than a year later as a direct recruit Manager (Technical), could not count his earlier deputation service towards the four-year eligibility for promotion to Deputy General Manager (Technical). The one-time benefit in the 2017 Circular and Executive Committee decision covered officers in NHAI's service, not a fresh entrant after a complete break.

• BIRMA DEVI & ORS. versus SUBHASH & ANR.

  06/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 484

  Subsequent purchasers challenged a High Court order directing the executing court to issue a warrant of possession under a decree for specific performance that did not expressly grant possession. Relying on Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal, the Supreme Court held that the executing court can grant possession in such a case and dismissed the petition.

• KUNHIMUHAMMED@KUNHEETHU versus THE STATE OF KERALA

  06/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 392

  The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder of a political rival, whom he repeatedly stabbed in the chest and heart with a knife during a clash. It refused to convert the offence to Section 304 IPC: the injuries fell within clause thirdly of Section 300, Exception 2 (exceeding private defence) did not apply, and parity, old age and ill-health could not reduce the minimum sentence of life imprisonment.

• P.J. DHARMARAJ versus CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA & ORS.

  06/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 374

  The Director of a self-financing minority engineering institute affiliated to JNT University was not entitled to serve until 65. The 2010 AICTE/UGC revision of the retirement age was not adopted by the State, the affiliating university retires its teachers at 60, the appellant did no teaching, and he had accepted retirement by seeking retiral benefits. The appeal was dismissed.

• TARUN DHAMEJA versus SUNIL DHAMEJA & ANR.

  06/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 987

  An arbitration clause in a partnership deed saying that arbitration 'shall be optional' and that the arbitrator will be appointed by mutual consent does not make the clause non-existent or dependent on every party agreeing to arbitrate. Read as a whole, it lets an aggrieved party, including a deceased partner's legal representative, invoke arbitration, and the court may appoint the arbitrator if the parties cannot agree. The Section 11(6) petition was allowed.

• BASUDEV DUTTA versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

  05/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 418

  The Supreme Court set aside the termination of an Ophthalmic Assistant after about 26 years of service. The termination rested on a secret police verification report, received about 25 years after he joined, declaring him 'unsuitable'. The show cause notice and the termination order gave no reasons, the report was never supplied to him, and he was given no personal hearing. The Court restored the Tribunal's order, withdrew the liberty to hold fresh proceedings, granted all service benefits, and directed police in all States to complete verification of Government appointees within six months of appointment.

• AKANKSHA ARORA versus TANAY MABEN

  04/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 954

  The High Court dismissed a wife's Section 482 CrPC petition seeking enhancement of interim maintenance as not maintainable because a revision under Section 397 lay. The Supreme Court held that the label of a petition is immaterial and the High Court should have converted it into a revision and decided it on merits.

• CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus JAGAT RAM

  03/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 533

  The High Court accepted that demand and acceptance of the bribe were proved, but acquitted the accused only because no official who actually applied his mind to the sanction was examined. That was an error: under Section 19(3) and (4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 465 CrPC, a defect in sanction cannot overturn a Special Judge's finding unless it has caused a failure of justice. The acquittal was set aside and the sanction question remitted.

• OACHIRA PARABRAHMA TEMPLE & ANR. versus G. VIJAYANATHAKURUP AND ORS.

  03/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 358

  In appeals by the elected office-bearers of the Oachira Parabrahma Temple against High Court orders placing the temple under an Administrative Head and replacing the elected Executive Committee, the Supreme Court did not decide the questions raised. With the agreement of all parties, it appointed a new Administrator to hold elections under the temple bye-laws within four months.

• ASHOK versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

  02/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 335

  The Supreme Court acquitted an appellant convicted of the rape and murder of a ten-year-old girl. The only eyewitness, a child, was not of sterling quality; the recovery of articles at the appellant's instance was not proved; and none of the material circumstances in evidence were put to the appellant under Section 313 CrPC, a defect that could not be cured fifteen and a half years after the incident. The Court also set out the duties of trial courts and Public Prosecutors to secure effective legal aid and proper Section 313 examination.

• NUTAN BHARTI GRAM VIDYAPITH versus GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

  02/12/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 366

  Under the Gujarat Government's pension scheme for Gram Vidyapeeth staff, retiral dues of an employee of a grant-in-aid college are sanctioned by the State and paid from the Treasury. The High Court could not shift that liability to the college because it had kept litigating against the employee's reinstatement. The scheme has no such exception, and the college's challenge was not shown to be without jurisdiction. The State was held liable.

• STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus RAMKUMAR CHOUDHARY

  29/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1280

  The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's refusal to condone the State's long, unexplained delay in filing a second appeal over Government land, holding that 'sufficient cause' cannot be read liberally where negligence or inaction is shown, and that delay must be traced to a cause arising within the limitation period. It directed States to streamline their litigation machinery and fix responsibility on defaulting officers, and dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 1,00,000.

• KAMARUDDIN DASTAGIR SANADI versus STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SHO KAKATI POLICE

  29/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1269

  The accused's refusal to marry a woman who loved him, after which she took poison she had brought with her, was not abetment of suicide. It involved no instigation, no positive act and no mens rea, and at most showed a broken relationship. The evidence also failed to prove a promise to marry or a physical relationship. The High Court's reversal of the acquittal under Sections 417 and 306 IPC was set aside and the trial court's acquittal restored.

• CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, HISAR & ANR. versus MONIKA & ORS.

  29/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 954

  A candidate for a Clerk post who had worked over six months as a clerk-cum-typist in the University through an outsourcing agency was entitled to the half mark for experience "on the same or a higher post". The advertisement did not require the post to be a sanctioned one, and what matters is the nature of the work, not the mode of engagement. The University's appeal was dismissed.

• R. SHAMA NAIK versus G. SRINIVASIAH

  28/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1325

  The Supreme Court declined to interfere with a High Court judgment that reversed a decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale, because the High Court's finding that the plaintiff had not proved continuous readiness and willingness was a finding of fact on the evidence and was not perverse.

• X versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

  27/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 941

  On the victim's petition against bail granted to an accused in a gang-rape case during trial, the Supreme Court said that once trial in a serious offence has begun, courts should be slow to grant bail by looking at discrepancies in the victim's statements, unless the trial is unduly delayed through no fault of the accused. It did not cancel the bail, but barred the accused from entering the village where the victim lived and directed the trial court to try to finish the trial within three months.

• MAHESH DAMU KHARE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

  26/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 886

  The Supreme Court quashed an FIR for rape on a false promise of marriage, cheating, insult and intimidation. The complainant, a mature woman who knew the appellant was married, kept up a physical relationship with him from 2008 to 2017 without protest. Consent was therefore not shown to have been vitiated by a misconception of fact, and the FIR disclosed no ingredients of the other offences.

• GURMEET KAUR versus DEVENDER GUPTA & ANOTHER

  26/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1602

  A District Town Planner who, on her superiors' orders, demolished unauthorised construction in a controlled area was summoned on a private complaint without sanction. The Supreme Court held that the demolition was reasonably connected with her official duty and was not an excess, so sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required. It quashed the summoning order and held the complaint non est, with liberty to the complainant to seek sanction.

• ROHIT KOCHHAR versus VIPUL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS.

  26/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1289

  A suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell commercial space in Gurugram falls under Section 16(d) CPC and must be filed where the property is situated, even if possession is not expressly prayed for. Conveyance needs a sale deed registered at Gurugram, so the relief cannot be obtained entirely through the defendants' personal obedience in Delhi, and the proviso to Section 16 does not apply. The return of the plaint by the Delhi High Court was upheld.

• THE STATE OF KARNATAKA versus CHANDRASHA

  26/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1472

  The trial court had convicted a sub-treasury First Division Assistant of demanding and accepting Rs. 2,000 to pass a leave-encashment bill, but the High Court acquitted him because no work was pending with him on the trap date. The Supreme Court restored the conviction: demand, acceptance and recovery were proved, and work was still pending because the cheque had not been issued. The unproved loan defence did not rebut the Section 20 presumption, and the acquittal was perverse.

• C. SELVARANI versus THE SPECIAL SECRETARY-CUM-DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS

  26/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1504

  The appellant was baptised in infancy, her parents married by Christian rites, and she regularly attended church. She was therefore a Christian and not entitled to a Scheduled Caste certificate under the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964, which excludes anyone not professing Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism. Her claim of reconversion was unsupported by any evidence. Claiming Hindu status only to obtain reservation while practising Christianity is a fraud on the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed.

• KALI CHARAN AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

  26/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1064

  The Supreme Court upheld the urgency acquisition of land in Gautam Budh Nagar by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority. It held that the acquisition was part of the integrated development of the Yamuna Expressway covered by Nand Kishore Gupta, not a standalone project like that in Radhy Shyam. It approved the High Court's Kamal Sharma decision, set aside Shyoraj Singh as per incuriam, and extended the 64.7% enhanced compensation to all affected landowners.

• STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS versus DR. RAO, V.B.J. CHELIKANI AND OTHERS

  25/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1366

  The Supreme Court quashed the Andhra Pradesh land allotment policy (GoM Nos. 243 and 244 of 2005) to the extent that it treated MPs, MLAs, All India Services and State officers, Judges of the constitutional courts and journalists as a separate class for allotment of Government land at the basic rate, together with the 2008 allotment orders made under it. It held the classification arbitrary and contrary to substantive equality under Article 14. Constructive res judicata did not bar the challenge in this public interest litigation. The allottee societies were held entitled to refunds with interest.

• SANGRAM SADASHIV SURYAVANSHI versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  25/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1321

  The Supreme Court granted bail to an accused in custody for two and a half years in a counterfeit currency case, and cautioned High Courts against routinely fixing time-bound schedules for trials when rejecting bail, contrary to the Constitution Bench ruling in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad.

• DR BALRAM SINGH AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

  25/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 947

  The Supreme Court dismissed, without issuing notice, writ petitions challenging the insertion of 'socialist' and 'secular' into the Preamble by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. It held that Parliament's power under Article 368 extends to the Preamble and is not limited by the 1949 date of adoption. Both words have a settled meaning in the Indian context, and a challenge brought about 44 years later did not warrant detailed examination.

• VIJAYA SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

  25/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 906

  The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction of a husband and mother-in-law for the burning death of a young, pregnant wife about 17 months after marriage, on circumstantial evidence. It held that a statement recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, though not substantive evidence, can corroborate other testimony and cannot be discarded merely because the witness later retracts it without substantiating the alleged threat.

• INDORE VIKAS PRAADHIKARAN (IDA) & ANR. versus SHRI HUMUD JAIN SAMAJ TRUST & ANR.

  24/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 925

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court Division Bench direction to allot a development authority's plot to the highest bidder in a cancelled tender at Rs.26,000 per sq. m., holding that the highest bidder acquires no vested right before acceptance and allotment, that the authority validly rejected all bids under the NIT to correct an under-fixed reserve price, and that the High Court cannot sit in appeal over such a decision or fix the price itself.

• SURESH CHANDRA TIWARI & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

  24/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1233

  The Supreme Court acquitted two appellants convicted (as altered by the High Court) under Section 304 Part I IPC on circumstantial evidence, holding that the last-seen, motive, nocturnal-sighting, meat-bag and 'looking for the deceased' circumstances did not unerringly point to guilt, and that the stone recovery was a chance recovery preceding the disclosure statement, uncorroborated by forensic or medical evidence and supported by a doubtful witness.

• NITIN MAHADEO JAWALE & ORS. versus BHASKAR MAHADEO MUTKE

  22/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1318

  The Supreme Court declined to interfere with a High Court order that set aside a trial court's condonation of a delay of about four and a half years in filing a written statement, observing that a litigant cannot shift the whole blame for inordinate delay onto his advocate, since he must himself stay vigilant about his case.

• RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSI versus HARISH AMBALAL CHOKSI & OTHERS

  22/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1343

  The Supreme Court restored a trial court's temporary injunction restraining dealings with a family property pending a suit to cancel a sale deed executed under a power of attorney, holding that the High Court, in an appeal under Order 43 CPC, substituted its own view without finding the trial court's discretion perverse, arbitrary or contrary to settled principles, and relied on extraneous matters such as other litigation between the parties.

• RAMACHANDRAN & ORS. versus VIJAYAN & ORS.

  22/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1013

  Resolving a split in the Kerala High Court Full Bench in Mary Cheriyan, the Supreme Court held (prospectively) that property obtained on partition by a single Marumakkathayam female with no children is her separate property and not tharwad property. On the facts, however, the suit property was allotted to a group (a mother and her children forming a thavazhi), which all judges agreed holds it as tharwad property, so the partition decree was affirmed.

• M/S AJAY PROTECH PVT. LTD. versus GENERAL MANAGER & ANR.

  22/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 850

  The Supreme Court held that an application under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend an arbitral tribunal's mandate may be filed even after the mandate has expired, and that 'sufficient cause' under Section 29A(5) must be read to facilitate effective dispute resolution. Given the COVID-period exclusion and the parties' agreement to seek extension, it found sufficient cause and extended time for the award to 31.12.2024.

• K.S. MURALIDHAR versus R. SUBBULAKSHMI & ANR.

  22/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 835

  In a motor accident claim by a 37-year-old permanently employed claimant left with 100% functional disability (quadriplegia after cervical spine injuries), the Supreme Court enhanced compensation by applying 50% future prospects under Pranay Sethi instead of 40%, and by raising the award for pain and suffering to Rs.15,00,000, explaining that such non-pecuniary loss resists formulaic computation but must reflect the claimant's lifelong deprivation.

• SONU AGNIHOTRI versus CHANDRA SHEKHAR & ORS.

  22/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 861

  The Supreme Court expunged remarks made by the Delhi High Court against an Additional Sessions Judge while it set aside his strictures on police officers. A superior court may criticise an erroneous order, even strongly, but should avoid personal comments on the conduct or calibre of a judicial officer; any concern about conduct belongs on the administrative side, where the officer can be heard.

• NAEEM BANO ALIAS GAINDO versus MOHAMMAD RAHEES & ANR.

  22/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1492

  The Supreme Court held that once Parliament substituted Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act by Act 3 of 2003 (w.e.f. 31.12.2002), the earlier Uttar Pradesh amendment of 1954 to that section stood impliedly repealed by virtue of the proviso to Article 254(2). The validity of an ejectment notice issued in 2015 was therefore no longer controversial, and the High Court should not have kept the tenant's Article 227 petition pending a larger Bench reference on the notice period.

• RANDEEP SINGH @ RANA & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

  22/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1425

  The Supreme Court acquitted two appellants convicted of abduction and murder. The sole eyewitness's account was riddled with material omissions amounting to contradictions, her husband, also an eyewitness, was withheld, and the CCTV CD was inadmissible without a Section 65B certificate. Recoveries alone could not sustain conviction. The Court also criticised recording inadmissible custodial confessions in the investigating officer's deposition, and said the brutality of an offence does not lower the standard of proof.

• RAJNEESH KUMAR & ANR. versus VED PRAKASH

  21/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1466

  The Supreme Court declined to interfere with a High Court order refusing condonation of a 534-day delay in filing a first appeal, holding that a litigant cannot throw the entire blame on his advocate's negligence to obtain condonation of long and inordinate delay, as he owes a duty to be vigilant about his own case.

• KIRPAL SINGH versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI & ORS.

  21/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1329

  The Supreme Court held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies to a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act challenging an award under the National Highways Act, 1956, and excluded the time the landowner spent pursuing a misconceived first appeal in the High Court. Because the remedies under Sections 34 and 37 are narrow, limitation for invoking them must be construed liberally. The Section 34 petition was restored to the District Judge.

• R. KANDASAMY (SINCE DEAD) & ORS. versus T.R.K. SARAWATHY & ANR.

  21/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1099

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court decree for specific performance and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit. Although time was not of the essence, because the clause requiring the sellers to evict the tenants qualified the four-month payment clause, the buyer was not ready and willing to perform. The Court also explained how I.S. Sikandar and A. Kanthamani bear on a suit with no prayer to declare the cancellation invalid, and held that appellate courts may examine a missing jurisdictional fact even where no issue was framed.

• MANJIT SINGH & ANR. versus DARSHANA DEVI & ORS.

  21/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 876

  The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decree for specific performance against subsequent purchasers. Under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, a subsequent purchaser who claims to be a bona fide transferee for value without notice bears the burden of proving it. Good faith needs both honesty and due care, and a purchaser who makes no inquiry of a person in actual possession is fixed with constructive notice.

