LatestLaws.com's Monthly Digest (January 2025)
Get monthly updates on landmark decisions on the Constitution, Arbitration, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Laws, Company Law, Intellectual Property Rights, Criminal Law, Marriage and Divorce laws, and much more in one place with LatestLaws.com's Monthly Digest, exclusively for you! Stay updated, Good People, with LatestLaws.com!
- ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
The single judge bench of the Madras High Court held that once an individual accepts to join public service, he must accept that he lives in public glare and cannot avoid the general public from seeking details at least so far as their service is concerned.
It was furthermore held that the assets and liability of a public servant will have to be necessarily disclosed and cannot be shielded from public scrutiny but there should be a reasonable restriction of the same.
The Supreme Court in a recent case observed that the punishment of a 2% pension cut in perpetuity, even if the charges against the appellant were upheld, was "disproportionate to the misconduct and is sufficient to shock the conscience of the Court."
This statement came as the Court scrutinized the disciplinary proceedings against a Senior Medical Officer who faced a pension reduction following allegations of misconduct shortly before his retirement. The Court found substantial flaws in both the inquiry process and the penalty imposed, leading to a major re-evaluation of the disciplinary actions taken against the officer.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh in a recent judgment, held that since neither any judicial (criminal) proceedings were instituted against respondent No. 1/writ petitioner nor were any proceedings pending against him on the date of his retirement, respondent No. 1/writ petitioner is entitled to the full gratuity amount on the date of his retirement.
This decision came while dismissing an appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 22.11.2023 in WPS, where the learned Single Judge had previously allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1/writ petitioner.
- ARBITRATION CASES
In a recent judgment the Delhi High Court observed that "the scope of interference by the Court with the arbitral award under Section 34 is very limited" but emphasized that an award could be set aside if it violates the "fundamental policy of Indian law" or is deemed "patently illegal."
The Court’s observation comes in the backdrop of a challenge to an arbitral award that had previously favored a data collection service provider in a dispute with a government body. The appellant had successfully argued that despite several project complications, it had met its obligations, while the respondent contended that the award ignored key terms of the contract.
"In cases of debatable facts or reasonable arguments, the referral Court must defer to the Arbitral Tribunal to resolve issues regarding the validity of an arbitration agreement," stated the Delhi High Court in a recent judgment, emphasizing the limited role of courts at the referral stage under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court further reiterated that the referral Court’s role under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not to conduct a detailed examination of the dispute but to verify the existence of an arbitration agreement and the presence of a dispute.
The Supreme Court in its recent observation questioned whether an absolute bar exists to invoking writ jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances where fairness or justice requires it.
The Court, while considering the maintainability of writ petitions against orders passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (referred to as “MSEFC”) under the Micro, Small and Meduim Enterprises Development Act (referred to as “MSMED Act”), raised fundamental questions about the scope of judicial review in such cases. This issue, including whether alternative remedies like arbitration are adequate and the role of MSEFC members in conciliation and arbitration, has been referred to a larger Bench for further clarification.
- CONSTITUTIONAL CASES
In interpreting the provisions of the UGC regulations, the Supreme Court observed "harshness alone cannot justify" the reading down of statutory language, and stressed that judicial intervention should not alter clear and unambiguous provisions unless they are proven to be unconstitutional or lead to absurdity.
In this case the Supreme Court addressed the interpretation of Regulation 10(f)(iii) of the UGC Regulations, 2018, concerning the recognition of teaching experience for the shortlisting of Assistant Professor candidates. The Court critically examined the High Court's approach to 'reading down' the regulation, emphasizing that such interpretations should not be made in the absence of clear legislative ambiguity.
The Supreme Court in a recent ruling reaffirmed the boundaries of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint in re-assessing factual determinations made by specialized tribunals or authorities.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, held that although the petitioners at first glance may appear appealing, a deeper analysis reveals a potentially disastrous outcome as it stands as an antithesis to the “Doctrine of Equality”, which is one of the fundamental principles of the Constitution of India.
The court dismissed the petition that sought the issuance of an appropriate writ, specifically one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, to declare the respondents' action of not appointing or absorbing the petitioners as attenders/Class IV in the Judicial Ministerial Service as unlawful.
"Undisputedly no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace of others," observed the Bombay High Court in a recent ruling emphasizing the fundamental right of individuals to live in peaceful surroundings. The Court further affirmed that the use of loudspeakers in religious activities cannot override the rights of others to enjoy peace and quiet in their homes.
The Court’s remarks have drawn attention to the need for effective enforcement of noise pollution laws, especially in residential zones, and questioned the failure of authorities to regulate noise levels from loudspeakers used in religious places. The decision raises important questions about balancing religious freedoms with the public's right to a noise-free environment.
- CRIMINAL LAW CASES
“The absence of CCTV cameras in the concerned police station, despite the Supreme Court's mandates, is disturbing," remarked the Orissa High Court raising serious concerns about the lack of CCTV surveillance in police stations, highlighting the delicate gap in ensuring transparency and accountability in police operations.
