LatestLaws.com's High Courts Yearly Digest of 2024
LatestLaws.com's Supreme Court Yearly Digest of 2024, compiled exclusively for you, contains landmark decisions on Consitution, Arbitration, Company Law, Intellectual Property Rights, Criminal Law, Marriage and Divorce laws, and much more in one place. Stay updated, Good People, with LatestLaws.com!
- ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of workers performing permanent or perennial tasks being classified as contract workers under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. The bench asserted that such tasks inherently require regular or permanent employment rather than contractual arrangements. Further, they affirmed the decision of the Industrial Tribunal and High Court, ruling in favor of non-regularized workers who were denied regularization benefits despite undertaking permanent or perennial work, such as removing spillages in railway sidings.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a bench comprising Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Hima Kohli and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Amanullah while dealing with a claim of forceful resignation by a person claiming to be a workman while performing a managerial role in the absence of power to appoint or dismiss employees held that such could not be the basis to regard someone as a ‘workman’ as per Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cautioning against the expansion of the scope of the same.
Recently, the Supreme Court addressed an appeal challenging the decision of the Allahabad High Court in a matter involving the validity of disciplinary proceedings against a government servant. The Court observed that the disciplinary inquiry violated Rule 7(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, emphasizing that recording oral evidence is mandatory in such proceedings.
The Supreme Court recently delivered a judgment regarding the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi, a former employee who sought promotion to the post of Chief Scientific Officer after his retirement. The Ld. Tribunal and High Court of Calcutta had granted him notional financial benefits for pension purposes, but the State appealed. The Court held that retrospective promotion is not possible without assuming the duties of the post, which Dr. Satpathi could not do after retirement. The Court reversed the lower court decisions, denying him the promotion benefits.
Recently, the Supreme Court addressed the case of a State Bank of India (SBI) officer who was dismissed after disciplinary proceedings were initiated post-retirement. The officer’s service was extended until 01.10.2010, after which it ended. The Court observed that disciplinary proceedings could not continue after retirement unless explicitly allowed by rules. Since no such provision existed the court quashed the dismissal order, finding it legally unsustainable.
- ARBITRATION CASES
The Supreme Court has held that the Arbitral Tribunal is required to fix a meeting for a hearing even if the parties to the proceedings do not make such a request for it is the tribunal's duty to adjudicate upon the dispute.
A division bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated that the power of Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration Act could be exercised only if for some reason the continuation of proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible. If the said powers are exercised casually it will defeat the very object of enacting the Arbitration Act.
Recently, the Supreme Court addressed whether an application under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for extending the mandate of an arbitral tribunal, can be entertained after the expiry of the stipulated period. The Court held that such an extension is permissible and clarified the scope of “sufficient cause” under the provision. It also emphasized that the judiciary has discretionary power to extend the mandate even after its termination, promoting arbitration as a mechanism for dispute resolution.
Recently, the Supreme Court addressed whether an application under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for extending the mandate of an Arbitral Tribunal can be entertained after the expiry of the stipulated period.
Apex Court held that such an extension is permissible and clarified the scope of “sufficient cause” under the provision.
SC Bench emphasized that the judiciary has discretionary power to extend the mandate even after its termination, promoting arbitration as a mechanism for dispute resolution.
A CJI-led constitution bench of the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the “group of companies” doctrine in Indian arbitration jurisprudence. This doctrine is based on the interpretation of Section 2(1)(h) along with Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Arbitration Act’). This doctrine involves the recognition that, in certain situations, entities within a corporate group can be considered as a single economic unit, and the actions or intentions of one entity may be attributed to another within the same group.
- CONSTITUTIONAL CASES
The Supreme Court held that the time spent diligently pursuing a matter before the wrong forum was bound to be excluded while computing the limitation period. The Court therefore allowed the instant appeal and restored the execution application before the Munsiff Court, to be considered afresh.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India refused to condone a delay of 12 years and 158 days since the Union of India could not prove reasonable diligence in prosecuting the matter but sought the matter to be heard for the sake of a ‘very good case on merits’.
The Division Bench of Hon’ble Justices Aniruddha Bose and JB Pardiwala remarked that “We should not keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of the respondent for an indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants.” The Court also importantly clarified that the litigant being a private party or a State or Union of India did not matter much when it came to condoning gross delay of more than 12 years.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India recently recognized the right to a healthy environment free from adverse effects of climate change as per the Constitution of India. The Bench comprising of the Chief Justice of India, Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, HMJ JB Pardiwala, and HMJ Manoj Misra recalled the Court’s decision dated 19.04.2021 in M.K. Ranjitsinh Vs. Union of India, 2021 Latest Caselaw 207 SC regarding blanket prohibition on overhead transmission lines and constituted another Expert Committee to strike a balance between environmental conservation against climate change and sustainable development.