• M.R. AJAYAN versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

  20/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1448

  The Supreme Court restored criminal proceedings against a court clerk and an advocate accused of tampering with a case property (an undergarment) in an NDPS case, which had led to the foreign accused's acquittal. The Section 195(1)(b) CrPC bar did not apply because the prosecution originated from the High Court's own judgment and later directions, not a private complaint, and the provision does not distinguish between judicial and administrative directions of the superior court. A third party was allowed to maintain the appeal given the seriousness of the interference with justice.

• PRASHANT versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

  20/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 825

  The Supreme Court quashed an FIR, chargesheet and pending trial under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC, holding that the allegations taken at face value showed a consensual relationship between two educated adults that did not end in marriage; there was no promise of marriage at the outset and no real threat, so continuing the prosecution would abuse the process of law.

• M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

  20/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1525

  Resolving conflicting views of the Bombay and Delhi High Courts, the Supreme Court held that mobile towers and prefabricated shelters (PFBs) are movable property and so 'goods'. As accessories of the antenna and BTS, which fall under Chapter 85, they are 'capital goods' under Rule 2(a)(A)(iii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and they are also 'inputs' under Rule 2(k)(ii). Mobile service providers may therefore take CENVAT credit of excise duty paid on them against service tax.

• SUNNY @ SANTOSH DHARMU BHOSALE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  20/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1440

  The Supreme Court upheld the finding that the appellant assaulted the deceased with a bamboo stick, causing his death, but altered his conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to Part I of Section 304 IPC. There was no motive or premeditation, no weapon was brought, and a sudden fight in the heat of passion could not be ruled out. He was sentenced to the period already undergone.

• DR. RAJIV VERGHESE versus ROSE CHAKKRAMMANKKIL FRANCIS

  19/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1312

  In cross-appeals on interim maintenance pending a divorce petition under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in cutting the wife's maintenance from Rs.1,75,000 to Rs.80,000 a month by looking at only two of the husband's income sources, and restored the Family Court's award.

• THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. versus AMIN LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS.

  19/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1257

  The Supreme Court upheld a decree for possession in favour of private landowners against the State of Haryana and its PWD, holding that the State cannot perfect title to its citizens' land by adverse possession, that by pleading adverse possession without specifically denying the plaintiffs' title the State impliedly admitted it, and that its possession was in any case permissive.

• STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus NAVIN KUMAR SINHA

  19/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 799

  The Supreme Court held that SBI could not initiate disciplinary proceedings against an officer whose extended service had ended, and upheld the quashing of his dismissal. A disciplinary proceeding begins only when the charge memo is issued, not with an earlier show cause notice, and Rule 19(3) of the SBI Officers' Service Rules only lets a proceeding already initiated before cessation of service continue afterwards.

• SIDDIQUE versus STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

  19/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 822

  The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant in a rape and criminal intimidation case, declining to give elaborate reasons given the sensitivity of the matter but relying on the eight-year delay in lodging the complaint, a 2018 social-media post naming about 14 persons, and the complainant's not approaching the Justice Hema Committee.

• LEELA AGRAWAL versus SARKAR & ANR.

  19/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1130

  Reversing concurrent findings, the Supreme Court held that a registered deed describing the mortgagee as a 'conditional purchaser' and providing that the deed would be treated as a sale if the money was not repaid within three years was a mortgage by conditional sale under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, not a simple mortgage. The mortgagor's permissive possession did not change its character, and her suit for redemption was dismissed.

• THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. versus M/S FERROUS ALLOY FORGINGS P LTD. & ORS.

  19/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1335

  The Supreme Court held that an auction purchaser is not required to pay stamp duty for issuance of a sale certificate following a court-confirmed auction: title passes on confirmation of sale, the certificate is only evidence of title, is not compulsorily registrable, and need only be forwarded to the Sub-Registrar for filing; stamp duty arises only if the purchaser presents the original certificate for registration or uses it for another purpose.

• SATYENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  18/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1634

  The Supreme Court held that where a major penalty is proposed and the government servant denies the charge, Rule 7(vii) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 makes it mandatory to examine witnesses; an inquiry in which no witness at all was examined and charges were held proved on documents alone is vitiated. It set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Tribunal's order quashing the penalty.

• RAMACHANDRA REDDY (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. versus RAMULU AMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.

  14/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 2329

  The Supreme Court restored the concurrent decrees giving the heirs of Govindammal a 2/3rd share in family property under a 1963 settlement deed. The High Court erred in recharacterising the deed as a gift for want of 'adequate consideration': consideration need not be monetary, and the deed recited past and future care of the transferors and charitable work. The High Court had also exceeded its limited jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC in upsetting concurrent findings.

• SONAM LAKRA versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.

  14/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 2362

  The Supreme Court quashed the removal of an elected woman Sarpanch in Chhattisgarh, finding that she was held solely responsible for delays in development works on a flimsy pretext and was not heard, and that the High Court should not have turned her away on the ground of alternative remedy. It reinstated her for the rest of her term and awarded Rs.1,00,000 costs against the State.

• TINKU versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

  13/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 713

  The son of a Haryana Police constable who died on duty in 1997 reached majority eleven years later and claimed compassionate appointment. The Supreme Court upheld the rejection of that claim under the 1999 instructions, which required a minor dependant to attain majority within three years of the death. Because the State had kept the family's claim pending and never told the widow about a 2011 one-time option, the Court allowed her to apply for lump-sum ex-gratia compensation within a time limit.

• IN RE: DIRECTIONS IN THE MATTER OF DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES versus

  13/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 722

  In Article 32 petitions against demolition of properties of persons accused of crimes, the Supreme Court held that the executive cannot demolish a person's house or property because he is accused or even convicted, without due process. Doing so usurps the judicial function, violates the rule of law, separation of powers and the presumption of innocence, and imposes collective punishment on family members whose right to shelter is part of Article 21. The Court issued pan-India directions under Article 142 on notice, hearing, reasoned orders, time to seek review and vacate, videography, and personal liability of officers.

• LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. versus OM PARKASH

  13/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 2369

  The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's reinstatement of an LIC officer. It held that the employer had rightly treated his unexplained absence for over ninety days as abandonment of service under the LIC Staff Regulations. It also held that he had hidden his later employment with the Food Corporation of India from the High Court and so was not entitled to equitable relief under Article 226.

• GANAPATI BHIKARAO NAIK versus NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED

  13/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1628

  The Supreme Court restored a Labour Court award reinstating a worker who had been removed on the charge that he falsely claimed to be a land-loser's son-in-law, holding that the High Court's single judge wrongly overturned the Labour Court's findings of fact on marriage without any compelling reason. Back wages for the period after the High Court set aside the award were denied.

• SHYAM KUMAR INANI versus VINOD AGRAWAL & ORS.

  12/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 2375

  The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court's decrees of specific performance of six agreements to sell agricultural land near Bhopal, reversing the High Court. The plaintiffs had proved the agreements through a co-purchaser who also held their powers of attorney and had been present throughout. The heirs failed to prove forgery or that the vendor was a pardanashin lady. Under the second part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, time ran from notice of refusal, so the suits were in time. Purchasers from the heirs took no better title than their vendors.

• CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION versus M/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY

  08/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 2173

  A five-judge Constitution Bench, by majority (Chandrachud CJI for himself, Pardiwala and Manoj Misra JJ), held that the equal-treatment principle in Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies at the stage of appointing arbitrators, so a clause letting one party unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator, or forcing the other party to pick its nominee from a panel curated by a PSU, is invalid; unilateral appointment clauses in public-private contracts also violate Article 14. Voestalpine and CORE were disapproved, TRF and Perkins upheld, and the ruling on three-member tribunals made prospective. Roy J and Narasimha J wrote separate opinions declining to import public-law principles and to declare such clauses void in advance.

• RAJIVE RATURI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  08/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 970

  In a 2005 public interest writ petition on accessibility for persons with disabilities, the Supreme Court, acting on a report by NALSAR's Centre for Disability Studies, held Rule 15(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 ultra vires the 2016 Act because it prescribes largely recommendatory guidelines instead of the mandatory, non-negotiable accessibility standards the Act requires. The Union was directed to frame a baseline of mandatory rules within three months and the statutory consequences of non-compliance were directed to be enforced.

• M/S SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. versus KATTA SUJATHA REDDY & ORS.

  08/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 667

  Allowing review petitions, the Supreme Court recalled its 2022 judgment that had dismissed the purchaser's suit for specific performance as time-barred and refused relief. That judgment had overlooked the cancellation consequence in Clause 3 for the vendors' default, misread Clause 21 as referring to an earlier failed agreement between the same parties, and ignored the unchallenged finding that the vendors never obtained the required certificates. As no date for performance was fixed, the suit was within limitation, the purchaser was ready and willing, and the High Court's decree was restored. A transfer made after the review was instituted was held subject to lis pendens.

• ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY versus NARESH AGARWAL & ORS.

  08/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1647

  A seven-Judge Bench, by a 4:3 majority, overruled the view in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India that an educational institution is not established by a minority if it derives its legal character from a statute. The majority held that Article 30(1) protects universities and other institutions founded before the Constitution. Incorporation by statute does not by itself surrender minority character. Whether a minority established an institution turns on ideation, purpose and implementation, read with whether the administrative set-up affirms its minority character. Whether AMU is a minority institution was left to a regular Bench. Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma JJ. dissented in separate opinions.

• STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus THE CONSORTIUM OF MR. MURARI LAL JALAN AND MR. FLORIAN FRITSCH & ANR.

  07/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 2039

  In the Jet Airways insolvency, the Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT's order that let the successful resolution applicant adjust its Rs. 150 crore performance bank guarantee against the first tranche of Rs. 350 crore, holding this contrary to the Court's earlier order of 18.01.2024, the RFRP terms incorporated in the resolution plan, and Regulation 36B(4A). Finding that the SRA had failed to implement the plan despite repeated extensions, the Court used Article 142 to direct liquidation, forfeited the Rs. 200 crore infused, permitted encashment of the guarantee, and made suggestions on reform of the IBC and the tribunals.

• RAMKRISHNA MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

  07/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 700

  Two medical colleges lost one MBBS seat each for 2023-24 because the High Court's cryptic interim orders directed a seat to be kept vacant and the writ petitions were decided only after the admission deadline. The Supreme Court refused a compensatory extra seat in a later year, laid down that seats should be kept vacant only in cast-iron cases and with security where appropriate, and, applying restitution, allowed the colleges to have the fee deficit factored into future fee fixation.

• GOQII TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED versus SOKRATI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED

  07/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 530

  The Supreme Court held that a High Court hearing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must confine itself to the prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement, and erred in examining an audit report in detail and refusing reference on the ground that the claim was dishonest and the dispute non-existent. Frivolity is for the arbitral tribunal, which may impose costs on a party abusing the process. A sole arbitrator was appointed.

• M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD. versus M/S MICROMAX INFORMATICS FZE

  07/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1142

  The Supreme Court dismissed a Section 11 petition by an Afghan distributor against a UAE company for appointment of an arbitrator. The arbitration clause named Dubai as the only 'venue' and applied UAE arbitration rules, and the contract was governed by UAE law. Applying BGS SGS Soma and the Shashoua principle, the Court held Dubai to be the juridical seat. Part I of the Arbitration Act therefore did not apply, even though the agreement pre-dated BALCO. The 'non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Dubai Courts' clause did not change this, and Dubai was in any case the more appropriate forum.

• M/S HPCL BIO-FUELS LTD. versus M/S SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD

  07/11/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 133

  The Supreme Court set aside the appointment of an arbitrator. The respondent had unconditionally withdrawn its first Section 11(6) application, without liberty, to improve its chances in insolvency proceedings under Section 9 IBC, and the principles of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC barred a fresh application on the same cause of action. The fresh application was also time-barred under Article 137: time spent in the IBC proceedings could not be excluded under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act because they were not for the 'same relief', and delay was not condoned under Section 5.

• ASLAM ISMAIL KHAN DESHMUKH versus ASAP FLUIDS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

  07/11/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 108

  Deciding petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in an international commercial arbitration over shares under a shareholders agreement, the Supreme Court held that on limitation a referral court only checks whether the Section 11(6) petition itself is within three years; whether the substantive claims are time-barred is for the arbitral tribunal. The petitions were allowed and the sole arbitrator already hearing a related dispute between the parties was appointed.

• COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS versus M/S CANON INDIA PVT. LTD.

  07/11/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 202

  Allowing the Customs Department's review of Canon India (2021) on the question of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court held that DRI officers are officers of customs appointed under Section 4 who, once assigned proper-officer functions (as by Notification 44/2011), may issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962; no Section 6 entrustment is needed and Section 28 is not tied to the officer who assessed under Section 17. It upheld Section 28(11), set aside the Delhi High Court's Mangali Impex ruling, and upheld Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022, leaving Canon India's limitation findings undisturbed.

• KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  07/11/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 68

  In a writ petition challenging the Explanations that bar deducting royalty and DMF/NMET contributions from 'sale value' when computing the average sale price of minerals (said to cause royalty on royalty), the Supreme Court declined to strike them down as royalty computation is economic policy and the Explanations are clarificatory. Noting that the Union itself had acknowledged the anomaly, and that coal alone had been relieved of it, the Court directed the Union to conclude its pending public consultation and decide the issue within two months.

• TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK & ORS. versus RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS.

  07/11/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 28

  On a reference about the 'rules of the game' in public recruitment, a larger Bench held that K. Manjusree is good law and does not conflict with Subash Chander Marwaha. Manjusree concerns the right to be placed in the select list; Marwaha concerns the right to be appointed from it. Eligibility criteria for placement in the select list cannot be changed midway unless the rules or a rule-compliant advertisement permit it, and even then the change must be non-arbitrary. Benchmarks must be fixed before the relevant stage begins. Statutory rules bind the recruiting body, and selected candidates have no indefeasible right to appointment but cannot be denied it arbitrarily.

• RAMJI LAL BAIRWA & ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

  07/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 641

  A teacher was accused of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old Dalit student. The High Court quashed the FIR under Section 482 CrPC on the strength of his compromise with the victim's father. The Supreme Court set that order aside. It held that public-spirited third parties could maintain the special leave petition when neither the State nor the victim's family challenged the order. It also held that POCSO and similar heinous offences affect society and cannot be quashed merely because the accused and the victim's family have settled.

• IN RE: MANOJ TIBREWAL AKASH versus ABC

  06/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 2348

  In a suo motu writ petition started on a journalist's letter, the Supreme Court held that the demolition of his ancestral house in Maharajganj for widening NH 730 was high-handed and without authority of law. There had been no written notice, no demarcation and no acquisition, and the demolition went beyond even the alleged encroachment. The Court ordered Rs 25 lakh interim compensation, an enquiry, disciplinary action and an FIR. It also laid down minimum procedural safeguards that States must follow before road-widening demolitions.

• DEVENDRA KUMAR & ORS. versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  06/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 523

  The Supreme Court accepted the eyewitness evidence that the appellants caused the deceased's death in an assault with lathis, an axe and a rod, but altered their conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to Part I of Section 304 IPC, holding that, given the land dispute, the quarrel near the appellants' field, the agricultural weapons used and the absence of premeditation, the possibility of a sudden fight in the heat of passion could not be ruled out.

• M/S BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus RAMBHA DEVI & ORS.

  06/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 541

  Answering a reference, a five-judge Constitution Bench held that a driver holding a Light Motor Vehicle licence under Section 10(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 may drive a 'transport vehicle' whose gross vehicle weight does not exceed 7,500 kg without a separate transport-vehicle endorsement. The exhaustive definition of LMV in Section 2(21) includes such vehicles, the second part of Section 3(1) does not override it, and the additional licensing requirements for transport vehicles apply only to medium and heavy vehicles above 7,500 kg. Mukund Dewangan (2017) was upheld as not per incuriam, and Prabhu Lal, Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and Angad Kol were overruled.

• SONU CHOUDARY versus STATE OF NCT DELHI

  06/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 786

  The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 324 IPC for cutting the injured with a blade, but set aside his conviction under Section 452 IPC because the incident occurred in a restaurant, which is not a building used as a human dwelling, place of worship or place for the custody of property, so house-trespass under Section 442 was not made out.

• DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT versus BIBHU PRASAD ACHARYA, ETC.

  06/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 510

  The Supreme Court held that Section 197(1) CrPC applies to a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA by virtue of Section 65 of that Act, and that Section 71 does not override CrPC provisions made applicable through Section 65. As the two respondents were civil servants removable by the State Government and the acts alleged were done while purporting to discharge official duty, cognizance taken against them without previous sanction was rightly quashed.

• PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  05/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1

  Answering a reference arising from the challenge to Chapter VIII-A of the MHADA Act, a nine-judge Bench held that Article 31C, as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati, survives: striking down the Forty-Second Amendment's substitution in Minerva Mills revived the unamended text. On Article 39(b), the lead opinion of the Chief Justice held that 'material resources of the community' may include privately owned resources, but not every private resource. The expansive Krishna Iyer view in Ranganatha Reddy, adopted in Sanjeev Coke, was rejected; whether a resource qualifies depends on context, and 'distribution' can include vesting and nationalisation. Nagarathna J. concurred in part with separate reasoning, and Dhulia J. dissented on Article 39(b).

• JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  05/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1042

  Allowing writ petitions by Patna High Court judges elevated from the district judiciary, the Supreme Court held that every High Court judge is entitled under Section 20 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 to subscribe to the General Provident Fund; the proviso does not exclude former district judges who subscribed to no provident fund, and all High Court judges form one homogenous class whose service and retiral benefits cannot differ by source of appointment. A companion order extended the ten-year addition for pension to a retired judge elevated from the district judiciary.

• ANJUM KADARI & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  05/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 365

  The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgment striking down the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 in its entirety. It held that a statute cannot be invalidated for violating the basic structure (secularism) as such, that the Act is a valid regulatory law within Entry 25 of List III that furthers the State's interest in educational standards consistently with Articles 14, 21-A and 30, but that its provisions regulating the higher-education degrees Fazil and Kamil conflict with Section 22 of the UGC Act and are severable and invalid.

• KARAKKATTU MUHAMMED BASHEER versus THE STATE OF KERALA

  05/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 498

  The Supreme Court acquitted a man convicted of murder and causing disappearance of evidence on purely circumstantial evidence, holding that the prosecution failed to prove that he and the deceased were present together in the house where the murder allegedly occurred, and that the recoveries of the weapon and blood-stained articles were unreliable, leaving gaps in the chain of circumstances.

• NABHA POWER LIMITED & ANR. versus PUNJAB STATE POWER COROPORATION LIMITED & ANR.

  05/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 445

  The Supreme Court held that a Press Information Bureau release announcing the Union Cabinet's approval of modifications to the Mega Power Policy was not 'law' under the power purchase agreement and did not change the legal regime on its date. The change in law occurred only with the customs exemption notification of 11.12.2009 and the revised policy of 14.12.2009, after the bid cut-off date, so the resulting customs duty benefit had to be passed on to the procurer.

• XYZ versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

  05/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 792

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that quashed a rape and SC/ST Atrocities Act prosecution on the strength of an alleged settlement. The High Court relied on two affidavits bearing the illiterate victim's thumb impressions, executed the same day, with no endorsement that their contents had been explained to her. Before quashing non-compoundable offences on the basis of a settlement, the court must satisfy itself that the settlement is genuine, and in serious offences, especially against women, it should secure the victim's presence in person or by video conference. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

• NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY versus MANISH AGARWAL & ORS.

  05/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 489

  The Supreme Court dismissed the NOIDA Special Economic Zone Authority's challenge, as operational creditor, to an approved resolution plan that gave it Rs 50 lakh against an admitted claim of about Rs 6.29 crore and exempted the resolution applicant from SEZ transfer and renewal charges. Valuation is a question of fact; the CoC's commercial wisdom is not justiciable beyond Section 30(2) of the IBC; dues not in the plan stand extinguished; and the IBC overrides the SEZ Act under Section 238. The plan had also been implemented and the appellant had accepted its payment.

• MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

  05/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 428

  The Supreme Court held that the U.P. Power Corporation wrongly terminated Technician Grade-II (Electrical) appointees selected in the 14 July 2015 list who held the required CCC computer certificate at the time of interview, on the ground that they did not hold it on the last date for applications. The amended 1995 Regulations and the advertisement required the certificate to be produced at the interview, and the earlier High Court and Supreme Court rulings had disturbed only candidates without a recognised certificate. Using Article 142, the Court ordered reinstatement without back wages but with seniority and continuity; those who obtained the certificate after their interview got no relief.

• SUBRATA CHOUDHURY @ SANTOSH CHOUDHURY & ORS. versus THE STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.

  05/11/2024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1

  The Supreme Court held that a second complaint repeating the same allegations against the same accused was not maintainable where the Magistrate had accepted a negative final report on the first complaint after considering the complainant's protest petition and hearing him, since that disposal was on merits and the core of both complaints was the same. The High Court erred in treating a second complaint as maintainable merely because the first was not dismissed after an inquiry under Section 202 or under Section 203 CrPC.

• ANOOP M. AND OTHERS versus GIREESHKUMAR T.M. AND OTHERS ETC.

  04/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 325

  The Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of candidates holding a Diploma in Computer Applications or other computer-related 'higher' qualifications from selection to Lower Division Clerk posts in the Kerala Water Authority, holding that the Special Rules allowed equivalence only of the institution awarding the prescribed Data Entry certificate, not of the qualification, and that the KPSC never assessed whether those qualifications presupposed the prescribed one. It censured the KPSC for its shifting stand.

• THE MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. versus BAPUNA ALCOBREW PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

  04/11/2024 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 340

  The Supreme Court restored a distribution licensee's demand for minimum guarantee charges for 1996-2000, holding that the two-year bar in Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 does not apply to liabilities incurred before that Act came into force, and that the consumer was barred by issue estoppel from challenging a second show cause notice for the same amount after its challenge to the first notice had been rejected by unappealed High Court orders.

• NEERAJ SUD AND ANR. versus JASWINDER SINGH (MINOR) AND ANR.

  25/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1475

  The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC's finding of medical negligence against a PGI surgeon who operated on a child for congenital ptosis, holding that deterioration after surgery does not by itself prove negligence and that the complainants had led no evidence that the doctor failed to exercise the skill he possessed. The State Commission's dismissal of the complaint was restored.

• OM RATHOD versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES & ORS.

  25/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2187

  The Supreme Court set aside a Disability Assessment Board's opinion declaring a NEET candidate with a locomotor disability above 80% ineligible for MBBS, holding that boards must assess functional competence with assistive devices and reasonable accommodation rather than merely quantify disability. Relying on a court-requested functional assessment finding him suitable, it directed a supernumerary seat at AIIMS Nagpur and issued directions for reforming the guidelines and the working of assessment boards.

• THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus RAMJAN KHAN & ORS.

  25/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1876

  The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal against a High Court acquittal in a murder case, holding that the High Court's view that the testimony of the deceased's mother and minor brothers was unreliable, owing to material omissions from the FIR and police statements about the alleged oral dying declaration and the assailants' roles, was a reasonably possible view that did not warrant interference.

• NISAR AHMAD & ORS. versus SAMI ULLAH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.

  24/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1855

  In a consolidation dispute between two branches of a Muslim family, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment that the appellants held only a 1/12 share in land taken on a 1922 lease by two named lessees, because the consolidation authorities wrongly treated it as joint family property under Hindu law concepts, and that certain plots belonged exclusively to the respondents under an unchallenged registered relinquishment deed executed by the appellants' father.

• INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PVT LTD versus KAMARAJAR PORT LIMITED

  24/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1503

  The Supreme Court modified a High Court order that stayed an arbitral money award against a statutory port company on the mere furnishing of a bank guarantee for the principal sum. It held that the Arbitration Act does not distinguish government entities from private parties when imposing conditions for a stay under Section 36(3), and directed deposit of 75% of the decretal amount, inclusive of interest, as the condition for stay.

• SAROJ & ORS. versus IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS.

  24/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 939

  In a motor accident death claim, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's reduction of compensation, holding that the age of the deceased should be taken from his School Leaving Certificate rather than his Aadhaar Card, which is proof of identity and not per se of date of birth. It restored the Tribunal's notional income, applied a multiplier of 14, raised interest to 8% and fixed compensation at Rs 15,00,000.

• SONAL GUPTA & ORS. versus REGISTRAR GENERAL, RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT JODHPUR & ANR.

  24/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2240

  Candidates in the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre 2024 main examination challenged their very low marks in the English Essay paper and sought re-evaluation. After examining tabulated data and the answer sheets themselves, the Supreme Court found no statistical discrepancy or deliberate low marking and dismissed the petitions under Article 32, leaving individual grievances on other issues to the High Court.

• N. THAJUDEEN versus TAMIL NADU KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD

  24/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 952

  The Supreme Court upheld a decree declaring the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board's title to land gifted to it by registered deed, holding that the gift was accepted and acted upon, could not be revoked under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act as no right of revocation was reserved, and that the suit, which also sought possession, was within the 12-year limitation under Article 65.

• CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus ASHOK SIRPAL

  24/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 930

  The Supreme Court held that a fine imposed on conviction is itself a sentence that an appellate court may suspend under Section 389 CrPC, unconditionally or on conditions, and read the High Court's order suspending the 'sentence' of a convicted accused (seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 95 lakh) as covering the fine. A deposit condition must not be impossible to comply with, as that may defeat the right of appeal. The CBI's appeal was disposed of by treating the Rs 15 lakh already deposited as the condition for suspending the fine.

• STATE OF U.P. & ORS versus M/S LALTA PRASAD VAISH AND SONS

  23/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1931

  A nine-Judge Bench answered a reference on the scope of 'intoxicating liquors' in Entry 8 of List II. The lead opinion of the Chief Justice held that the entry covers both the industry and the product, from raw materials to consumption, and extends to alcohol that could be noxiously used to the detriment of public health, including rectified spirit, ENA and denatured spirit, but not finished products such as hand sanitiser. It also held that Parliament cannot take control of that industry under Entry 52 of List I. Synthetics and Chemicals (7J) was overruled. Nagarathna J. dissented.

• GLAS TRUST COMPANY LLC versus BYJU RAVEENDRAN & ORS.

  23/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1802

  The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT's approval, under its inherent powers in Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules 2016, of a settlement between BCCI and the corporate debtor (Think and Learn Pvt Ltd) that closed an admitted CIRP before the committee of creditors was formed. Once a CIRP is admitted, withdrawal must follow Section 12A of the IBC read with Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations, which now cover every stage, so inherent powers cannot be used to bypass that procedure. A financial creditor that was not a party to the settlement had locus to appeal as a 'person aggrieved'.

• SUHAS CHAKMA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  23/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1769

  In a public interest writ petition on prison conditions, the Supreme Court dealt separately with access to free legal aid for prisoners. It reviewed NALSA's SOPs, the Legal Aid Defence Counsel System, the undertrial review committee and pre-arrest assistance frameworks and the data on convicts' appeals, commended the work done, and issued directions to strengthen monitoring, awareness and follow-up so that legal aid reaches prisoners, including a suggestion that courts append a cover sheet on free legal aid to judgments of conviction.

• VIDYASAGAR PRASAD versus UCO BANK & ANR.

  22/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1462

  The Supreme Court dismissed a suspended director's appeal against admission of UCO Bank's Section 7 IBC application, filed in 2019 although the account was declared NPA in 2014. Entries in the corporate debtor's balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2017, read with a note recording continuing defaults on term loans, and its 2016 one-time settlement proposal were valid acknowledgments under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, which applies through Section 238A of the IBC. The balance sheet need not name the particular creditor.

• UMA & ANR. versus THE STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

  22/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1757

  The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reversal of an acquittal and the life sentences of a husband, his aunt and her husband for strangling the young wife within six months of marriage and pouring paint and kerosene into her mouth to make it look like suicide. The medical evidence of ante-mortem neck injuries, a fractured hyoid bone and no poison, the motive arising from the husband's illicit relationship with the aunt, the shared residence, the unproved alibi and the accused's conduct formed a complete chain. The accused gave no acceptable explanation, as Section 106 of the Evidence Act required.

• HDFC BANK LTD. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

  22/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1902

  The Supreme Court quashed, as against HDFC Bank, an FIR under various IPC provisions registered on an Income Tax officer's complaint that bank staff let a customer operate a locker frozen by an order under Section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act. The later revocation order released only the bank accounts, and the staff said they misread it. Read at face value, the complaint disclosed no dishonest inducement, entrustment, misappropriation, mens rea or common intention, so the case fell within Bhajan Lal categories (2) and (3).

• V.D. RAVEESHA versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

  22/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2265

  The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a borrower who, without repaying a vehicle loan, forged a repayment receipt, no-objection certificate and Form 35 in the financier's name, had the hypothecation cleared at the RTO and sold the vehicle. Although criminal breach of trust and cheating ordinarily cannot coexist on the same facts, here they were committed against two different persons, the financier and the purchaser. The Court dismissed the SLP but reduced the sentence to one year and six months' simple imprisonment.

• HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus ABHISHEK GUPTA ETC.

  21/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2278

  The Supreme Court restored the acquisition of the respondents' land in Panchkula, which the High Court had quashed for non-compliance with Section 5A and for discrimination. Section 5A guarantees a hearing, not a result; the Government may depart from the Collector's recommendation for reasons, and existing constructions do not bar acquisition. The discrimination plea failed and its basis had in any case been removed. The Court refused a compromise releasing the land as manifestly arbitrary, and used Article 142 to overcome the merger objection arising from the dismissal of the State's earlier appeals.

• S.P. PANDEY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  21/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2314

  An airman's admonition for overtaking a queue at a railway crossing and arguing with a Squadron Leader had been set aside by the Armed Forces Tribunal, which found the action disproportionate and vindictive but refused compensation. The Supreme Court held that the airman had been put through unnecessary, long-drawn proceedings, including a second trial after he was assured in writing that the first punishment would be expunged, and awarded him Rs. 1 lakh as compensation.

• CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ANR. versus M/S SIDHARTHA TILES & SANITARY PVT. LTD.

  21/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1748

  The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Disputes over the renewal of a warehousing lease and the revision of storage charges during its term arose out of the agreement and fell within its arbitration clause, and the Public Premises Act, 1971 neither barred nor overlapped with them. The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000.

• SHYAM NARAYAN RAM versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. ETC.

  21/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1726

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that had remanded a 1998 double murder case for retrial on the ground that defence counsel's admission of the genuineness of prosecution documents denied the accused a fair trial. Under Section 294 CrPC, documents whose genuineness is admitted, here including the post-mortem reports and recovery memos, may be read in evidence without formal proof. The defence had repeatedly admitted them and opposed the prosecution's attempts to call the formal witnesses, so the High Court was directed to decide the appeals on merits.

• RATILAL JHAVERBHAI PARMAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

  21/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2227

  A High Court Judge dismissed a petition in open court with the single word 'dismissed', without saying reasons would follow, and then dictated a reasoned 'oral order' more than a year later bearing the original date. The Supreme Court set that order aside and restored the petition, holding that the Judge had become functus officio. It also advised that a Judge who pronounces only the outcome with 'reasons to follow' should publish the reasons preferably within two days and never beyond five, failing which the judgment should be reserved.

• MAFABHAI MOTIBHAI SAGAR versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

  21/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1448

  The Supreme Court struck down a remission condition requiring a released life convict to 'behave decently' for two years as vague and manifestly arbitrary under Article 14, and read down a condition providing for re-arrest on commission of a cognizable offence, holding that remission cannot be cancelled automatically and that a show cause notice, hearing and reasoned order are required before cancellation under Section 432(3) CrPC / Section 473(3) BNSS.

• BIJAY AGARWAL versus M/S MEDILINES

  21/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1890

  Extending Shri Gurudatta Sugars Marketing (on Section 143A) to Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Supreme Court held that an officer who merely signs a company's cheque as authorised signatory is not its 'drawer'. The appellate court therefore cannot, on that basis alone, require him to deposit 20% of the fine or compensation as a condition for suspending his sentence. The deposit condition was set aside.

• LENIN KUMAR RAY versus M/S EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD.

  21/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2303

  The Supreme Court held that an Assistant Engineer in a newspaper establishment, who admittedly supervised two junior engineers and drew more than Rs. 1,600 a month when his services ended in 2003, was not a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The definition as it stood on the date of termination applied, not the Rs. 10,000 ceiling introduced in 2010. Since his termination on one month's salary in lieu of notice complied with his appointment terms, the Labour Court's reinstatement award could not stand.

• K.C. KAUSHIK AND OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

  21/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1736

  Retired teachers of government-aided private colleges in Haryana received arrears of revised pension from 01.01.2006 after the State conceded their claim. The Supreme Court upheld the denial of interest on the arrears: the concession on interest rested only on an Assistant's oral instructions, the appellants had waited for others' litigation to succeed before claiming parity, and the original litigants had themselves received no interest. The Court also directed that government counsel act only on written instructions.

• HORRMAL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

  21/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1709

  In land acquisition appeals concerning about 302.75 acres in village Tauru, Mewat, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's restoration of the Collector's rate and restored the Reference Court's award of Rs 92,62,500 per acre. The Court excluded sale deeds executed after the Section 4 notification and those from another village, used the highest bona fide pre-notification exemplar of a small plot in the same village subject to a development cut, and found the Reference Court's figure fair having regard to the land's potential.