This remark came after reviewing an incident where an army officer and his fiancée were falsely accused of attempting to murder police personnel. With no CCTV footage to clarify the events, the Court highlighted the importance of such systems in ensuring transparency and accountability in police operations. The Court has issued key directions, particularly regarding the installation of CCTV across Odisha's police stations
The Madras High Court recently stated 'It is always Her Life. Her Body. Her Choice,' condemning societal victim-shaming and emphasizing the importance of protecting women's autonomy and dignity. The Court further declared, 'These actions of victim shaming and blaming, kills the soul of a woman,' stressing the need for a transformative approach to how society views and treats women.
This powerful statement came in the wake of a harrowing case where a female student from Anna University, Chennai, was allegedly sexually assaulted by a known history-sheeter on the university campus. The case has sparked outrage, particularly in the light of lapses in security and breaches of privacy. The Court's observations highlight a serious concern for women's rights, campus safety, and the protection of their privacy, setting a precedent for future legal proceedings and societal change.
The Karnataka High Court recently addressed the issue of police custody in ‘cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment for up to ten years,’ emphasizing the importance of balancing investigation needs with the protection of personal liberty.
The issue emerged in the context of a case challenging the rejection of an extension for police custody, sparking debates about the interpretation of Section 187(3) of the BNSS Act and its implications for personal liberty and judicial procedures. The Court’s detailed analysis also highlighted the limitations imposed by Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. and reiterated the constitutional significance of protecting personal liberty.
In its latest judgment, the Supreme Court remarked that "A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement, should be nipped in the bud."
The Court emphasized that vague allegations, especially in cases involving matrimonial disputes, could easily be misused as leverage during divorce proceedings. The bench further questioned the delay in filing the complaint, pointing out that the alleged incident was not mentioned in the earlier divorce notice, raising doubts about the sincerity of the allegations.
The Supreme Court recently made a noteworthy observation in a case involving a convict sentenced to death for murder in 1994, noting that the failure of the judicial machinery to recognize the constitutional mandate on juvenility resulted in a "grave injustice."
The case involved complex questions of juvenile justice, constitutional rights, and the retrospective application of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. As the Appellant sought a review of earlier proceedings, including his claim of being a juvenile at the time of the crime, a plea which had been consistently overlooked by lower courts, the Court's examination reshaped understandings of justice for children in conflict with the law.
In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court underscored the principle that minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not vitiate the prosecution's case and that accused persons cannot seek acquittal solely on the basis of investigative lapses when substantial evidence points to their guilt.
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is "a measure of social justice, designed to protect women and children," and that maintenance is intended "not to punish a person but to prevent the financial suffering of those in need."
This observation was made in the case of Reena and Dinesh Kumar Mahto, who had been engaged in legal battles over restitution of conjugal rights and maintenance. The Court examined whether the Family Court’s decree for restitution of conjugal rights would prevent Reena from receiving maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, while also addressing the wider issues of dignity and justice in marital disputes.
"The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established, and there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused" observed the Supreme Court in a recent judgment.
This remark came in the context of reviewing the conviction of an accused involved in a horrific crime, where the prosecution's case rested heavily on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court undertook a meticulous review of the case, focusing on the adequacy and scrutiny of circumstantial evidence. The Court's analysis raised important questions about the depth of evaluation required when circumstantial evidence is the basis of conviction.
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that it is not mandatory for the Magistrate to record reasons in detail at the time of issuing process against the accused persons and thus the trial Court is not bound to pass a detailed order to meet the evidence as if it is going to conduct a mini-trial.
This decision was made while dismissing a petition challenging the order dated 29th April 2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision, in which the revision filed by the petitioners was rejected.
In a recent observation, the Supreme Court remarked, "there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide" and cautioned, "merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence" is insufficient to sustain a charge of abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court further noted, "Even taken literally, it could not be said that the appellant intended to instigate the commission of suicide."
This comes in the backdrop of a case involving the appellant, Mahendra Awase, who was accused of harassing a man, Ranjeet Chauhan, over loan repayment, allegedly leading to his suicide.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, held that the object of the D.V. Act of 2005 is to provide relief to an aggrieved woman who is subjected to domestic violence and falls within the ambit of an aggrieved person.
This ruling was made while allowing a criminal revision filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in a Criminal Appeal, which had stemmed from the decision of the learned Judicial Magistrate who dismissed the application for an allowance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, held that where an offense like murder is committed inside the house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases.
This decision was made while dismissing an appeal against the conviction and sentence order dated 24.02.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, wherein the appellant was found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, held that mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute an offense u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe.
This decision was made while allowing an appeal against the judgment dated 07.03.2002, passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-First Additional Sessions Judge, in which the accused-appellant had been convicted and sentenced under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, held that no clinching or legally admissible evidence had been brought by the prosecution to prove the fact that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of the incident.