The Supreme Court of India through the Division Bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar expounded that, the "High Court ought not to reappreciate evidence and substitute its own finding for that of the Tribunal, it would not be beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court in its power of judicial review to altogether eschew such a process".
The Supreme Court recently decided on a matter where a portion of a plot which was designated as a Panchayat Ghar was re-assigned for residential use and allotted to different individuals. After 13 years, the Tehsildar proposed for the cancellation of the allotments but the petitioners asked to decide on the issue of limitation first.
A division bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar observed that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, the statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights, and liabilities thereunder, and other relevant factors. It was held that the allotment was made based on the approval granted by the then Sub-District Magistrate and the poor rustic villagers had been residing in the buildings for several years therefore unsettling them would result in heaping injustice.
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by a woman seeking a Scheduled Caste certificate, despite her claims of being born into the Valluvan caste and following Hindu practices. The Court upheld the rejection of her application, noting that her baptism as a Christian and continued professing of Christianity disqualified her from claiming caste benefits. It ruled that caste membership, once lost through conversion, cannot be restored without genuine reconversion to Hinduism.
Recently, the Supreme Court while deciding an appeal concerning a serious crime involving a minor, where the appellant's conviction was challenged on the grounds of procedural lapses.
Apex Court observed that the trial court failed to provide the appellant with legal aid, violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which guarantee the right to a fair trial.
Supreme Court noted that the absence of legal counsel during crucial stages prejudiced the appellant’s defense. It directed remedial measures and issued guidelines to ensure adequate legal representation in future cases.
The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment, expressed deep concern over the prolonged incarceration of the appellant, noting that "If an accused is incarcerated for a period of approximately five years without even framing of charges, leave aside the right of speedy trial being affected, it would amount to imposing sentence without trial."
The Court emphasized the detrimental effect of such delays on the rights of the accused as well as the victim, pointing to systemic failures in the trial process that had led to this "sorry state of affairs." The judgment has raised significant questions about the protection of fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, particularly regarding the right to a speedy trial.
- CRIMINAL LAW CASES
The Supreme Court held that if an accused voluntarily surrenders before the court, they cannot be taken into custody, even if the court that took cognizance of the chargesheet did not issue a summoning order against them. Additionally, the court emphasized that a bail application from such an accused, who surrenders voluntarily without a summoning order, cannot be entertained. This decision came during the consideration of a petition filed by Souvik Bhattacharya, the son of TMC MLA Manik Bhattacharya, who surrendered before the trial court in January 2023 and was subsequently remanded to custody in a money laundering case.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal filed against conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act and opined that considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the evidence of recovery of the weapon at the instance of the Appellant could not be accepted as reliable. It was also ruled that the part of the statement of the Accused, which recorded that he would show the place where he had thrown the dead bodies, was not admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872.
-
- Police cannot be allowed to tutor the prosecution witness, Read Judgment
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India called for action against the erring police officials accused of tutoring prosecution witnesses in a murder case. The Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal acquitted the two murder accused while taking note of having 10 years of incarceration before being released on bail.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the degree of satisfaction that is required to exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is much stricter, considering that it is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. Only when the evidence is strong and reliable, can the power be exercised. It requires much stronger evidence than the mere probability of his complicity.
The Supreme Court, in a major ruling, expanded the scope of Pankaj Bansal(supra) to the accused arrested under UAPA as it held that the provision regarding the communication of the grounds of arrest to a person arrested contained in Section 43B(1) of the UAPA is verbatim the same as that in Section 19(1) of the PMLA. A division-judge bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta with the observation held the arrest of NewsClick Founder Prabir Purkayashtha as 'illegal' for non-supply of grounds of arrest to his Counsel.
Supreme Court in Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala v. State of Gujarat affirmed the alteration of conviction from Section 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II, IPC, observing that the entire incident occurred in the heat of the moment and that neither party could control their anger.
Apex Court further added weight to the above decision reasoning that the incident was not premeditated and that it took place inside the residence of Accused No. 1 due to a sudden quarrel and emotional upheaval between the parties.
In its recent decision, James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand, the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India held that initiating criminal proceedings for perjury requires substantial evidence of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and malafide intent.
Regarding the dispute in question, the Apex Court found that the appellant's denials in his affidavit did not meet the required threshold, thereby justifying the quashing of the perjury complaint.
Recently, the Supreme Court dealt with a writ petition which required consideration as to whether the personal bonds and sureties already executed by the petitioner in connection to one FIR shall hold good for eleven other bail orders passed in his favor from courts of different states.
Recently, the Supreme Court dealt with the applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in a case involving the admissibility of statements made by an accused in police custody. The Court clarified that only the specific portion of such statements directly linked to the discovery of evidence is admissible, while other confessional parts remain inadmissible. The Court emphasized that including inadmissible confessions in evidence could unduly influence trial courts.