• ASIM AKHTAR versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

  18/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 911

  The Supreme Court held that Hardeep Singh does not require an application under Section 319 CrPC to be decided on examination-in-chief before cross-examination; the trial court retains discretion to wait. Where prosecution witnesses repeatedly refused to face cross-examination unless the Section 319 application was decided first, the trial court rightly closed the evidence, rejected the application and acquitted the accused under Section 232 CrPC.

• AIRPORTS ECONOMIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. & ORS.

  18/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1404

  Deciding only the preliminary objection, the Supreme Court held that AERA's appeals under Section 31 of the AERA Act against TDSAT judgments on its tariff orders are maintainable. Tariff determination for aeronautical services under Section 13(1)(a) is a regulatory, not an adjudicatory, function, so AERA is a necessary party before TDSAT in appeals against its tariff orders and can appeal further. The rule that adjudicatory authorities may not defend their own orders on appeal applies only to orders made purely in an adjudicatory capacity.

• SOCIETY FOR ENLIGHTENMENT AND VOLUNTARY ACTION & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  18/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1513

  In a public interest petition by an NGO over the poor enforcement of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the Supreme Court (opinion by Chandrachud CJI) held that child marriage violates children's rights under Article 21 to choice, autonomy, sexuality, health, education and childhood. It read the Act alongside POCSO, the JJ Act and India's international obligations. It required States to appoint dedicated Child Marriage Prohibition Officers and issued detailed guidelines prioritising prevention over protection and protection over penalisation. It also suggested that Parliament consider outlawing child betrothals.

• UNION OF INDIA versus PRANAV SRINIVASAN

  18/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 736

  A Singapore citizen born in 1999, after his Indian-born parents had taken Singapore citizenship, sought Indian citizenship. The Supreme Court held that he could not resume it under Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, because his parents lost citizenship by operation of Section 9(1), not by renunciation. He was not a person of Indian origin under Section 5(1)(b), and Article 8 of the Constitution does not apply to persons born after its commencement. He remains free to apply under Section 5(1)(f), with relaxation under Section 5(1A).

• UNION OF INDIA & ANR versus M/S GANPATI DEALCOM PVT. LTD.

  18/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2183

  The Supreme Court allowed a review petition by the Union of India and recalled the three-Judge Bench judgment in Union of India v Ganpati Dealcom (2022), because that judgment had declared unamended provisions of the Benami Act, 1988 unconstitutional although no party had challenged their validity. The civil appeal was restored for fresh hearing.

• SAJEENA IKHBAL & ORS. versus MINI BABU GEORGE & ORS.

  17/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 786

  In a motor accident death claim dismissed on a finding that the insured car was not involved, the Supreme Court held that finding perverse: the eyewitness could not be rejected merely because the police had not recorded his statement, and the evidence, judged on preponderance of probability, showed the car's involvement. The compensation assessed by the Tribunal was awarded.

• IN RE : SECTION 6A OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT 1955 versus

  17/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 961

  A five-Judge Constitution Bench, by a 4:1 majority, upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which gives effect to the Assam Accord by conferring deemed citizenship on persons of Indian origin who entered Assam from Bangladesh before 01.01.1966 and citizenship by detection and registration on those who entered before 25.03.1971. The majority held that Parliament was competent to enact it and that it does not violate the Preamble or Articles 6, 7, 9, 14, 21, 29, 326 or 355. Finding that the law was being poorly enforced against later entrants, the Court issued directions and set up monitoring. Pardiwala J dissented and would have struck Section 6A down with prospective effect for temporal unreasonableness.

• VISHWAJEET KERBA MASALKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  17/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 753

  The Supreme Court acquitted a man sentenced to death for killing his mother, wife and two-year-old daughter. The sole alleged eyewitness, an injured neighbour, was found unreliable: his statement was recorded six days late although he was conscious on admission, it was uncorroborated, and it was given after the police told him the accused was the culprit. The remaining circumstances (recoveries of a hammer, clothes and jewellery, and motive) did not form a complete chain.

• THE PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. versus M/S TRIBRO AD BUREAU & ORS.

  16/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1381

  The Patna Municipal Corporation charged advertising agencies a per-square-foot royalty for hoardings, agreed with them in 2005 and raised in 2007, and the High Court struck it down as a tax levied without legislative authority under Article 265. The Supreme Court held the charge was royalty under an agreement, not a tax, so it needed no taxing statute or regulations; the Corporation could revise it and citing the wrong provision did not invalidate it. Penalty was set aside, but the enhanced royalty was held payable with interest.

• IDBI BANK LTD. versus RAMSWAROOP DALIYA AND ORS.

  16/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1371

  The Supreme Court upheld a High Court direction to IDBI Bank to issue a sale certificate to auction purchasers whose confirmed SARFAESI auction the bank had cancelled unilaterally. Rule 9(4)-(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 applies only where the purchaser has defaulted, and the time for paying the balance can be extended by written agreement. Here the delay was the bank's own doing, and the bank could not raise a Rule 9(4) default for the first time in its counter affidavit.

• BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

  16/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 860

  The Supreme Court held that a bank holding government securities as stock-in-trade may deduct broken period interest paid on purchase as revenue expenditure in computing business income under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act. Vijaya Bank, decided under the repealed Sections 18 to 21 on the head 'interest on securities', does not apply after 1 April 1989. Securities classed as AFS and HFT are always stock-in-trade; whether HTM securities are investments or stock-in-trade depends on the facts.

• LALU YADAV versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

  16/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 639

  The Supreme Court quashed an FIR under Section 376 IPC alleging rape on a false promise of marriage. The FIR was lodged more than five years after the relationship began, the complainant herself described a long relationship in which the two lived as husband and wife with her family's knowledge, and nothing showed a promise that was false from the start. The Section 313 IPC allegation had already been dropped after investigation.

• CHANDRAMANI NANDA versus SARAT CHANDRA SWAIN AND ANOTHER

  15/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 920

  In an injured claimant's appeal for enhanced motor accident compensation, the Supreme Court raised the assessed income, added 40% future prospects under Pranay Sethi, and awarded or increased amounts for future attendant charges, loss of marriage prospects and pain and suffering. It held that the amount claimed in the petition does not cap just compensation, and enhanced the award to Rs. 52,31,000.

• OMKAR RAMCHANDRA GOND versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  15/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 673

  A NEET candidate with 44-45% speech and language disability was declared ineligible for MBBS solely because Appendix H-1 to the 2019 Graduate Medical Education Regulations bars candidates with such disability of 40% or more. The Supreme Court held that quantified benchmark disability alone does not disqualify a candidate. The Disability Assessment Board must record, with reasons, whether the disability will actually prevent the candidate from pursuing the course. Since an expert board found it would not, his admission was confirmed.

• SHINGARA SINGH versus DALJIT SINGH & ANR

  14/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 901

  The Supreme Court upheld a High Court decree for specific performance of a 1990 agreement to sell land. The owner sold the land to the appellant during the pendency of the purchaser's suit, so the sale was hit by lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the appellant's plea of being a bona fide purchaser was irrelevant. The First Appellate Court also could not reverse the trial court's finding that the agreement was not collusive when the defendants had filed no cross-appeal or cross-objection.

• NEELAM GUPTA & ORS. versus RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.

  14/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 708

  The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff, who held a registered sale deed of 1968. The defendants could not reopen the joint family plea, which the first appellate court had rejected and they had not challenged. A minor can be a transferee of immovable property. The defendants' own application claiming to be lessees showed their possession was permissive, so adverse possession failed, and under Article 65 of the Limitation Act time runs from when possession becomes adverse, not from when the plaintiff acquired title.

• RENJITH K.G. & OTHERS versus SHEEBA

  14/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1359

  The Supreme Court upheld a remand of re-delivery applications under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC. A stranger to a partition decree, including a pendente lite transferee who was not impleaded, may apply under that rule after being dispossessed in execution. Time to execute a partition decree under Article 136 of the Limitation Act runs from the date of the final decree, not from its later engrossment on stamp paper.

• SANDEEP versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

  14/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 769

  The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder by shooting on the consistent evidence of two eyewitnesses, the recovery of the pistol at his instance and the medical evidence. It set aside the addition of Section 34 IPC because his co-accused were acquitted and he was the sole accused. Considering mitigating factors, it reduced his life sentence to the period already undergone.

• SOMJEET MALLICK versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & OTHERS

  14/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 893

  The High Court quashed, under Section 482 CrPC, a cheating and criminal breach of trust case in which the accused hired the complainant's truck, paid one month's rent and then paid nothing on false assurances, without examining the material collected in investigation after the chargesheet was filed. The Supreme Court set aside the quashing and remitted the petition for fresh decision after considering that material.

• BANSHIDHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. versus BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED & OTHERS

  04/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 425

  The Supreme Court set aside BCCL's rejection of the appellant's technical bid and the award of a coal mining contract to Respondent No. 8, holding that the bid was wrongly rejected because the power of attorney was notarised a day after the bid documents were signed, while Respondent No. 8's bid, which lacked the audited annual reports mandated by Clause 10 of the NIT, was accepted and allowed to be cured after the technical bids were opened; the decision was arbitrary, discriminatory and violated Article 14.

• SHASHI BHUSHAN PRASAD SINGH versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

  04/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1344

  Bihar cancelled a completed Junior Engineer (Civil) recruitment, after a final select list had been prepared, and the High Court accepted the cancellation without deciding the writ petitions. The Supreme Court held that scrapping the concluded process to recruit afresh under new rules changed the rules of the game after it was played. It directed a revised select list that complies with the High Court's final order on institutional reservation and, as far as possible, includes candidates excluded only because their institutes lacked AICTE approval.

• SUKANYA SHANTHA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  03/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 493

  In a writ petition by a journalist, the Court struck down provisions of several State prison manuals that allotted cleaning and scavenging to particular castes, reserved cooking for 'suitable' or high castes, and stereotyped denotified tribes as habitual offenders or as prone to escape, holding them violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23. It directed States, Union Territories and the Union to revise the manuals, the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons Act 2023 within three months, ordered caste columns removed from prison registers, and registered a suo motu case on discrimination inside prisons.

• STATE OF U.P. & ANR. versus NORTHERN COAL FIELDS

  03/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1918

  The State of Uttar Pradesh demanded annual lease rent from a coal Government company for forest land diverted to its mining projects. The Supreme Court held that the land had vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under Section 10(1) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, and then in the company under Section 11(1). With no pre-existing mining lease, the company was not a deemed lessee of the State, so no statute supported the demand. The State's appeal was dismissed, though for reasons different from the High Court's.

• KHALSA UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

  03/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 445

  The Supreme Court struck down the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017, by which Punjab abolished only one of the private universities set up under its 2010 policy. A law aimed at a single entity is valid only if it rests on a reasonable classification and special circumstances shown by material before the legislature; the State showed neither. Its sole stated purpose, protecting the heritage of the separate Khalsa College, had no factual basis, making the law manifestly arbitrary. The 2016 Act was restored.

• TARINA SEN versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

  03/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 417

  Two women accused, partners of a borrowing firm, sought quashing of a CBI prosecution for cheating, forgery and Prevention of Corruption Act offences over a bank car loan. Because the borrowers had settled the dues with the bank through a one-time settlement accepted before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Supreme Court held that continuing the criminal case was unjustified and quashed it.

• RAMA DEVI versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

  03/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1313

  In the 1998 shooting of a Bihar legislator and his police bodyguard at a Patna hospital, the Supreme Court partly reversed the High Court's acquittal of all accused. It restored the trial court's murder and attempt-to-murder convictions and life sentences for two accused identified by credible eyewitnesses. The acquittal of the alleged conspirators was upheld because the conspiracy evidence was weak, and one accused got the benefit of doubt because the eyewitnesses differed on whether he was there.

• CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX & ORS. versus M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LTD. & ORS.

  03/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 793

  The Supreme Court upheld clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5) and Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, which block input tax credit on construction of immovable property. It held that 'plant or machinery' in clause (d) is wider than the defined 'plant and machinery', so a building such as a mall or warehouse can be a 'plant' under a functionality test. Whether a building qualifies is a question of fact, so the Orissa High Court's reading-down judgment was set aside and the mall case remitted on that point; the writ petitions were rejected subject to this interpretation.

• NIPUN ANEJA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

  03/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1483

  Three senior company officers were prosecuted for abetting the suicide of a salesman, who hanged himself after a meeting at which salesmen who had refused voluntary retirement, including him, were handed letters moving them to merchandising work. The Supreme Court held that the material disclosed no instigation or intention to drive him to suicide. Trying the officers would be an abuse of process, so the proceedings were quashed.

• K. BHARTHI DEVI AND ANR. versus STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR.

  03/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 650

  The Supreme Court quashed CBI proceedings for conspiracy, cheating and forgery of mortgage title documents against two accused, wives of the principal borrowers, holding that the dispute arose from a bank loan with a predominantly civil flavour, the borrowers had settled with the bank through a one-time settlement recorded by the DRT, conviction was remote and bleak, and the specific role in the chargesheet was attributed only to Accused No. 1.

• UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus RAJEEV BANSAL

  03/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1633

  The Supreme Court held that TOLA continues to apply to the Income Tax Act after the Finance Act 2021 substituted Sections 147 to 151, extending to 30 June 2021 reassessment time limits and sanctions under Sections 149 and 151 that fell due between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021. Ashish Agarwal covers all notices issued under the old regime between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021; its legal fiction stopped the limitation clock, and new-regime Section 148 notices are valid only if issued within the surviving time under the Act read with TOLA.

• M/S S.S. PRODUCTION AND ANR. P1: M/S S. S. PRODUCTION P2: TR. S. SUBBIAH versus TR. PAVITHRAN PRASANTH

  01/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2248

  The Court refused special leave against concurrent convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused admitted receiving the money and signing the cheques, and a bare plea that the money was a joint film investment, unsupported by evidence, did not rebut the Section 139 presumption or shift the onus to the complainant. Because the five convictions arose from one transaction between the same parties, the Court directed that the sentences run concurrently.

• HARSHAD GUPTA versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  01/10/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 701

  Once a trial judge has pronounced a judgment of conviction under Section 235(1) CrPC, the court is functus officio on conviction; a successor presiding officer only hears the accused on sentence under Section 235(2) and cannot be required to rehear the case on conviction. The appeal was dismissed and sentencing directed within a month.

• ATUL KUMAR versus THE CHAIRMAN (JOINT SEAT ALLOCATION AUTHORITY) AND OTHERS

  30/09/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 150

  A Scheduled Caste candidate allotted an IIT Dhanbad seat through JEE (Advanced) 2024 lost it because his fee payment did not go through before the portal closed at 5 pm on the last day. Since the records showed he had tried diligently to complete the formalities, the Court used Article 142 to direct his admission on a supernumerary seat if required.

• KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. versus JHABUA POWER LIMITED AND OTHERS

  30/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 971

  The Supreme Court agreed with APTEL that a State Government policy direction under Section 108 of the Electricity Act, 2003 only guides and cannot bind or displace the State Commission's adjudicatory function, and that KSERC could not review its refusal to approve power supply agreements solely on the strength of such a direction; it nevertheless restored the distribution licensee's original appeal before APTEL, which had been withdrawn with liberty.

• K. VADIVEL versus K. SHANTHI & ORS.

  30/09/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order directing further investigation in a 2013 murder trial at the instance of the deceased's wife after final arguments had concluded, holding that further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC needs a reasonable basis and cannot be a roving enquiry, that the application rehashed grounds already rejected under Section 311, and that the High Court gave no reasons; the additional chargesheet was not to be taken on record and the trial was to conclude within eight weeks.

• V. VINCENT VELANKANNI versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

  30/09/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 126

  Ordinarily seniority runs from initial appointment rather than confirmation, unless the rules provide otherwise. Here the applicable SRO No. 185 of 1994 and the Ordnance Factory Board order of 24.12.2002 counted skilled-grade seniority from promotion to that grade. The 2015 order restoring merit-based seniority was a substantive change that operates only prospectively, so the appellant, whose probation was extended, could not claim seniority over colleagues lower in the 1995 merit list who were promoted before him. The appeal was dismissed.

• LAKHA SINGH versus BALWINDER SINGH & ANR.

  27/09/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 79

  The courts below had refused specific performance but, treating the agreement to sell as a loan transaction, decreed refund of Rs 16 lakh. The Supreme Court interfered under Article 136 because those concurrent findings ignored vital circumstances showing the agreement itself was a fabrication: the defendant's thumb impression on a blank stamp paper, a price about half the market rate, near-full payment in cash with a 16-month deferral, and no tender of the balance. The money decree was set aside.