The judgment was delivered while allowing an appeal against the conviction and sentencing order dated 18.04.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. (POCSO), in Special POCSO Case, where the appellant had been convicted and sentenced.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, held that there is no material on record to prove that the Magistrate had certified the inventory of the substance seized or of the list of samples so drawn.
This decision came while allowing an appeal against the judgment dated 10.04.2024, passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), in which the accused was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
In a recent case, the Supreme Court deliberated on the maintainability of criminal proceedings against a former employer and its HR manager, following serious allegations of harassment, wrongful termination, and theft of intellectual property.
The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether the criminal charges brought against the appellants were valid or whether they amounted to an abuse of legal process. The Court examined the charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (referred to as “IPC”), including those related to causing hurt, insult, and criminal intimidation, and analyzed the sufficiency of evidence presented in the chargesheet.
"The scope of a bail petition is only to consider whether or not, in a given case, an under-trial is to be released from the custody of the court, namely ‘judicial custody’ to the custody of a surety."
This observation was made by the Delhi High Court while examining the bail application of a foreign national charged under various sections of the IPC and the Foreigners Act. The case was further complicated by the petitioner's request for the State authorities to grant her a visa to allow her to reside in India during the ongoing criminal proceedings. The Court's observation sheds light on the distinction between judicial custody for prosecution and executive detention for immigration violations.
In a recent judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court emphasized that the mere possibility of confiscation of a vehicle in the event of a conviction cannot serve as a valid reason to deny the interim custody of the vehicle.
The case involved the interim custody of a Hyundai Creta seized in connection with a narcotics case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The High Court took a closer look at the legal aspects of interim custody and ownership, ultimately delivering a key decision.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh addressed a key issue regarding the applicability of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court held that without proper certification or verification establishing that the victim or deceased belonged to the Scheduled Caste community, the trial court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused/appellants under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act.
This decision came in the wake of an appeal filed by the appellants/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment of conviction and sentencing order passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Prevention of Atrocities Act) on 30th January 2021. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, finding grave legal irregularities in the lower court's ruling.
In a notable judgment, the High Court of Chhattisgarh clarified that the conviction of the appellant for the offense under Section 506-II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) could not be sustained solely on the basis of hearsay testimony provided by the victim's father and sister. The Court emphasized that such testimony was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
This decision came while partly allowing an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the impugned judgment passed by the Special Judge in a Sessions Case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- CIVIL LAW CASES
In its latest judgment, the Supreme Court observed that 'unauthorized constructions must be dismantled to maintain compliance with the rule of law.'
This statement comes in the backdrop of a dispute concerning unauthorized commercial construction on a residential plot in Meerut, originally allotted for residential purposes. Despite repeated notices, the authorities had failed to enforce the demolition of the illegal structures for over two decades, raising concerns about possible collusion between officials and violators.
“Courts should not shut out cases on mere technicalities but rather afford opportunity to both sides and thrash out the matter on merits”, Apex Court expounded.
This powerful statement came as the Court reviewed a long-pending dispute regarding a fraudulent sale deed, where the Appellant, Dwarika Prasad, sought to restore a decision made ex parte by the Trial Court in 1994. The Appellant claimed he was unaware of the ex parte decree until 1994, when he was informed by a new counsel.
The Supreme Court in a recent case observed that "Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (referred to as “CPC”) prevents the splitting of claims, but does not apply if the causes of action in the two suits are distinct," emphasizing that the key test is whether the new suit is based on a distinct cause of action.
The central question before the Court was whether the respondent, having filed an injunction suit in the first instance, could later seek specific performance in a second suit. The Court noted that if the relief sought in the second suit arises from a subsequent event, such as the lifting of a government restriction, the bar under Order II Rule 2 would not apply.
The single judge bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that a suit under Section 92 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 instituted without the leave of the Court is nonest and the said defect being basic and material cannot be cured by grant of leave at a subsequent stage.
"The High Court cannot pass an interim order in a second appeal without first formulating a substantial question of law," observed the Supreme Court in a recent judgment addressing the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
The Court emphasized that the right to file a second appeal is contingent on the existence of a substantial question of law, and only after its formulation can the High Court proceed to pass any interim orders. This observation came in light of a case where the High Court had granted interim relief without framing the requisite question of law, raising important legal concerns.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh held that any finality associated with a mutation order is confined to the specific terms of that order and does not extend to determining the title of the parties involved in the land, which is the subject matter of the proceeding.
This ruling came while dismissing an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, which had reversed the earlier judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge Class-1, who had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2 in this case.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, held that once this Court has directed to collect the stamp duty and penalty over the said receipt, the said document can be marked as evidence and the orders passed by this Court in the earlier rounds of litigation attained finality.
This ruling came while dismissing a petition challenging the order dated 29.07.2019 passed in an interim application in a suit before the Additional Senior Civil Judge.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, recently held that if the deceased comes in the category of a third party, then despite the violation of policy conditions, the pay and recover order can be passed in suitable cases.