• MANISHA RAVINDRA PANPATIL versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  27/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 770

  The Supreme Court set aside the disqualification of an elected woman Sarpanch on an allegation that she lived in a house built on government land, finding no credible material for the allegation, criticising the authorities' summary orders made without any fact-finding, and holding the removal highly disproportionate.

• STATE BANK OF INDIA versus INDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

  27/09/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 384

  The Supreme Court held that under Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 a certified copy sent free of cost by the Registry and a certified copy obtained on payment of fees stand on the same footing, distinguished V Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat, and condoned a three-day delay in filing an IBC appeal before the NCLAT that fell within the condonable 15-day window.

• JANARDAN DAS & ORS. versus DURGA PRASAD AGARWALLA & ORS.

  26/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 947

  The Court set aside a High Court decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell signed by only two of five co-owners. The plaintiffs had not proved continuous readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act; the signing co-owner had no subsisting authority to bind his three sisters, because the old power of attorney was impliedly revoked by a later partition deed; and the discretionary relief could not be used to unsettle a registered sale by all co-owners to bona fide purchasers.

• V. SENTHIL BALAJI versus THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

  26/09/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 393

  A former Tamil Nadu minister charged with money laundering arising from a cash-for-jobs scam was granted bail by the Supreme Court. The Court found a prima facie case against him, but he had spent over 15 months in custody, and with more than 2000 accused and over 600 witnesses in the uncharged scheduled offences, neither those trials nor the PMLA trial could end within a reasonable time. Continued detention would breach his Article 21 right to a speedy trial, so bail was granted on stringent conditions.

• PRAKASH BHALOTIA (D) THR HIS LRS versus INDRA CHANDRA GOYAL (D) THRU. LRS

  25/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 988

  The Supreme Court decreed a landlord's eviction suit under the U.P. Rent Act, 1972 on the ground of non-payment of rent, holding that the tenant had defaulted in regular monthly payment during the pendency of the suit, revision and appeal, that a lump-sum deposit made under the Court's orders did not cure the default, and that the High Court wrongly declined to examine the material on the ground of limited revisional jurisdiction.

• VIJAY SINGH @ VIJAY KR. SHARMA versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

  25/09/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 108

  The Supreme Court acquitted all seven accused of abducting and murdering a woman in 1985. The so-called eyewitnesses were relatives whose presence was unexplained and contradicted by the supervising police officers, natural independent witnesses were never examined, and the informant had improved his account. Her residence at the house was not proved, and the circumstantial chain for murder failed. The High Court had also wrongly reversed the acquittal of two accused without finding the trial court's view perverse or impossible.

• KAILASHBEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

  25/09/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 62

  The Supreme Court quashed an FIR and chargesheet under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC against the complainant's in-laws and the family Munim, holding that the vague and omnibus allegations were a cloak for a property dispute between her husband and his father, that identical allegations had been rejected after trial in a domestic violence case, and that continuing the prosecution would abuse the process of law.

• MANIK & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  25/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 724

  Split verdict in appeals by police officers convicted for the custodial torture and death of a suspect. C.T. Ravikumar, J. would acquit them of the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and the connected offences, because the High Court had found the recovered body not proved to be the deceased's and there was no other reliable evidence of homicide, while upholding convictions for custodial torture under Sections 330, 348 and 387 IPC. Sanjay Kumar, J. would maintain all convictions and dismiss the appeals. The matter was placed before the Chief Justice of India.

• IN RE: REMARKS BY HIGH COURT JUDGE DURING COURT PROCEEDINGS versus

  25/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 668

  In a suo motu proceeding on remarks made by a Karnataka High Court judge in live-streamed hearings (a comment to a woman advocate and a reference to an area of Bengaluru as being 'in Pakistan'), the Court accepted the judge's open-court regret and closed the matter. It cautioned that, with live streaming, judges and lawyers must avoid casual remarks that may be read as misogynistic or prejudicial to any community.

• SHYAMSUNDAR RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL & ANR. versus PUSHPABAI NILKANTH PATIL & ORS.

  24/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 881

  The Supreme Court upheld the impounding of six agreements for sale that recorded delivery of possession to the purchasers, holding that under Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 they were chargeable as conveyances. Section 4 of the Act did not help the appellants because the agreements were separate transactions between different parties, and the later stamped sale deed did not discharge the duty payable on them; recovery was limited to the difference in duty plus penalty.

• SUNIL @ SONU ETC. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI

  24/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 616

  The Supreme Court upheld the finding that the two appellants caused the deceased's death by knife injuries, but altered their murder conviction to culpable homicide under Part I of Section 304 IPC. The delayed FIR, contradictions in the eyewitnesses' evidence and the unexplained injuries on the accused made a sudden fight without premeditation a possible version, entitling them to the benefit of doubt; they were sentenced to the period already undergone.

• FULESHWAR GOPE versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  23/09/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 315

  Dismissing a UAPA accused's challenge to his sanction, cognizance and charges, the Supreme Court held that the time limits in Rules 3 and 4 of the UAPA Sanction Rules, 2008 are mandatory and must be strictly followed (prospectively), and that independent review by both the recommending authority and the Government is essential under Section 45(2). A short time taken to recommend and sanction is not by itself proof of non-application of mind; challenges to sanction, misjoinder and Section 22A depend on evidence and should be raised early before the trial court.

• TARUN CHUGH, CEO AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus SAROJ KUMAR PANDA

  23/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 981

  The Supreme Court set aside an ex parte industrial award directing an insurance company to reinstate a terminated employee, and the High Court order upholding it, because the employer company had never been impleaded before the Tribunal (only its officers were), the employee's status as a workman had not been examined, and the non-appearance was adequately explained; the dispute was remitted for fresh decision after impleadment of proper parties.

• PARVEEN KUMAR versus THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

  23/09/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 54

  The Supreme Court upheld the husband's conviction under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC for his wife's suicide within two years of marriage, holding that the prosecution had proved cruelty, including through three cases she had filed against him in her lifetime, so the High Court rightly raised the discretionary presumption of abetment under Section 113A of the Evidence Act.

• YOGARANI versus STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

  23/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 625

  The Supreme Court acquitted a travel-agency proprietor convicted of cheating and of abetting the obtaining of a second passport, because the prosecution led no evidence that she knew the applicant already held a passport, the hostile and uncorroborated testimony and an inconclusive handwriting opinion could not sustain conviction, and her co-accused facing the same allegations had been acquitted.

• STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus RAMJI LAL SHARMA & ANOTHER

  23/09/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 411

  On a miscellaneous application filed after the Supreme Court had restored his murder conviction, the Court accepted the Sessions Court's inquiry report fixing the applicant's date of birth as 04.10.1984, held that he was a juvenile on the date of the offence (17.01.2002), set aside his conviction and acquitted him, holding that a juvenility claim can be raised even after the conviction has become final.

• JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE & ANR. versus S. HARISH & ORS.

  23/09/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 154

  The Supreme Court set aside a Madras High Court order quashing a prosecution under Section 15(1) POCSO and Section 67B IT Act against a man on whose phone two videos of children in sexual activity were found. It held that Section 15 creates three distinct inchoate offences of storing or possessing child sexual material with a specified intent, needing no actual transmission; that possession includes constructive possession, such as viewing online; that Section 67B(b) punishes browsing and downloading; and that the presumption of culpable mental state under Section 30 POCSO applies even in quashing proceedings. The Court also directed courts to use the term 'child sexual exploitation and abuse material' (CSEAM).

• RAJESH MITRA @ RAJESH KUMAR MITRA & ANR. versus KARNANI PROPERTIES LTD.

  20/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 644

  The Supreme Court set aside an eviction decree passed as a judgment on admission, holding that a son's deposition in another case that the tenancy stood in his late mother's name was not an unequivocal admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, and that the children who jointly inherited the tenancy in 1970 under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 did not lose it under the five-year limit in Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act, which has no retrospective operation.

• M/S ULTRA-TECH CEMENT LTD. versus MAST RAM & ORS.

  20/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 443

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court direction that UltraTech pay the supplementary land acquisition award for land acquired as a safety zone for a cement project it later took over from Jaiprakash Associates (JAL). Under the NCLT-sanctioned Scheme, proceedings pending before the effective date stayed with JAL, which still owned the land and had paid the main award. Return of the land under Section 101 of the 2013 Act was refused, and the State, having handed over possession before full compensation was paid, was directed to pay the landowners with interest and recover the sum from JAL.

• OPG POWER GENERATION PRIVATE LIMITED versus ENEXIO POWER COOLING SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

  20/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 490

  The Supreme Court upheld an ICC arbitral award directing a power company and its holding company to pay a contractor's outstanding dues for an air-cooled condenser unit. It held that a composite money claim for goods and work is governed by Article 55 of the Limitation Act; that minutes acknowledging the balance, though subject to set-off, extended limitation under Section 18 only for the items they mentioned; and that an award whose reasons are inadequate but intelligible need not be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, after explaining the narrow post-2015 grounds of public policy and patent illegality.

• SHOOR SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

  20/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 818

  The Supreme Court acquitted the parents-in-law of a woman who died of burns at her matrimonial home within a year of marriage, holding that the alleged demand for a motorcycle and cash, reported only through the deceased's parents whose evidence was unreliable, was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, so the ingredients of dowry death were not established and the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act could not be raised.

• AJAY MADHUSUDAN PATEL & ORS. versus JYOTRINDRA S. PATEL & ORS.

  20/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 894

  In a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 arising from a Family Arrangement Agreement between two groups, the Supreme Court held that whether a non-signatory group, whose companies were central to the agreed exits, is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement involves contested facts best left to the arbitral tribunal under Section 16. Finding the arbitration agreement prima facie in existence, it appointed a sole arbitrator and left the non-signatory's objections open before the tribunal.

• BHAGWAN SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

  20/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 774

  Special leave petitions were filed in the Supreme Court in the name of Bhagwan Singh, without his knowledge, to revive quashed rape proceedings against a key prosecution witness in the Nitish Katara murder case, using a vakalatnama and affidavit attested by advocates and a notary in his absence. Finding a fraud on the courts by his daughter, her husband and several advocates, the Court handed the investigation to the CBI and issued directions on Advocate-on-Record duties and the marking of appearances.

• SUSHMA versus NITIN GANAPATI RANGOLE & ORS.

  19/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 425

  The Supreme Court set aside the 50% deduction for contributory negligence from motor accident compensation where a car hit a 14-wheeler truck abandoned at night in the middle of an unlit highway without parking lights or warnings, holding that the truck's driver/owner was wholly responsible and that, in any event, a driver's negligence cannot be imputed to passengers to reduce their compensation.

• KHUNJAMAYUM BIMOTI DEVI versus THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.

  19/09/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 18

  In the long-running dispute over recruitment of 1423 Primary Teachers in Manipur begun in 2006, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's 2015 judgment that quashed selections made against OBC reservation not notified in the advertisement, and directed the State to redraw the select list on merit and appoint all candidates in it against the 1423 notified posts, including those who had not litigated, since that judgment operated in rem. Fresh appointees get no arrears but notional appointment from 09.12.2011 for superannuation benefits.

• SANTOSH @ RAJESH @ GOPAL versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  19/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 609

  The Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction for murder, which rested wholly on circumstantial evidence: the recovery from him of a pistol ballistically matched to the fatal bullet, made on the disclosure statement of a deceased co-accused. Without other evidence linking him to the killing, the chain of circumstances was incomplete and did not exclude every hypothesis other than guilt.

• MEERA DEVI (D) THR. LR. versus DINESH CHANDRA JOSHI (D) THR. LRS.

  19/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 677

  The Supreme Court ordered the eviction of a tenant who, during the pendency of the landlady's appeal, stopped paying the interim rent of Rs 4,000 per month fixed by the Court. Treating that undisputed default as a relevant subsequent fact in a rent proceeding, it set aside the High Court judgment that had dismissed the eviction suit.

• KIMNEO HAOKIP HANGSHING versus KENN RAIKHAN & ORS.

  13/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 354

  The Supreme Court upheld the Manipur High Court's refusal to reject, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, an election petition alleging that the returned candidate concealed assets and income in her nomination affidavit, holding that the petition disclosed a cause of action and substantially complied with Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

• ARVIND KEJRIWAL versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

  13/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 683

  A two-Judge Bench granted regular bail to the Delhi Chief Minister in the CBI excise-policy case. Surya Kant J. upheld the legality of his arrest while in judicial custody, made with the trial court's prior permission, but held that prolonged pre-trial incarceration in a trial unlikely to end soon would breach Article 21. Ujjal Bhuyan J., concurring on bail, wrote separately that the necessity and timing of the CBI's arrest were unjustified.

• KUKREJA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY & OTHERS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS

  13/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 830

  Landowners who surrendered land reserved for development-plan roads and built the roads at their own cost were held entitled to the balance additional FSI/TDR for the amenity under Section 126(1)(b) of the MRTP Act, 1966 as construed in Godrej & Boyce I. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's dismissal of their writ petitions for delay and laches, because compensation once determined is payable without demand and the Corporation showed no prejudice or third-party rights, and dismissed the Corporation's appeals.

• ROHAN BUILDERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED versus BERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITED

  12/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 473

  Resolving a conflict among High Courts, the Supreme Court held that an application under Section 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend the time for making an arbitral award can be filed even after the twelve-month or consensually extended six-month period has expired. The words 'either prior to or after the expiry' are plain, the 'termination' of the mandate is conditional, and reading in a limitation bar would be judicial legislation; extension remains subject to sufficient cause.

• PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus SUS ROAD BANER VIKAS MANCH AND OTHERS

  12/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 374

  The Supreme Court set aside the National Green Tribunal's order closing a municipal organic-waste segregation plant at Baner, Pune. The plot had been reserved for a garbage processing plant since 2002, before the nearby buildings came up; the plant's authorisation, clearance and commencement all preceded the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, so the 2000 Rules governed it; the MPCB then issued only composite authorisations, not separate consents; and the 500-metre buffer applied only to landfills. The Court issued directions to control odour.

• RABBU @ SARVESH versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  12/09/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 37

  The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for house-trespass, gang rape, murder and offences under the POCSO Act, resting on a reliable question-answer dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate and corroborated by oral dying declarations, but commuted the death sentence because the case was not shown to be beyond reform, substituting a fixed term of 20 years' imprisonment without remission.

• JASEELA SHAJI versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS

  12/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 313

  The Supreme Court quashed a COFEPOSA detention order and its confirmation on two grounds: statements of a witness that the detaining authority relied on were not supplied to the detenu, denying him an effective representation under Article 22(5); and his representations, sent by the jail by ordinary post and lost, were decided only about nine months later, with unexplained delay even after they reached the authorities.

• RAVINDER KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA

  12/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 397

  The Supreme Court quashed an FIR and complaint under the PC-PNDT Act against a radiologist because the raid on his clinic, the sole foundation of the prosecution, was authorised by the Civil Surgeon alone. Section 30(1) requires the multi-member Appropriate Authority itself to form a reason to believe that an offence is being committed; a search ordered by one member is illegal, and prosecuting on it is an abuse of process.

• SUKHMANDER SINGH AND ORS ETC. versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ETC.

  11/09/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 98

  In a challenge to the selection of 31 Laboratory Attendants by the Punjab School Education Board, the Supreme Court held that the selection criteria, fixed only after the written test results were out, gave no weight to written-test marks and called 63 times the number of vacancies to interview, were arbitrary. It restored the Single Judge's approach, directing a fresh selection from the written-test stage with five candidates per vacancy and a revised 100-mark scheme.

• MANILAL versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

  10/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 218

  A reserved-category candidate for Teacher Grade III with 44.58% in graduation, who was admitted to B.Ed. on 23.10.2009 in the 2009-10 session, was held eligible. Following Ankul Singhal and the relief given to an identically placed candidate admitted even later, the Supreme Court held that students of one homogeneous 2009-10 batch cannot be discriminated against by date of admission, and directed that his interim appointment be treated as regular.

• RAGHUVEER SHARAN versus DISTRICT SAHAKARI KRISHI GRAMIN VIKAS BANK & ANR.

  10/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 361

  The Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 132 of the Evidence Act gives a witness only a qualified privilege: his own incriminating answers cannot be used to prosecute him, but he is not immune from being summoned under Section 319 CrPC on other evidence that emerges at trial. Because the bank cashier was summoned on a prosecution witness's testimony and not on his own pre-summoning statement, his summoning was upheld.

• S. VIJIKUMARI versus MOWNESHWARACHARI C

  10/09/2024 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 45

  A husband's application under Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 asking the Magistrate to set aside a final maintenance order and to order refund of all maintenance already paid was held not maintainable, because Section 25(2) permits alteration, modification or revocation only on a change in circumstances arising after the original order and operates prospectively. The orders remanding the application were set aside, with liberty to file a fresh application.

• R.P. GARG versus THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM DEPARTMENT & ORS.

  10/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 763

  The Supreme Court held that a sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award carries post-award interest by operation of Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that a contractual clause barring interest does not affect post-award interest; it restored the District Court's grant of 18% interest from the date of the award to realisation.

• KHURSHEED & ANR. versus SHAQOOR

  10/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 963

  The Supreme Court held that a pending civil suit to cancel a sale deed allegedly executed by fraud and impersonation does not abate under Section 5(2)(a) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 when the area is notified for consolidation. Such a deed is voidable, not void; it binds the consolidation authorities until a civil court sets it aside, so Section 49 does not bar the civil court's jurisdiction. The special leave petition was dismissed.

• CHALASANI UDAYA SHANKAR AND OTHERS versus M/S. LEXUS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS

  09/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 235

  The Supreme Court set aside concurrent NCLT and NCLAT orders dismissing a petition for rectification of a company's register of members and for relief against oppression and mismanagement. The forums had summarily rejected the petitioners' claim to have bought 94.8% of the shares, ignoring the transfer deeds, share certificates, undisputed payments and the NCLT's own detailed interim order, and accepting the transferor's disputed version without proof. The Court explained the scope of jurisdiction under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 and remitted the petition for fresh decision on evidence.

• M/S SITARAM ENTERPRISES versus PRITHVIRAJ VARDICHAND JAIN

  09/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 414

  The Supreme Court held a tenant guilty of civil contempt for wilfully failing to vacate shop premises within the nine months it had granted on dismissing his SLPs against an eviction decree, despite an undertaking, and for evading appearance; considering his age and health it sentenced him only till the rising of the Court, gave a final seven days to vacate failing which possession would be taken with police help, and made him bear the State's costs of executing the warrants.

• ABHISHEK BANERJEE & ANR. versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

  09/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 110

  The Supreme Court upheld summonses issued by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 50 of the PMLA requiring the appellants, residents of Kolkata, to appear in New Delhi. It held that the PMLA and the 2005 Rules prescribe a self-contained summoning procedure that prevails over Sections 160, 161 and 91 CrPC, so the CrPC protection for women against being called outside their place of residence does not apply, and that Delhi had sufficient territorial nexus with the alleged money laundering.

• UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus LT. COL. RAHUL ARORA

  09/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 186

  The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's setting aside of a General Court Martial's findings and dismissal of an Army Medical Corps officer, holding that appointing a Judge Advocate junior in rank to the accused officer, without recording in the convening order (as dispatched and supplied) the non-availability of an officer of equal or higher rank, vitiates the court martial and is not cured by Army Rule 103.

• DHANRAJ ASWANI versus AMAR S. MULCHANDANI & ANR.

  09/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 257

  Resolving a conflict among High Courts, the Supreme Court held that an accused in custody in one case may apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in a different case, since he can still be arrested in that other case (on release or, while in custody, through a production warrant under Section 267 CrPC) and Section 438 contains no such bar; the right lasts until he is arrested in the second case under a P.T. warrant or remanded in it, and each application is decided on its merits.

• COX & KINGS LTD. versus SAP INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR.

  09/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 199

  On a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Supreme Court appointed a sole arbitrator. None of the respondents' objections denied that the arbitration agreement existed, so the limited prima facie test at the referral stage was met. The Court left the respondents' other objections, and the question whether the non-signatory foreign parent company is bound by the arbitration agreement, to the arbitral tribunal.

• SAHIL BHARGAVA & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.

  09/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 408

  In a dispute over a retrospective upward revision of MBBS fees for students admitted in 2018, the Supreme Court modified the High Court's interim order: on each student depositing a further Rs 7.50 lakhs and undertaking to pay any balance found due, the college must return their original admission documents so they can pursue postgraduate studies and practise, pending final decision of the writ petitions.

• ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA

  09/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 194

  The Supreme Court dismissed an Article 32 petition seeking directions to the Union Government to cancel existing licences and stop granting new licences for export of arms and military equipment to Israel during the Gaza conflict, holding that the reliefs sought fall within the domain of foreign policy and are not amenable to judicial remedies under Article 32.

• DHARMENDRA SHARMA versus AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

  06/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 97

  In cross-appeals from an NCDRC order directing a development authority to refund a flat buyer's deposit with 9% interest from the date of complaint, the Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC's findings on limitation and pecuniary jurisdiction, held that an offer of possession without a completion certificate and fire clearance was invalid, and, finding lapses on both sides, kept interest running from the complaint date but awarded Rs. 15 lakh additional compensation and return of the stamp papers.

• MANDAKINI DIWAN AND ANR. versus THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.

  06/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 86

  A woman's death in 2016 was treated by the police as suicide despite six ante-mortem injuries recorded in the post-mortem. Her mother and brother alleged that her husband, a senior judicial officer, had influenced the police. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order relegating them to a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC and directed the CBI to investigate, to ensure a fair investigation and confidence in it.

• SOMPRABHA RANA & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

  06/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 64

  The Supreme Court set aside a habeas corpus order that had transferred custody of a very young child from her maternal aunts to her father and paternal grandparents solely on the father's right as natural guardian, holding that the child's welfare is the paramount consideration even in habeas corpus and that, on the facts, custody could not be disturbed under Article 226; it left custody to proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and ordered supervised access for the father and grandparents.

• CHIRAG BHANU SINGH & ANR. versus HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

  06/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 150

  On a writ petition by the two seniormost District Judges of Himachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that a challenge confined to lack of effective consultation in the collegium process is maintainable, and that the Chief Justice of a High Court cannot alone reconsider a proposal for elevation remitted by the Supreme Court Collegium; since the reconsideration was the Chief Justice's individual decision, it was vitiated and the High Court Collegium was directed to reconsider the petitioners' names collectively.

• ANANTDEEP SINGH versus THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH & ANR.

  06/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 135

  On a miscellaneous application by a probationer judicial officer whose termination the Court had set aside in 2022 while asking the Full Court to reconsider, the Supreme Court held that setting aside a termination order deems the employee to be in service, so he should have been taken back before the fresh decision. It awarded full salary from its 2022 judgment until the fresh termination order of 02.04.2024 and 50% back wages for the earlier period, leaving the fresh Full Court resolution and termination order to be challenged before the High Court.

• ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. versus V.V. BRAHMA REDDY & ANR.

  06/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 75

  The Supreme Court held that allocation of employees of the bifurcated Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is governed by Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, not Section 77, which applies to State government employees. Under the Board's Agenda Note framed under Section 82, regionally recruited Class III and IV employees belong to the corporation in whose region they were recruited, so the respondents' repatriation to their parent zones in Telangana was valid and the High Court's contrary judgment was set aside.

• BACCAROSE PERFUMES AND BEAUTY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

  06/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 54

  The Supreme Court quashed CBI proceedings for conspiracy and cheating against a company accused of paying countervailing duty on invoice value instead of MRP. The company had been granted immunity by the Settlement Commission; registering an FIR does not by itself institute a prosecution; the appellate customs authority had held that duty was payable on invoice value and the company was owed a refund; and sanction to prosecute the officials had been refused. With the basis of the allegation gone, continuing the prosecution was an abuse of process and the company should have been discharged.

• RICARDO CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. versus RAVI KUCKIAN & OTHERS

  06/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 638

  The NCDRC foreclosed the appellant's right to file a written statement after the time it had allowed expired. The Supreme Court set that order aside because the record did not show that a copy of the complaint had ever been supplied to the appellant or its counsel. Following New India Assurance v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage, time runs from receipt of the notice together with the complaint, not from receipt of the notice alone. The written statement was allowed on costs.

• NITYA NAND versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

  04/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 37

  The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC for a murder by his father and brothers, though he inflicted no injury and only fired a country-made pistol into the air to scare off rescuers so the assailants could escape. Section 149 imposes vicarious liability on every member of an unlawful assembly; consistent eyewitness evidence established his membership, and lapses such as non-examination of the FIR scribe and non-recovery of the weapon did not undermine the conviction.

• CHOUDAPPA & ANR. versus CHOUDAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS.

  03/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 229

  The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the refusal to reject, as time-barred, the decree-holders' application for an inquiry into mesne profits directed by a 1973 decree, holding that such an inquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC is a continuation of the suit in the nature of final-decree proceedings and not a fresh or second execution proceeding.

• VAIBHAV JAIN versus HINDUSTAN MOTORS PVT. LTD.

  03/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 16

  A vehicle in a dealer's custody was being test driven by the manufacturer's own employees when it crashed. The Supreme Court held that the dealer was not liable as owner because the manufacturer owned the vehicle and controlled it through those employees. Clauses of the dealership agreement allocating liability for defects did not shift tortious liability to the dealer, and the manufacturer, which had not appealed the award, could not use Order 41 Rule 33 CPC to escape it. Since the award had become final for the claimants, the dealer was allowed to recover from the manufacturer whatever it pays.

• ISHWAR (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS & ORS. versus BHIM SINGH & ANR.

  03/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 1

  The Supreme Court held that a court of first instance executing an appellate decree for specific performance has jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, read with Section 37 CPC, to rescind the contract or extend time for deposit. It should, however, decide such an application in the suit and not on the execution side. Since the decree holders had always shown readiness to pay and the extension did substantial justice, the Court declined under Article 136 to interfere on that procedural ground.

• RANJEET MITTAL versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. ETC. ETC.

  03/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 811

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court revisional order that had quashed charges under Sections 498A and 306 (alternatively 302) read with Section 34, and 201 IPC framed against a husband and his family over a wife's death from a fall from the terrace. Witness statements of ill-treatment and the suspicious circumstances disclosed a prima facie case, and at the stage of charge the court must not conduct a mini trial, so the trial must proceed.

• NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus MAYA DEVI & ORS.

  02/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 999

  The Supreme Court dismissed an insurer's appeals against motor accident compensation awards. The insurer failed to prove its defence that the insured tractor was not involved, the police final report having named that vehicle; the policy schedule showed the period of insurance and commencement of risk from the accident date, so the vehicle was insured; and a bare allegation that the policy was obtained by fraud, unsupported by evidence, could not defeat liability.

• SEETHARAMA SHETTY versus MONAPPA SHETTY

  02/09/2024 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 166

  Interpreting Sections 33 to 39 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, the Supreme Court held that an agreement of sale reciting delivery of possession attracts ad valorem duty and must be duly stamped before it can be used in evidence. But since the defendant had asked for the document to be impounded and sent to the District Registrar, and the trial court had not yet acted under Section 34, the trial court could not itself impose the mandatory ten-times penalty under Section 34; the District Registrar must fix the duty and a commensurate penalty under Section 39.

• SURAJ SINGH GUJAR & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

  30/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 782

  Where the appellants, convicted under Sections 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC, had settled with the injured relatives, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to set aside the conviction, since the Section 324 offence was non-compoundable and the incident was a minor family dispute with little impact on society.

• MULAKALA MALLESHWARA RAO & ANR. versus STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

  29/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 739

  The Supreme Court quashed a prosecution under Section 406 IPC and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act brought by a woman's father against her former in-laws for return of her stridhan. Stridhan belongs absolutely to the woman, the father had no authority from his daughter to pursue it, no entrustment or misappropriation was shown, and the complaint came years after a divorce settlement that had resolved all property claims.

• AKSHAY & ANR. versus ADITYA & ORS.

  29/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 847

  Landowners who signed a joint venture agreement and an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of a developer were held jointly liable with the developer to the flat purchasers. The developer made the sale agreements while the power of attorney was in force, the 2014 revocation letter applied only from then on, and the joint venture agreement had never been revoked.

• CHABI KARMAKAR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

  29/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 796

  In a death by suicide within seven years of marriage, the Court set aside the husband's conviction for dowry death because the evidence did not show that the cruelty soon before death was connected with a demand for dowry, but upheld his conviction for cruelty and abetment of suicide with a reduced sentence of three years. The sister-in-law was acquitted for want of any evidence connecting her to the offence.

• A.B. GOVARDHAN versus P. RAGOTHAMAN

  29/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 1002

  The Supreme Court restored a Single Judge's preliminary mortgage decree, holding that the debtor's handing over of title deeds as security for an admitted debt, recorded in a panchayat agreement, created a mortgage by deposit of title deeds under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act; the agreement merely recorded a concluded transaction and needed no registration. Interest was reduced from 36% to 12% a year, and the appellant was made to pay costs for his own lapses in the High Court.

• K. RAVI versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

  29/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 700

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court revisional order that had effectively discharged an accused in a murder case on his challenge to the dismissal of a Section 216 CrPC application. An order refusing to alter a charge is interlocutory, so revision was barred by Section 397(2); and Section 216 gives an accused no right to seek discharge afresh once his Section 227 discharge plea has failed.

• NAVIN KUMAR & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

  28/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 810

  The Court declined to interfere with the Chhattisgarh High Court's judgment holding B.Ed. qualified candidates ineligible for appointment as primary school teachers. Following Devesh Sharma v. Union of India and its clarification of 08.04.2024, only B.Ed. candidates appointed before 11.08.2023 are protected; these candidates were appointed in September 2023, and their appointments were expressly subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

• MHABEMO OVUNG & ORS. versus M. MOANUNGBA & ORS.

  28/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 709

  Inter se seniority among Junior Engineers in Nagaland depends on the date each person entered the Junior Engineer cadre. Sectional Officers, Grade-I, whose posts were upgraded to Junior Engineer only on 11.10.2007 cannot rank above Junior Engineers directly recruited on 01.05.2003. The Court set aside the Division Bench and restored the seniority list of 26.03.2018.

• PREM PRAKASH versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

  28/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 955

  The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant in a PMLA case over a land transaction based on a forged deed. It held that 'bail is the rule' applies even under Section 45 PMLA, and that statements recorded under Section 50 while the accused was in custody in another case of the same agency are inadmissible against him. Co-accused statements are not substantive evidence, and the material did not prima facie show his involvement, so the twin conditions were satisfied.

• BIDYUT SARKAR & ANR. versus KANCHILAL PAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.

  28/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 984

  An insufficiently stamped agreement to sell, marked as an exhibit only subject to objection and referred to the Collector, stays inadmissible under Section 35 of the Stamp Act until the deficit duty and penalty are determined, paid and endorsed under Section 42. A mere offer to pay does not make it admissible, and Section 36 does not apply to such a marking. The Court restored the dismissal of the specific performance suit, but directed the subsequent purchasers to pay the plaintiff Rs. 5,00,000 in place of the Rs. 10,000 advance.

• PRADHAN BABU AND OTHERS versus NACHIMUTHU NAGAR KUDIYIRUPPOR NALA SANGAM AND OTHERS

  28/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 1673

  Land earmarked for a public purpose in a 1978 layout (revised in 1981) but never acquired by the State or the planning authority, by declaration or agreement, stood released from the reservation under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1972 once three years passed. The original owner's heirs could therefore validly sell it. The residents' association's suit for an injunction disclosed no cause of action, and the First Appellate Court's dismissal of the suit was restored.

• V.S. PALANIVEL versus P. SRIRAM, CS, LIQUIDATOR, ETC.

  28/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 1263

  In a liquidation auction under the IBC, the Supreme Court held Rule 12 of Schedule I to the Liquidation Regulations mandatory, so a liquidator cannot extend the 90 days for paying the balance price. The NCLT's extension during the Covid-19 lockdown was upheld under Section 35 IBC, Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, the Court's suo motu limitation orders and Regulation 47A. The income-tax attachment did not excuse the purchaser's delay, but the sale was not set aside: the purchaser was directed to pay an additional Rs. 5 crore with interest.

• MANIK MADHUKAR SARVE & ORS. versus VITTHAL DAMUJI MEHER & ORS.

  28/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 753

  The Supreme Court cancelled bail granted by the High Court to an alleged co-conspirator in a large credit co-operative society fraud under the IPC and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act. The High Court ignored material in the charge-sheet and forensic audit linking him to about Rs. 9 crore withdrawn from the society, made unwarranted prima facie remarks on conspiracy, overlooked the harm to small depositors, and imposed only routine conditions.

• NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANOTHER versus MANJU TOMAR AND OTHERS

  28/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 650

  A management that closes a recognised aided school without the Director's prior approval under Rule 46 of the Delhi School Education Rules cannot use Rule 47 to put on the government the duty to absorb and pay the surplus staff. DSGMC's appeals were dismissed. NDMC was directed to pay the remaining dues and interest to the staff, with liberty to recover them from DSGMC, and limitation does not bar that recovery.

• K. NIRMALA & ORS. versus CANARA BANK & ANR.