This decision was made while partly allowing an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 10.01.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which had exonerated the appellant/Insurance Company from liability due to a breach of policy conditions.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh in a recent judgment, held that while the claim for personal injuries may not have survived after the death of the injured unrelated to the accident or injuries, during the pendency of the appeal, the claims for loss of estate caused were available to and could be pursued by the legal representatives of the deceased in the appeal.
This decision was made while partly allowing an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 16.03.2005 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which had granted compensation from the date of the claim application until its realization under Section 166 of the MV Act.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, held that the period of limitation can be said to have been started only when the defendant derived knowledge that his possession over the suit land had been alleged to be an act of encroachment – on the plaintiff’s survey number.
This decision was made while considering an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge in a Civil Appeal, which upheld the judgment and decree dated 1.5.2002, passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, dismissing the plaintiff’s suit.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh recently held that no presumption of correctness can be attached to an entry made by the Patwari in the remarks column of a Khasra or field-book showing therein some third party/trespasser to be in possession of the land held by a Bhumiswami and recorded as such in his name in the said land records.
This decision was made while dismissing an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 03.09.1998, passed by the First Additional District Judge in a Civil Appeal, which had reversed the judgment and decree dated 31.01.1992, passed by the Fifth Civil Judge.
- FAMILY LAW CASES
In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court observed that "false criminal proceedings and the ordeal they cause would find no place in the harmonious relations of marriage," highlighting the severe impact of such actions on marital harmony.
The Court emphasized that filing baseless charges not only undermines the trust and respect essential in a marriage but also constitutes cruelty as per Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The division judge bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the State Human Rights Commission prima facie, may not have jurisdiction so far as custody of children is concerned, as there are specific remedies prescribed in this regard in other statutes.
- INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE
In a recent judgment, the NCLAT examined whether assessment proceedings under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act (hereinafter referred to as "EPF & MP Act") can continue during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as “CIRP”).
The Tribunal highlighted that “suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor” under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (referred to as “IBC”) cover actions impacting the debtor’s assets. This ruling addresses the admissibility of Provident Fund claims during the moratorium and post-Resolution Plan approval.
In a recent judgment, the NCLAT addressed the issue of whether an Operational Creditor’s claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act, highlighting the importance of payment acknowledgment in determining the limitation period for filing claims.
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, which allows the limitation period to be extended if certain conditions are met after a payment is made. The case involved a dispute over whether the claims of an Operational Creditor were time-barred, with the Corporate Debtor arguing that the claim was overdue according to the Limitation Act.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) recently observed, “a dissenting financial creditor would receive payment as per their entitlement... this entitlement could also be satisfied by allowing the enforcement of the security interest, up to the value receivable.”
This statement underlines the Tribunal's position on how creditors are to be paid during liquidation proceedings, emphasizing that the distribution of assets should be aligned with admitted claims rather than security interests. This important judgment follows a challenge from IDBI Bank over the asset distribution methodology adopted by the Liquidator in the case of ESS DEE Aluminium Limited, which had been admitted to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as “CIRP”) in 2020 and later ordered for liquidation in 2021.
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for timely action in corporate insolvency proceedings noting the importance of adhering to statutory remedies under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), stating, "The importance of concluding the CIRP proceedings was highlighted by this Court, on a number of occasions," and warned that "an unjustified interference with the proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, breaches the discipline of law."
This judgment arises from appeals filed against the Karnataka High Court’s intervention in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as “CIRP”) of Associate Decor Ltd. The key issue revolved around the alleged delay in filing the writ petition challenging the process and the jurisdiction of the High Court over matters already under the purview of the Adjudicating Authority.
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court addressed issues surrounding the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), particularly in the context of statutory approvals required under the Competition Act.
The Court emphasized that "the approval by the CCI is ‘mandatory’, the approval by the CCI prior to approval of CoC is ‘directory’," and further highlighted the need for a "literal interpretation" of statutory provisions, noting that "statutory enactment must ordinarily be construed according to its plain meaning." This case sheds light on the importance of compliance with both the Competition Act and the IBC during the resolution process.
In a recent ruling, the NCLAT addressed a substantial issue related to the extension of the moratorium period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Tribunal, quoting directly from the Adjudicating Authority’s earlier order, emphasized, “A fresh moratorium in terms of Section 101 of the Code shall commence as applicable… The moratorium shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of 180 days.”
The case arose when the Personal Guarantor's resolution process saw the expiration of the initial 180-day moratorium, prompting the Resolution Professional to seek an extension. The central question before the Tribunal was whether the moratorium, once expired, could be extended beyond the statutory limit under Section 101 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”).
The NCLT, in its detailed analysis, emphasized the importance of distinguishing between a debtor-creditor relationship and other types of business arrangements when considering petitions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. As noted, "the Adjudicating Authority must evaluate whether there is an Operational Debt, whether the debt is due and payable, and whether a dispute exists."
The case involved a petition filed by M/s Transline Technologies Limited (Operational Creditor) for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s Experio Tech Private Limited (Corporate Debtor). The dispute arose over unpaid dues following a series of transactions and an agreement that led the Corporate Debtor to argue the existence of a joint venture rather than a typical creditor-debtor arrangement. The Tribunal, after reviewing the nature of the agreement and the facts presented, deliberated on whether the relationship qualified under the Code.
- ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
The single judge bench of the Madras High Court held that once an individual accepts to join public service, he must accept that he lives in public glare and cannot avoid the general public from seeking details at least so far as their service is concerned.
It was furthermore held that the assets and liability of a public servant will have to be necessarily disclosed and cannot be shielded from public scrutiny but there should be a reasonable restriction of the same.
The Supreme Court in a recent case observed that the punishment of a 2% pension cut in perpetuity, even if the charges against the appellant were upheld, was "disproportionate to the misconduct and is sufficient to shock the conscience of the Court."
This statement came as the Court scrutinized the disciplinary proceedings against a Senior Medical Officer who faced a pension reduction following allegations of misconduct shortly before his retirement. The Court found substantial flaws in both the inquiry process and the penalty imposed, leading to a major re-evaluation of the disciplinary actions taken against the officer.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh in a recent judgment, held that since neither any judicial (criminal) proceedings were instituted against respondent No. 1/writ petitioner nor were any proceedings pending against him on the date of his retirement, respondent No. 1/writ petitioner is entitled to the full gratuity amount on the date of his retirement.
This decision came while dismissing an appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 22.11.2023 in WPS, where the learned Single Judge had previously allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1/writ petitioner.
- ARBITRATION CASES
In a recent judgment the Delhi High Court observed that "the scope of interference by the Court with the arbitral award under Section 34 is very limited" but emphasized that an award could be set aside if it violates the "fundamental policy of Indian law" or is deemed "patently illegal."
The Court’s observation comes in the backdrop of a challenge to an arbitral award that had previously favored a data collection service provider in a dispute with a government body. The appellant had successfully argued that despite several project complications, it had met its obligations, while the respondent contended that the award ignored key terms of the contract.
"In cases of debatable facts or reasonable arguments, the referral Court must defer to the Arbitral Tribunal to resolve issues regarding the validity of an arbitration agreement," stated the Delhi High Court in a recent judgment, emphasizing the limited role of courts at the referral stage under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court further reiterated that the referral Court’s role under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not to conduct a detailed examination of the dispute but to verify the existence of an arbitration agreement and the presence of a dispute.
The Supreme Court in its recent observation questioned whether an absolute bar exists to invoking writ jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances where fairness or justice requires it.
The Court, while considering the maintainability of writ petitions against orders passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (referred to as “MSEFC”) under the Micro, Small and Meduim Enterprises Development Act (referred to as “MSMED Act”), raised fundamental questions about the scope of judicial review in such cases. This issue, including whether alternative remedies like arbitration are adequate and the role of MSEFC members in conciliation and arbitration, has been referred to a larger Bench for further clarification.
- CONSTITUTIONAL CASES
In interpreting the provisions of the UGC regulations, the Supreme Court observed "harshness alone cannot justify" the reading down of statutory language, and stressed that judicial intervention should not alter clear and unambiguous provisions unless they are proven to be unconstitutional or lead to absurdity.
In this case the Supreme Court addressed the interpretation of Regulation 10(f)(iii) of the UGC Regulations, 2018, concerning the recognition of teaching experience for the shortlisting of Assistant Professor candidates. The Court critically examined the High Court's approach to 'reading down' the regulation, emphasizing that such interpretations should not be made in the absence of clear legislative ambiguity.
The Supreme Court in a recent ruling reaffirmed the boundaries of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint in re-assessing factual determinations made by specialized tribunals or authorities.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, held that although the petitioners at first glance may appear appealing, a deeper analysis reveals a potentially disastrous outcome as it stands as an antithesis to the “Doctrine of Equality”, which is one of the fundamental principles of the Constitution of India.
The court dismissed the petition that sought the issuance of an appropriate writ, specifically one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, to declare the respondents' action of not appointing or absorbing the petitioners as attenders/Class IV in the Judicial Ministerial Service as unlawful.
"Undisputedly no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace of others," observed the Bombay High Court in a recent ruling emphasizing the fundamental right of individuals to live in peaceful surroundings. The Court further affirmed that the use of loudspeakers in religious activities cannot override the rights of others to enjoy peace and quiet in their homes.
The Court’s remarks have drawn attention to the need for effective enforcement of noise pollution laws, especially in residential zones, and questioned the failure of authorities to regulate noise levels from loudspeakers used in religious places. The decision raises important questions about balancing religious freedoms with the public's right to a noise-free environment.
- CRIMINAL LAW CASES
“The absence of CCTV cameras in the concerned police station, despite the Supreme Court's mandates, is disturbing," remarked the Orissa High Court raising serious concerns about the lack of CCTV surveillance in police stations, highlighting the delicate gap in ensuring transparency and accountability in police operations.