  28/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 868

  Employees of a nationalised bank and Government of India undertakings were appointed against reserved posts on SC/ST certificates validly issued under Karnataka circulars treating their communities as synonymous with scheduled castes or tribes. After the communities were de-scheduled following Milind, the Supreme Court held their services protected as general category employees under the Karnataka circular of 29.03.2003 and the Finance Ministry communication of 17.08.2005, and quashed the show-cause notices proposing termination.

• KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHA versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

  27/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 717

  The Court granted bail to the appellant in the CBI and Enforcement Directorate cases arising from the Delhi excise policy. Investigation was complete, trial with about 493 witnesses could not end soon, and the High Court had wrongly confined the proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA to a 'vulnerable woman', misreading Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement.

• STEVE KANIKA versus NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA) & ANR.

  27/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 805

  The Supreme Court directed NOIDA to issue a fresh plot allotment to the son and legal representative of an applicant who died before the draw of lots. NOIDA knew of the death from 10.11.2009, accepted and kept the son's demand draft, and waited two years before cancelling the allotment, so the cancellation could not stand.

• BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED versus HIREHALLI SOLAR POWER PROJECT LLP & OTHERS

  27/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 1024

  Appeals under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 lie only on a substantial question of law, and the Supreme Court should be restrained so that regulators and APTEL can develop sector law. APTEL's factual finding that delays in land conversion and evacuation approvals were not attributable to the solar developers, so force majeure under the PPA applied, raised no such question. Restoring the Rs. 8.40 tariff, setting aside liquidated damages and awarding late payment surcharge were upheld.

• M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED AND ANOTHER versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

  23/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 1146

  Exercising its Article 136 jurisdiction in a coal block case, the Supreme Court set aside the Special Judge's orders refusing discharge and framing charges against KECML and its former Managing Director. The charges were under Section 120-B with Section 409 IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, over the disposal of coal washery rejects. The Court held that the case was in substance a civil contractual dispute. The CBI built it on an un-tabled CAG audit report, and it was contradicted by civil judgments clearing KECML, by refusals of sanction for co-accused KPCL officers, and by the contracts themselves, which gave KPCL no claim to the rejects.

• SHAJAN SKARIA versus THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

  23/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 1086

  The Court granted anticipatory bail to the editor of an online news channel who was booked under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for a YouTube video making allegations against an MLA belonging to a Scheduled Caste. The bar on anticipatory bail in Section 18 applies only where the complaint, and here the video it relies on, prima facie discloses all the ingredients of an offence under the Act. Insult is caste-based humiliation under Section 3(1)(r) only where it is directed at the victim because of caste, and mere knowledge of the victim's caste is not enough. The video, at most defamatory, targeted an individual, not Scheduled Castes as a group.

• DELHI RACE CLUB (1940) LTD. & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  23/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 670

  A supplier's complaint that the price of horse feed sold and delivered over the years had not been paid disclosed no criminal offence. In a sale of goods the property passes to the buyer on delivery, so there is no entrustment and no criminal breach of trust, and nothing showed dishonest intention at the start, as cheating requires. The Court quashed the summons under Section 406 IPC, held that office bearers of a company are not vicariously liable under the Penal Code without direct allegations against them, and stressed that criminal breach of trust and cheating cannot both arise on the same facts.

• PAM DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

  23/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 615

  In a road-works arbitration, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's setting aside of the claim for idle labour and establishment, which the contract expressly barred. It restored the award of interest on delayed running-account bills, which the High Court had wrongly reappraised under Section 37, and the pre-reference interest, since the contract did not prohibit interest. It also restated the principles governing an arbitrator's power to award interest under Section 31(7) of the 1996 Act.

• SALAM SAMARJEET SINGH versus THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL & ANR

  22/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 885

  Resolving a 2016 split verdict, a three-Judge Bench held that the Manipur High Court could not, by a Full Court resolution passed just before the interviews, impose a 40% minimum in the viva voce for District Judge (Entry Level) recruitment. The unamended Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 required selection on the combined grade value of the written test and viva voce. The Scheduled Caste petitioner, with 50.6% in aggregate, was directed to be appointed.

• INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND ANR. versus RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS

  22/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 507

  Technical personnel of ICAR who acquired a Ph.D. in service were held not entitled to the two advance increments that ICAR's 1999 pay-revision scheme gave scientists for the same achievement, because the two services are governed by different rules, cadres and duties; Article 14 did not apply, and the Tribunal and High Court erred in equating them.

• DR. VIJAY DIXIT & ORS. versus PAGADAL KRISHNA MOHAN & ORS.

  22/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 768

  Applications to condone delay in filing a written statement before a consumer forum that were pending or decided before 04.03.2020, when the Constitution Bench decided New India Assurance v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage, must be decided on merits and not summarily rejected. The NCDRC orders closing the opposite parties' right to file written statements were set aside and the condonation applications were remitted for decision on merits.

• RAJKARAN SINGH & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  22/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 516

  Staff engaged to maintain the Compulsory Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) Fund of the Special Frontier Force had worked for decades on regular pay scales, with increments, promotions, ACP, leave and other benefits matching those of the SFF Accounts Section, and the Fund's accounts had been brought under SFF headquarters. The Court held that, despite being called temporary, they bore the hallmarks of regular government service. Denying them 6th CPC benefits, including pension, was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 16, and the Court directed that the benefits be extended on par with their Accounts Section peers.

• MAITREYEE CHAKRABORTY versus THE TRIPURA UNIVERSITY & ORS.

  22/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 854

  The Supreme Court held that Tripura University acted arbitrarily in refusing, without reasons, to confirm an Assistant Professor appointed through regular selection against a lien vacancy and in re-advertising the post once the lien-holder resigned, since the advertisement, Executive Council resolution and appointment order promised continuation on vacation of the lien and satisfactory performance. Her legitimate expectation was not outweighed by any public interest, and the Court directed that her confirmation be considered in line with its findings.

• UNION OF INDIA versus BAHAREH BAKSHI

  22/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 820

  The Supreme Court held that the High Court had no legal basis to dispense with the physical or virtual presence of the Indian spouse at the interview on an OCI card application by a foreign spouse under Section 7A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Section 7A(1) allows prescribed conditions and procedures, and the checklist and Visa Manual requiring the interview were never challenged. The Central Government may still consider the estranged applicant's case under Section 7A(3).

• GIRISH GANDHI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

  22/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 561

  An accused who had been granted bail in many FIRs across several States but stayed in custody because he could not find separate sureties for each was allowed, under Article 32, one personal bond and one set of two sureties per State, covering all listed FIRs in that State; the same sureties could stand in every State. The Court treated excessive or impossible bail conditions as a denial of bail, balanced the need for sureties against Article 21, and removed a condition requiring a local surety.

• DINESH SAHU ALIAS DINNU versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  22/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 929

  The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for a fatal assault at a tea stall, holding that the testimony of the deceased's mother and a recovery witness, the doctor's opinion linking the injuries to the khukri recovered from the appellant's house, and the FSL finding of the deceased's blood group on it proved guilt even though most eye-witnesses turned hostile.

• SWATI PRIYADARSHINI versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

  22/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 901

  The Supreme Court restored a Single Judge's order quashing the non-renewal of a contractual Assistant Project Coordinator under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan. The non-renewal was the culmination of two show-cause notices, and under Clause 4 of the service conditions it either required one month's notice (if for inefficiency) or was stigmatic (if for undesirable activities). Neither requirement was met, and the order visited her with evil consequences.

• REKHA SHARMA versus THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR & ANR.

  21/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 488

  The Supreme Court upheld the Rajasthan High Court's refusal to interfere with the 2021 Civil Judge preliminary examination result, which declared cut-off marks for every category except persons with benchmark disabilities. Because the disability reservation was an overall horizontal reservation, such candidates had to clear the cut-off of the category in which they applied, and nothing in the advertisement, the RJS Rules, 2010, the 2016 Act or the 2018 Rules required a separate cut-off.

• RAMA KT. BARMAN (DIED) THR. LRS. versus MD. MAHIM ALI & ORS.

  21/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 727

  The Supreme Court set aside a Gauhati High Court judgment in a second appeal because the High Court had framed fresh substantial questions of law, never raised before the courts below, and decided them without giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence, thereby making out a new case at the appellate stage. The second appeal was remanded for fresh decision.

• STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, UP EDUCATION FOR ALL PROJECT BOARD & ORS. versus SAROJ MAURYA & ORS.

  21/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 733

  The Supreme Court set aside a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court that had affirmed a Single Judge's decision in a batch of writ petitions without giving any reasons of its own, holding that an unreasoned judgment cannot be sustained, and restored the intra-court appeal for fresh hearing with liberty to place subsequent developments on record.

• RAVI AGRAWAL versus UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER

  20/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 788

  In a public interest writ petition, the Supreme Court declined to give retrospective effect to the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to Section 80DD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows payment to a disabled dependant once the subscriber turns sixty and stops paying. Extending it to older policies would defeat the object of such policies, which provide for the disabled person after the subscriber's death, and would disturb the basis of concluded insurance contracts.

• GAUTAM KUMAR DAS versus NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS

  20/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 451

  The Supreme Court directed that custody of a minor girl be handed to her father, her sole natural guardian, by her late mother's sisters, who had cared for her after the mother died of Covid-19 days after the birth. The Court held that temporary custody given out of necessity could not defeat the father's claim, that his habeas corpus petition under Article 226 was tenable on these facts, and that the child's welfare lay with her natural family.

• RAMNARESH @ RINKU KUSHWAH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

  20/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 916

  The Supreme Court held that Madhya Pradesh wrongly compartmentalised the 5% Government School horizontal quota for MBBS admissions by vertical category and barred meritorious SC, OBC and EWS government-school candidates from the unreserved Government School seats, which then went to less meritorious candidates or were released to the open category. Applying Saurav Yadav and S. Krishna Sradha, it directed that the appellants be admitted in the 2024-25 session.

• SHABNA ABDULLA versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  20/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 460

  The Supreme Court quashed a COFEPOSA detention order and its confirmation because the High Court Division Bench that upheld them had refused to follow an earlier coordinate Division Bench, which had quashed the detention of co-detenus on almost identical grounds for non-supply of the WhatsApp chats relied on. If the later Bench doubted the earlier view, its only course was to refer the matter to a larger Bench.

• IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTS versus

  20/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 575

  The Supreme Court set aside a Calcutta High Court judgment that had used Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC to acquit a 25-year-old man of aggravated penetrative sexual assault and rape of a 14-year-old girl, who later lived with him and had his child, and that was laced with judges' personal views. It restored his conviction under Section 6 POCSO and Section 376(2)(n) and (3) IPC, confirmed his acquittal of kidnapping, deferred sentence pending an expert committee's report on the victim's informed choice, and directed all States to enforce Section 19(6) POCSO and the Juvenile Justice Act's rehabilitation provisions.

• IN RE: ALLEGED RAPE AND MURDER INCIDENT OF A TRAINEE DOCTOR IN R.G. KAR MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, KOLKATA AND RELATED ISSUES VERSUS versus

  20/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 1047

  Taking suo motu cognizance after the rape and murder of a postgraduate doctor at RG Kar Medical College Hospital, Kolkata, and the later vandalism of the hospital, the Supreme Court found that the lack of institutional safety for medical professionals is a systemic national problem. It constituted a National Task Force to recommend a national protocol on preventing violence, including gender-based violence, and on safe working conditions, and called for data from all governments and status reports on the investigations.

• MAHESHKUMAR CHANDULAL PATEL & ANR. versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

  14/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 472

  The Supreme Court held that directly recruited Assistant Professors in Gujarat Government colleges could not have their pay stepped up under Rule 21 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 to match junior colleagues who were paid more because their earlier ad hoc service was counted for Senior Scale and Selection Grade. The anomaly did not result directly from applying the Rule, and the appellants cannot gain the benefit of years they never served.

• MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. versus M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. ETC.

  14/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 540

  In a follow-up order to the nine-Judge Bench decision in Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India (25 July 2024), which overruled India Cement, the Court refused to make that ruling prospective. Applying it only from that date would have exposed State taxing laws on mineral rights and mineral-bearing land to invalidation under overruled law. To balance equities, States may not tax transactions before 1 April 2005, payment is to be staggered over twelve years, and interest and penalty for the period before 25 July 2024 are waived.

• JAMES KUNJWAL versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

  13/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 332

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court direction to its Registrar (Judicial) to file a perjury complaint against an accused whose affidavit opposing bail cancellation merely denied the complainant's allegations, holding that a bare denial setting out one's own version is not deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and that prosecution was not expedient in the interests of justice; the resulting complaint under Section 193 IPC was quashed.

• IN RE: PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ACHARYA BALKRISHNA AND BABA RAMDEV IN THE MATTER OF:INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND ANR versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

  13/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 401

  In suo motu contempt proceedings, the Supreme Court found that Patanjali Ayurved, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev had breached the undertaking recorded on 21/11/2023 by holding a press conference the next day and publishing advertisements claiming cures for diseases listed under the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act. Since their later unconditional apologies, prominently published public apologies and withdrawal steps showed sincere efforts to purge the contempt, the Court accepted the apologies, cautioned them and closed the proceedings.

• SRI SUJIES BENEFIT FUNDS LIMITED versus M. JAGANATHUAN

  13/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 322

  The Supreme Court restored the conviction of a chit-fund subscriber under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that the first appellate court and the High Court erred in acquitting him on the basis of a discrepancy in the rate of interest and some claimed repayments, when the principal loans were undisputed and he had closed his account soon after issuing the cheque; the fine was fixed at one and a half times the cheque amount and, given his age, imprisonment was waived subject to payment.

• JALALUDDIN KHAN versus UNION OF INDIA

  13/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 633

  The Supreme Court granted bail to a retired police constable accused under Sections 13, 18, 18A and 20 of the UAPA. The case against him was that the first floor of a building owned by his wife had been let to a co-accused and used for PFI activities. Taking the charge sheet as it stood, the Court found no reasonable grounds under Section 43D(5) to believe the accusations prima facie true, noting that the charge sheet misreported a protected witness's statement. It reiterated that bail is the rule even under stringent statutes once the statutory conditions are met.

• MAHENDRA KUMAR SONKER versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  12/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 935

  The Supreme Court acquitted a Patwari of the offence under Section 353 IPC, the only surviving conviction after a corruption trap. The evidence showed only jostling and pushing while he tried to wriggle free on being apprehended, which did not amount to assault or criminal force against the trap party with the intent the section requires.

• DOLI RANI SAHA versus UNION OF INDIA

  09/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 391

  The Supreme Court held that the claimant had discharged her initial burden of showing that her deceased brother was a bona fide passenger who died after falling from a train, by an affidavit relying on the Railways' own investigation report, and that the Railways had not rebutted it. Following Union of India v Rina Devi, it awarded compensation of Rs 8,00,000, the higher amount prescribed on the date of award, in place of the Rs 4,00,000 payable when the accident occurred.

• RAHUL versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER

  09/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 287

  The Supreme Court restored the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's assessment of the injured pillion rider's disability at 25%, holding that the High Court had cut it to 20% without any plausible reason, although the disability certificate assessed 50% permanent disablement and the issuing doctor had been examined.

• MANISH SISODIA versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

  09/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 1061

  The Supreme Court granted bail to a former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi in the CBI and ED cases over the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. About 17 months in custody with the trial not yet begun, 493 witnesses and voluminous documents, had denied him his Article 21 right to a speedy trial. The Court held that this right is read into Section 45 PMLA and Section 439 CrPC, rejected the objection that he had to restart at the trial court, and found the record did not show he caused the delay.

• K. ARUMUGAM versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ETC.

  08/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 830

  Lottery ticket distributors who bought State lottery tickets outright in bulk and resold them were held not liable to service tax as a 'business auxiliary service' under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. Lottery tickets are actionable claims, not goods, so sub-clause (i) does not apply. The 2008 Explanation to sub-clause (ii) could not make the activity taxable, because a State conducting a lottery renders no service and the buyer deals with it principal to principal. The Kerala and Sikkim High Court judgments were set aside.

• THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. versus BHUPENDRA SINGH

  08/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 154

  The Supreme Court restored the 1993 removal from service of a Rajasthan cooperative department officer, holding that the High Court's Single Judge and Division Bench exceeded their writ jurisdiction by reappreciating the evidence of the departmental enquiry as an appellate court. The removal order rested on evidence and gave reasons, and the respondent had a fair hearing, so there was no violation of natural justice. Amounts already paid to the retired respondent were not to be recovered.

• ALLARAKHA HABIB MEMON ETC. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

  08/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 345

  The Supreme Court acquitted three appellants concurrently convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC. The first version of the incident, given by an eyewitness police constable who took the weapons to the police station, was suppressed and the daily diary was withheld, so the complaint treated as the FIR was a post-investigation statement hit by Section 162 CrPC. The eyewitness evidence was unreliable, the custodial confessions to a doctor were inadmissible, and the recovery and forensic evidence lacked link evidence.