This remark came after reviewing an incident where an army officer and his fiancée were falsely accused of attempting to murder police personnel. With no CCTV footage to clarify the events, the Court highlighted the importance of such systems in ensuring transparency and accountability in police operations. The Court has issued key directions, particularly regarding the installation of CCTV across Odisha's police stations
The Madras High Court recently stated 'It is always Her Life. Her Body. Her Choice,' condemning societal victim-shaming and emphasizing the importance of protecting women's autonomy and dignity. The Court further declared, 'These actions of victim shaming and blaming, kills the soul of a woman,' stressing the need for a transformative approach to how society views and treats women.
This powerful statement came in the wake of a harrowing case where a female student from Anna University, Chennai, was allegedly sexually assaulted by a known history-sheeter on the university campus. The case has sparked outrage, particularly in the light of lapses in security and breaches of privacy. The Court's observations highlight a serious concern for women's rights, campus safety, and the protection of their privacy, setting a precedent for future legal proceedings and societal change.
The Karnataka High Court recently addressed the issue of police custody in ‘cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment for up to ten years,’ emphasizing the importance of balancing investigation needs with the protection of personal liberty.
The issue emerged in the context of a case challenging the rejection of an extension for police custody, sparking debates about the interpretation of Section 187(3) of the BNSS Act and its implications for personal liberty and judicial procedures. The Court’s detailed analysis also highlighted the limitations imposed by Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. and reiterated the constitutional significance of protecting personal liberty.
In its latest judgment, the Supreme Court remarked that "A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement, should be nipped in the bud."
The Court emphasized that vague allegations, especially in cases involving matrimonial disputes, could easily be misused as leverage during divorce proceedings. The bench further questioned the delay in filing the complaint, pointing out that the alleged incident was not mentioned in the earlier divorce notice, raising doubts about the sincerity of the allegations.
The Supreme Court recently made a noteworthy observation in a case involving a convict sentenced to death for murder in 1994, noting that the failure of the judicial machinery to recognize the constitutional mandate on juvenility resulted in a "grave injustice."
The case involved complex questions of juvenile justice, constitutional rights, and the retrospective application of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. As the Appellant sought a review of earlier proceedings, including his claim of being a juvenile at the time of the crime, a plea which had been consistently overlooked by lower courts, the Court's examination reshaped understandings of justice for children in conflict with the law.
In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court underscored the principle that minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not vitiate the prosecution's case and that accused persons cannot seek acquittal solely on the basis of investigative lapses when substantial evidence points to their guilt.
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is "a measure of social justice, designed to protect women and children," and that maintenance is intended "not to punish a person but to prevent the financial suffering of those in need."
This observation was made in the case of Reena and Dinesh Kumar Mahto, who had been engaged in legal battles over restitution of conjugal rights and maintenance. The Court examined whether the Family Court’s decree for restitution of conjugal rights would prevent Reena from receiving maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, while also addressing the wider issues of dignity and justice in marital disputes.
"The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established, and there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused" observed the Supreme Court in a recent judgment.
This remark came in the context of reviewing the conviction of an accused involved in a horrific crime, where the prosecution's case rested heavily on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court undertook a meticulous review of the case, focusing on the adequacy and scrutiny of circumstantial evidence. The Court's analysis raised important questions about the depth of evaluation required when circumstantial evidence is the basis of conviction.
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that it is not mandatory for the Magistrate to record reasons in detail at the time of issuing process against the accused persons and thus the trial Court is not bound to pass a detailed order to meet the evidence as if it is going to conduct a mini-trial.
This decision was made while dismissing a petition challenging the order dated 29th April 2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision, in which the revision filed by the petitioners was rejected.
In a recent observation, the Supreme Court remarked, "there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide" and cautioned, "merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence" is insufficient to sustain a charge of abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court further noted, "Even taken literally, it could not be said that the appellant intended to instigate the commission of suicide."
This comes in the backdrop of a case involving the appellant, Mahendra Awase, who was accused of harassing a man, Ranjeet Chauhan, over loan repayment, allegedly leading to his suicide.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, held that the object of the D.V. Act of 2005 is to provide relief to an aggrieved woman who is subjected to domestic violence and falls within the ambit of an aggrieved person.
This ruling was made while allowing a criminal revision filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in a Criminal Appeal, which had stemmed from the decision of the learned Judicial Magistrate who dismissed the application for an allowance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, held that where an offense like murder is committed inside the house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases.
This decision was made while dismissing an appeal against the conviction and sentence order dated 24.02.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, wherein the appellant was found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, held that mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute an offense u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe.
This decision was made while allowing an appeal against the judgment dated 07.03.2002, passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-First Additional Sessions Judge, in which the accused-appellant had been convicted and sentenced under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, held that no clinching or legally admissible evidence had been brought by the prosecution to prove the fact that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of the incident.
The judgment was delivered while allowing an appeal against the conviction and sentencing order dated 18.04.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. (POCSO), in Special POCSO Case, where the appellant had been convicted and sentenced.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, held that there is no material on record to prove that the Magistrate had certified the inventory of the substance seized or of the list of samples so drawn.