• DLF LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DLF UNIVERSAL LTD) AND ANR. versus KONCAR GENERATORS AND MOTORS LTD.

  08/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 291

  On the enforcement of an ICC award expressed in euros, the Supreme Court held that the principle in Forasol v. ONGC applies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The amount must be converted into rupees at the exchange rate on the date the foreign award becomes enforceable, which is when objections under Section 48 are finally dismissed and the award is deemed a decree under Section 49. However, an amount deposited in court pending objections that the award holder was permitted to withdraw, even against security, stands converted on the date of deposit, following Renusagar.

• JAGDISH PRASAD SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

  08/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 377

  The Supreme Court quashed the Bihar Government's reduction of a retired officer's pay scale and its demand to recover alleged excess pay eight years after he retired. The 1999 pay revision Resolution protected time-bound promotions granted before 31 December 1995, as his 1991 promotion was; and the reduction and recovery were in any case punitive, made without notice, and barred after so long a gap.

• SRI DATTATRAYA versus SHARANAPPA

  07/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 121

  The Supreme Court upheld concurrent findings acquitting the drawer of a dishonoured cheque under Section 138 of the NI Act. The complainant contradicted himself on when and why the cheque was given, could not say when the loan was advanced, had not shown the loan in his income tax returns, and could not explain how a cheque the accused said he gave to a third person reached him. The Court held that the accused had rebutted the Section 139 presumption on a preponderance of probabilities and that no perversity justified interfering with the acquittal.

• TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH versus KAMAL DAYANI & ORS.

  07/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 235

  While the Supreme Court's interim order directing release of the petitioner on bail if arrested was in force, a Surat Police Inspector sought, and an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate granted, police custody remand of the petitioner; he was later held for about 48 hours after the remand ended. The Court held both officers guilty of contempt, rejected the plea of a Gujarat practice of reserving police remand in anticipatory bail orders as contrary to Sushila Aggarwal, held the Gujarat High Court's decision in Sunilbhai Sudhirbhai Kothari impliedly overruled, discharged the other respondents, and made the interim anticipatory bail absolute.

• THE BLUE DREAMZ ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. & ANR. versus KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.

  07/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 189

  The Kolkata Municipal Corporation debarred an advertising contractor for five years over unpaid licence fees on hoarding contracts, while the contractor alleged reciprocal breaches by the Corporation and arbitration was under way. The Supreme Court held that blacklisting is a drastic penalty, amounting to civil death, that must meet the test of proportionality and is not to be used for ordinary breaches of contract where a bona fide dispute exists. It set aside the debarment and restored the Single Judge's judgment.

• IN RE: ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT DATED 17.07.2024 AND ANCILLARY ISSUES versus

  07/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 949

  Taking suo motu notice of an order passed by a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a contempt case, the Supreme Court expunged the Judge's gratuitous observations about the Supreme Court, holding that compliance with its orders is a constitutional obligation and that judges must observe hierarchical judicial discipline, but declined to issue notice to the Judge.

• M/S D. KHOSLA AND COMPANY versus THE UNION OF INDIA

  07/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 113

  An award under the Arbitration Act, 1940 granted 12% simple interest on the amount awarded up to the award and 15% thereafter. The contractor claimed in execution that post-award interest ran on the principal plus pre-award interest. The Supreme Court held that, absent a statutory provision or contractual term permitting it, interest on interest is not ordinarily granted, and the award and decree on their plain terms gave 15% only on the principal sum; the SLP was dismissed.

• BASAMSETTI RAMA DEVI versus THE STATE OF A.P. & ORS.

  07/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 1687

  In two complaints of custodial killing by police officers in Vijayawada in 2002, the High Court had set aside a committal order and discharged the accused, accepting the CID and CBI reports that the police fired in self-defence. The Supreme Court held that self-defence is a matter to be proved at trial and cannot be accepted at face value at the quashing stage. It restored both prosecutions and directed the trial courts to conclude the trials within one year.

• RAJASTHAN AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIKANER, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR versus DR. ZABAR SINGH SOLANKI AND ORS.

  06/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 175

  Research Assistants of the Rajasthan Agricultural University, re-designated as Lecturers and later Assistant Professors and paid the same UGC scale, claimed the senior scale under the 1988 Career Advancement Scheme, which required eight years of service after regular appointment; in a connected appeal, regularly appointed Assistant Professors sought to count prior ad hoc service. The Supreme Court held that re-designation is not regular appointment, that the CAS is a policy distinct from a general pay revision and must be applied as framed, and that ad hoc service could not be counted. The High Court's orders were set aside, without recovery of amounts already paid.

• PEOPLES RIGHTS AND SOCIAL RESEARCH CENTRE (PRASAR) & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  06/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 99

  A public interest writ petition pending since 2006 on silicosis among workers in mining, stone crushing, quartz grinding and construction was disposed of after a review of the orders passed over the years. Holding that statutory bodies were better placed to monitor implementation, the Court entrusted the environmental and industrial-compliance aspect to the National Green Tribunal and the compensation aspect to the National Human Rights Commission, with the ESIC and State Chief Secretaries directed to cooperate.

• GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI versus OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

  05/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 207

  The Supreme Court held that the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi's power under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 to nominate ten persons with special knowledge of municipal administration to the Corporation is a statutory duty vested in him by a Parliamentary law, falling within the 'by or under any law' exception in Article 239AA(4). It is not executive power of the Government of NCTD to be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and the Lt. Governor's nominations of January 2023 were upheld.

• USHA DEVI & ORS. versus RAM KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

  05/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 501

  A suit for specific performance was filed in September 1993 on an agreement of 17.12.1989 that fixed execution of the sale deed within one month. Limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act ran from that fixed date and expired on 16.01.1993; a clause saying the agreement would be 'valid' for five years did not change the date fixed for performance. The suit was held time-barred and dismissed, but the defendants were directed to refund the Rs. 80,000 received, with 12% interest.

• SUDEEP CHATTERJEE versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

  02/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 662

  In a complaint under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act arising from a matrimonial dispute, the High Court granted the husband provisional pre-arrest bail on condition that he file a joint affidavit undertaking to fulfil all physical and financial requirements of his wife. The Supreme Court held that bail conditions must be capable of compliance and proportionate to their purpose, set aside that condition as impracticable, and made the bail absolute on the remaining terms.

• THE STATE OF GUJARAT versus M/S AMBUJA CEMENT LTD.

  02/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 34

  The Supreme Court upheld the Gujarat VAT Tribunal and High Court in holding that, when computing the turnover of purchases for the 4% reduction of tax credit under Section 11(3)(b) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, both the VAT paid on purchases and the value of purchases on which no tax credit was claimed or granted must be excluded, because the definition of 'purchase price' in Section 2(18) is exhaustive and names only central excise and customs duties.

• CITY MONTESSORI SCHOOL versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

  02/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 23

  A Nazul garden plot in Lucknow, owned by the State, was auctioned in 1995; the school's highest bid was cancelled, and while the school's writ petition (with a status quo order) was pending, the authority converted the plot to freehold in favour of the claimed lessee for a sum less than 10% of the school's bid. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's setting aside of the conversion and freehold deed as arbitrary and a covert way of defeating the interim order, but refused to restore the school's bid after some 20 years, leaving the lease's validity and any fresh auction open.

• VANSHIKA YADAV versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  02/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 45

  Giving reasons for its order of 23 July 2024, the Supreme Court declined to cancel NEET (UG) 2024 despite the admitted paper leak at Hazaribagh and Patna. An examination may be cancelled only where its sanctity is compromised at a systemic level and tainted candidates cannot be separated from untainted ones, and on the material then on record, including city- and centre-wise data compared with earlier years, the leak was localised and its beneficiaries identifiable. The Court directed that only one option of a disputed physics question be treated as correct, rejected the bias objection to the IIT Madras data report, criticised the NTA's lapses, and expanded the remit of the Union Government's expert committee with deadlines.

• M/S PRO KNITS versus THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CANARA BANK & ORS.

  01/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 140

  The Supreme Court held that the Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of MSMEs, notified by the Central Government on 29.05.2015 under Section 9 of the MSMED Act and implemented through RBI directions under Sections 21 and 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, has statutory force and binds banks, which must follow it before classifying an MSME loan account as NPA. The MSME must, however, produce verifiable proof of its status before classification and cannot raise the plea belatedly to derail SARFAESI action. The High Court's contrary view was set aside without remand.

• NATIONAL HOUSING BANK versus BHERUDAN DUGAR HOUSING FINANCE LTD. & ORS. ETC.

  01/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 1

  The High Court had quashed in full a complaint under the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 against a housing finance company, its Managing Director and five Directors. The Supreme Court held that the complaint lacked the averment required by Section 50(1), which is pari materia with Section 141 of the NI Act, so it was rightly quashed against the Directors; but a Managing Director is in charge of the company by virtue of office and no reason had been given for quashing it against the company, so the complaint was restored against those two.

• THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. versus DAVINDER SINGH & ORS.

  01/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 1321

  A seven-Judge Constitution Bench, by majority (Bela M. Trivedi J dissenting), overruled E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and held that a State may sub-classify the Scheduled Castes for reservation and other affirmative action under Articles 15(4) and 16(4). The Scheduled Castes are not a homogeneous class and Article 341 only identifies them, so sub-classification does not vary the Presidential List. It must rest on quantifiable data showing inter-se backwardness and inadequate representation, and cannot give a sub-group preference over, or exclusive claim to, all the seats reserved for Scheduled Castes. Four Judges also held that the creamy layer principle applies to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

• UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. versus PROHLAD GUHA ETC.

  01/08/2024 · [2024] 8 S.C.R. 8

  Railway employees appointed on compassionate grounds were terminated after show-cause notices found their appointments rested on forged documents. The Tribunal upheld the termination, but the High Court ordered reinstatement for want of a full disciplinary inquiry. The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal's order, holding that the employees had been heard, had never shown their eligibility, and, having obtained their posts by fraud, could not claim the protection of Article 311 or the Discipline Rules.

• RAJU AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

  31/07/2024 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1147

  The High Court reversed an acquittal and convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC for a night-time knife and lathi assault. The Supreme Court restored the acquittal: the injured witnesses contradicted each other and themselves on who used which weapon, the medical evidence did not fit the oral account, the FIR was lodged by a hearsay witness, the two alleged eye-witnesses were never examined, and no motive was shown. The trial court's view was plausible and should not have been disturbed.

• YASH DEVELOPERS versus HARIHAR KRUPA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED & ORS.

  30/07/2024 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1443

  The Supreme Court upheld the termination by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee of a developer's agreement for a Mumbai slum rehabilitation project that had not begun construction for more than 16 years. It held that Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act gives the Slum Rehabilitation Authority a power coupled with a duty, for which its CEO and the Authority are accountable, to ensure time-bound completion, and that delay cannot be excused by splitting it into separate episodes. Costs were imposed, and the Bombay High Court was requested to begin suo motu proceedings for a performance audit of the Act.

• GAURAV KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  30/07/2024 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1489

  The Supreme Court held that State Bar Councils cannot charge, at the time of enrolment, anything beyond the enrolment fee and stamp duty fixed by Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961: Rs. 750 in all for general candidates and Rs. 125 for SC/ST candidates. All miscellaneous charges collected at enrolment are part of the enrolment fee, and the BCI resolution raising the fee was without authority. Charging more is ultra vires and violates Articles 14 (substantive equality and manifest arbitrariness) and 19(1)(g). The ruling operates prospectively, without refunds.

• PIC DEPARTMENTALS PVT. LTD. versus SREELEATHERS PVT. LTD.

  30/07/2024 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1409

  In a 1999 suit on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court, the defendant filed its written statement only in 2017, after the suit, which the High Court's website had shown as disposed of since 01.03.2000, was suddenly listed again. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision to take the written statement on record on payment of costs: the power to extend time must be used cautiously, but here the delay resulted from confusion created by the High Court Registry, and procedure must yield to substantive justice.

• AJAY KUMAR BHALLA & ORS. versus PRAKASH KUMAR DIXIT

  29/07/2024 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1044

  A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court held CRPF officers guilty of contempt and gave them time to promote the respondent, a removed-and-reinstated officer, to the rank of IG. The Division Bench held the Letters Patent Appeal not maintainable because no punishment had been imposed. The Supreme Court held that the Single Judge's order also contained a crystallised finding on the merits, entitlement to promotion as IG, which is open to intra-court appeal under Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank, and restored the appeal.

• NEK PAL & ORS. versus NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD & ORS.

  26/07/2024 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1040

  The High Court finally heard and decided a second appeal under Section 100 CPC without formulating substantial questions of law at admission or giving the parties notice of them before the hearing. The Supreme Court held this procedure illegal, set aside the judgment and restored the second appeals to the High Court's file, keeping all merits contentions open.

• U.P. ROADWAYS RETIRED OFFICIALS AND OFFICERS ASSOCIATION versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

  26/07/2024 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1368

  Former employees of U.P. Roadways, a temporary State department later absorbed into the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, were held not entitled to pension. They held neither permanent posts in the three categories declared pensionable by the GO of 28.10.1960 nor any other pensionable post; Note 3 to Article 350 of the U.P. Civil Service Regulations excluded non-gazetted posts in technical and industrial institutions; and Regulation 39 of the Corporation's 1981 Regulations confines pension to State Government employees absorbed into the Corporation. Having taken provident fund benefits without protest decades earlier, they could not now claim pension. The Corporation's appeals against High Court orders granting pension to employees promoted to pensionable posts after the absorption cut-off were allowed.

• MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. versus M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. ETC.

  25/07/2024 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1549

  A nine-Judge Bench answered a reference on State power to tax minerals and mineral-bearing land. In the opinion of Chandrachud CJI, the Court held that royalty under Section 9 of the MMDR Act is a contractual consideration, not a tax. The power to tax mineral rights under Entry 50 of List II belongs only to the States and is limited only by limitations Parliament expressly imposes by law; the MMDR Act imposes none. Mineral-bearing land is 'land' under Entry 49, and its yield (minerals produced or royalty) may measure a tax on it. India Cement and the decisions following it were overruled to that extent. Nagarathna J. dissented, holding that royalty is a tax and that the MMDR Act limits Entry 50 and excludes mineral-bearing land from Entry 49.

• MEENAKSHI versus THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

  23/07/2024 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1433

  In a motor accident death claim, the Supreme Court held that house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan and the employer's provident fund contribution form part of a salaried deceased's income and must be included before adding the future-prospects increase. The High Court erred in excluding them, but rightly deducted income tax, which the Tribunal had overlooked. Compensation was reassessed at Rs. 93,66,272.

• KISHORCHANDRA CHHANGANLAL RATHOD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  23/07/2024 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1124

  The Supreme Court held that Article 329(a) of the Constitution does not wholly bar judicial review of orders of the Delimitation Commission, and set aside the High Court's finding to that effect, but declined to interfere with the 2006 delimitation and reservation of the Bardoli Assembly Constituency given the passage of time and subsequent events.

• AMIT RANA @ KOKA & ANR. versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

  22/07/2024 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 756

  Where a court convicting under Section 307 IPC (hurt caused) decides not to impose life imprisonment, the sentence cannot exceed the ten years' imprisonment and fine prescribed in the first part of the section. The Court reduced the appellants' 14-year rigorous imprisonment to 10 years, keeping the fine.

• DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA

  18/07/2024 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1175

  The Supreme Court upheld the setting aside of a Delhi Transport Corporation officer's dismissal because the Board's resolution approving the penalty showed no independent application of mind to the enquiry report and no hearing, and the enquiry report itself rested on no evidence since the department examined no witness.

• THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA versus LALRINTLUANGA SAILO & ANR.

  16/07/2024 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1314

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order granting bail to an HIV-positive accused charged under Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act with possession of 1.040 kg of heroin, holding that bail in a commercial-quantity case cannot be granted solely on the ground of the accused's HIV status without recording satisfaction of the twin conditions in Section 37(1)(b)(ii); the trial court was directed to try the case on priority under Section 34(2) of the HIV and AIDS Act, 2017.

• BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR. versus HIMAL KUMARI & ANR. ETC.

  16/07/2024 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 970

  The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view that the minimum qualifying percentage for City Manager recruitment under the Bihar City Manager Cadre Rules, 2014 and the advertisement applies only to the 70-mark written test, not to the aggregate of 100 marks including experience. A candidate with no experience who crossed 32% in the written test had to be placed on the merit list, and an earlier 2007 executive order could not add a different criterion to the 2014 Rules.