This decision came while allowing an appeal against the judgment dated 10.04.2024, passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), in which the accused was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
In a recent case, the Supreme Court deliberated on the maintainability of criminal proceedings against a former employer and its HR manager, following serious allegations of harassment, wrongful termination, and theft of intellectual property.
The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether the criminal charges brought against the appellants were valid or whether they amounted to an abuse of legal process. The Court examined the charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (referred to as “IPC”), including those related to causing hurt, insult, and criminal intimidation, and analyzed the sufficiency of evidence presented in the chargesheet.
"The scope of a bail petition is only to consider whether or not, in a given case, an under-trial is to be released from the custody of the court, namely ‘judicial custody’ to the custody of a surety."
This observation was made by the Delhi High Court while examining the bail application of a foreign national charged under various sections of the IPC and the Foreigners Act. The case was further complicated by the petitioner's request for the State authorities to grant her a visa to allow her to reside in India during the ongoing criminal proceedings. The Court's observation sheds light on the distinction between judicial custody for prosecution and executive detention for immigration violations.
In a recent judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court emphasized that the mere possibility of confiscation of a vehicle in the event of a conviction cannot serve as a valid reason to deny the interim custody of the vehicle.
The case involved the interim custody of a Hyundai Creta seized in connection with a narcotics case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The High Court took a closer look at the legal aspects of interim custody and ownership, ultimately delivering a key decision.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh addressed a key issue regarding the applicability of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court held that without proper certification or verification establishing that the victim or deceased belonged to the Scheduled Caste community, the trial court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused/appellants under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act.
This decision came in the wake of an appeal filed by the appellants/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment of conviction and sentencing order passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Prevention of Atrocities Act) on 30th January 2021. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, finding grave legal irregularities in the lower court's ruling.
In a notable judgment, the High Court of Chhattisgarh clarified that the conviction of the appellant for the offense under Section 506-II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) could not be sustained solely on the basis of hearsay testimony provided by the victim's father and sister. The Court emphasized that such testimony was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
This decision came while partly allowing an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the impugned judgment passed by the Special Judge in a Sessions Case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- CIVIL LAW CASES
In its latest judgment, the Supreme Court observed that 'unauthorized constructions must be dismantled to maintain compliance with the rule of law.'
This statement comes in the backdrop of a dispute concerning unauthorized commercial construction on a residential plot in Meerut, originally allotted for residential purposes. Despite repeated notices, the authorities had failed to enforce the demolition of the illegal structures for over two decades, raising concerns about possible collusion between officials and violators.
“Courts should not shut out cases on mere technicalities but rather afford opportunity to both sides and thrash out the matter on merits”, Apex Court expounded.
This powerful statement came as the Court reviewed a long-pending dispute regarding a fraudulent sale deed, where the Appellant, Dwarika Prasad, sought to restore a decision made ex parte by the Trial Court in 1994. The Appellant claimed he was unaware of the ex parte decree until 1994, when he was informed by a new counsel.
The Supreme Court in a recent case observed that "Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (referred to as “CPC”) prevents the splitting of claims, but does not apply if the causes of action in the two suits are distinct," emphasizing that the key test is whether the new suit is based on a distinct cause of action.
The central question before the Court was whether the respondent, having filed an injunction suit in the first instance, could later seek specific performance in a second suit. The Court noted that if the relief sought in the second suit arises from a subsequent event, such as the lifting of a government restriction, the bar under Order II Rule 2 would not apply.
The single judge bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that a suit under Section 92 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 instituted without the leave of the Court is nonest and the said defect being basic and material cannot be cured by grant of leave at a subsequent stage.
"The High Court cannot pass an interim order in a second appeal without first formulating a substantial question of law," observed the Supreme Court in a recent judgment addressing the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
The Court emphasized that the right to file a second appeal is contingent on the existence of a substantial question of law, and only after its formulation can the High Court proceed to pass any interim orders. This observation came in light of a case where the High Court had granted interim relief without framing the requisite question of law, raising important legal concerns.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh held that any finality associated with a mutation order is confined to the specific terms of that order and does not extend to determining the title of the parties involved in the land, which is the subject matter of the proceeding.
This ruling came while dismissing an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, which had reversed the earlier judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge Class-1, who had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2 in this case.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, held that once this Court has directed to collect the stamp duty and penalty over the said receipt, the said document can be marked as evidence and the orders passed by this Court in the earlier rounds of litigation attained finality.
This ruling came while dismissing a petition challenging the order dated 29.07.2019 passed in an interim application in a suit before the Additional Senior Civil Judge.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, recently held that if the deceased comes in the category of a third party, then despite the violation of policy conditions, the pay and recover order can be passed in suitable cases.
This decision was made while partly allowing an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 10.01.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which had exonerated the appellant/Insurance Company from liability due to a breach of policy conditions.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh in a recent judgment, held that while the claim for personal injuries may not have survived after the death of the injured unrelated to the accident or injuries, during the pendency of the appeal, the claims for loss of estate caused were available to and could be pursued by the legal representatives of the deceased in the appeal.
This decision was made while partly allowing an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 16.03.2005 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which had granted compensation from the date of the claim application until its realization under Section 166 of the MV Act.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, held that the period of limitation can be said to have been started only when the defendant derived knowledge that his possession over the suit land had been alleged to be an act of encroachment – on the plaintiff’s survey number.
This decision was made while considering an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge in a Civil Appeal, which upheld the judgment and decree dated 1.5.2002, passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, dismissing the plaintiff’s suit.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh recently held that no presumption of correctness can be attached to an entry made by the Patwari in the remarks column of a Khasra or field-book showing therein some third party/trespasser to be in possession of the land held by a Bhumiswami and recorded as such in his name in the said land records.
This decision was made while dismissing an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 03.09.1998, passed by the First Additional District Judge in a Civil Appeal, which had reversed the judgment and decree dated 31.01.1992, passed by the Fifth Civil Judge.
- FAMILY LAW CASES
In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court observed that "false criminal proceedings and the ordeal they cause would find no place in the harmonious relations of marriage," highlighting the severe impact of such actions on marital harmony.
The Court emphasized that filing baseless charges not only undermines the trust and respect essential in a marriage but also constitutes cruelty as per Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The division judge bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the State Human Rights Commission prima facie, may not have jurisdiction so far as custody of children is concerned, as there are specific remedies prescribed in this regard in other statutes.
- INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE
In a recent judgment, the NCLAT examined whether assessment proceedings under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act (hereinafter referred to as "EPF & MP Act") can continue during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as “CIRP”).
The Tribunal highlighted that “suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor” under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (referred to as “IBC”) cover actions impacting the debtor’s assets. This ruling addresses the admissibility of Provident Fund claims during the moratorium and post-Resolution Plan approval.
In a recent judgment, the NCLAT addressed the issue of whether an Operational Creditor’s claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act, highlighting the importance of payment acknowledgment in determining the limitation period for filing claims.
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, which allows the limitation period to be extended if certain conditions are met after a payment is made. The case involved a dispute over whether the claims of an Operational Creditor were time-barred, with the Corporate Debtor arguing that the claim was overdue according to the Limitation Act.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) recently observed, “a dissenting financial creditor would receive payment as per their entitlement... this entitlement could also be satisfied by allowing the enforcement of the security interest, up to the value receivable.”
This statement underlines the Tribunal's position on how creditors are to be paid during liquidation proceedings, emphasizing that the distribution of assets should be aligned with admitted claims rather than security interests. This important judgment follows a challenge from IDBI Bank over the asset distribution methodology adopted by the Liquidator in the case of ESS DEE Aluminium Limited, which had been admitted to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as “CIRP”) in 2020 and later ordered for liquidation in 2021.
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for timely action in corporate insolvency proceedings noting the importance of adhering to statutory remedies under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), stating, "The importance of concluding the CIRP proceedings was highlighted by this Court, on a number of occasions," and warned that "an unjustified interference with the proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, breaches the discipline of law."
This judgment arises from appeals filed against the Karnataka High Court’s intervention in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as “CIRP”) of Associate Decor Ltd. The key issue revolved around the alleged delay in filing the writ petition challenging the process and the jurisdiction of the High Court over matters already under the purview of the Adjudicating Authority.
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court addressed issues surrounding the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), particularly in the context of statutory approvals required under the Competition Act.
The Court emphasized that "the approval by the CCI is ‘mandatory’, the approval by the CCI prior to approval of CoC is ‘directory’," and further highlighted the need for a "literal interpretation" of statutory provisions, noting that "statutory enactment must ordinarily be construed according to its plain meaning." This case sheds light on the importance of compliance with both the Competition Act and the IBC during the resolution process.
In a recent ruling, the NCLAT addressed a substantial issue related to the extension of the moratorium period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Tribunal, quoting directly from the Adjudicating Authority’s earlier order, emphasized, “A fresh moratorium in terms of Section 101 of the Code shall commence as applicable… The moratorium shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of 180 days.”
The case arose when the Personal Guarantor's resolution process saw the expiration of the initial 180-day moratorium, prompting the Resolution Professional to seek an extension. The central question before the Tribunal was whether the moratorium, once expired, could be extended beyond the statutory limit under Section 101 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”).
The NCLT, in its detailed analysis, emphasized the importance of distinguishing between a debtor-creditor relationship and other types of business arrangements when considering petitions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. As noted, "the Adjudicating Authority must evaluate whether there is an Operational Debt, whether the debt is due and payable, and whether a dispute exists."
The case involved a petition filed by M/s Transline Technologies Limited (Operational Creditor) for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s Experio Tech Private Limited (Corporate Debtor). The dispute arose over unpaid dues following a series of transactions and an agreement that led the Corporate Debtor to argue the existence of a joint venture rather than a typical creditor-debtor arrangement. The Tribunal, after reviewing the nature of the agreement and the facts presented, deliberated on whether the relationship qualified under the Code.
Picture Source :