Recently, the Supreme Court quashed an FIR under Sections 376, 420, 504, and 506 IPC, where the appellant was accused of sexual exploitation based on false promises of marriage. The Court observed that, "In a situation where physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because of the alleged promise made by the appellant to marry her. Thus, unless it can be shown that the physical relationship was purely because of the promise of marriage, thereby having a direct nexus with the physical relationship without being influenced by any other consideration, it cannot be said that there was vitiation of consent under the misconception of fact”.
In a recent case, the Supreme Court dealt with an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka, against the acquittal of the Respondent by the High Court, who had been convicted by the trial court for demanding and accepting a bribe. The complainant had recorded a conversation with the respondent demanding a bribe for passing a bill, leading to a trap where the respondent was caught accepting the bribe. The High Court had acquitted the respondent, but the Supreme Court, after analyzing the evidence and legal provisions, found the acquittal to be erroneous and restored the trial court’s conviction.
The Supreme Court recently observed that "prolonged delay in execution of sentence of death has a dehumanizing effect on the accused," highlighting the severe impact of such delays on the mental and physical well-being of the convicts.
The case involved two individuals sentenced to death for the 2007 murder, rape, and abduction of a woman. The Court scrutinized the inordinate delays in the execution process and examined whether these delays, including those in processing mercy petitions, violated the convicts' constitutional rights.
In a recent criminal appeal, the Supreme Court examined a critical issue concerning charges of cruelty and abetment to suicide under the Indian Penal Code. While addressing the case, the Court highlighted that "mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide,".
This came in the context of an appeal involving allegations against a husband and his in-laws for subjecting a woman to mental and physical abuse, including the sale of her streedhan. The Court examined the applicability of charges under Sections 306 (abetment to suicide) and 498A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC), raising important questions about the link between harassment and legal responsibility.
The Supreme Court recently remarked, “The debilitating impact of drug trade and drug abuse is an immediate and serious concern for India,” stressing the alarming national security challenges associated with narcotics trafficking.
The Court further noted that the State has a duty to address the root causes of this crisis, emphasizing that the "arc and web of drug trade cannot be permitted to corrode the shine of the youth of India." The case before the Court involved a challenge to the cancellation of bail granted to a petitioner accused of narcotics and weapons trafficking, with connections to cross-border drug syndicates.
"The High Court's actions in this case were both unwarranted and illegal," stated the Supreme Court in a recent judgment addressing concerns raised over the handling of bail applications by judicial officers.
SC Bench further stated that, "We must remember that when we sit in constitutional courts, even we are prone to making mistakes. Therefore, personal criticism of Judges or recording findings on the conduct of Judges in judgments must be avoided. The High Court ought to have shown restraint. The High Court cannot damage the career of a judicial officer by passing such orders. The reason is that he cannot defend himself when such orders are passed on the judicial side".
This observation came in a case where a District and Sessions Judge's bail order, which was criticized by the High Court, led to an unprecedented sequence of events involving judicial scrutiny and administrative action. The Supreme Court further emphasized that judicial officers should not be personally criticized in judgments, as it could harm their careers.
- CIVIL LAW CASES
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India clarified that the questions of title could only be determined by a civil court of competent jurisdiction.
The Division Bench of HMJ Vikram Nath and HMJ Satish Chandra Sharma further reiterated that revenue records were not documents of title and that the findings during Revenue Proceedings do not confer any rights, title, or interest.
The Supreme Court of India, through the Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, expounded that "The Power of Attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transaction cannot be examined as a witness. The functions of the General Power of Attorney holder cannot be delegated to any other person without there being a specific clause permitting such delegation in the Power of Attorney; meaning thereby ordinarily there cannot be any sub-delegation".
-
- Circumstances warranting the appointment of court receivers, Read Judgment
In a recent order, the Supreme Court granted the appeal, overturning the High Court’s appointment of a court receiver. The Court ruled that the High Court had not provided sufficient justification for the receiver, emphasizing that such an appointment requires compelling circumstances, which were absent here. The decision clarifies the legal standards for appointing court receivers.
Recently, the Supreme Court examined a legal dispute over land ownership between the Plaintiffs and the State of Haryana involving claims of adverse possession. The Plaintiffs sought possession of the land based on revenue records, while the defendants argued their continuous possession since 1879. The Court held that “the plaintiffs had established their ownership through valid evidence and ruled that the State could not claim adverse possession over private property”.
The Supreme Court recently, in a dispute over the specific performance of a property sale agreement, set aside the High Court’s decision and restored the Trial Court's ruling. The buyer had made partial payments for the property, but the sellers' failure to vacate tenants caused delays. The Court ruled that the buyer's inconsistent conduct, including financial incapacity and delay in returning a demand draft, indicated a lack of readiness to complete the transaction.
The Supreme Court ruled that the mortgage deed was a valid conditional sale under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, setting aside previous rulings.
"The validity of a consent decree depends on the legality of the agreement or compromise on which it is based."-SC
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court highlighted the need for courts to assess the legality of compromise agreements, even after a consent decree is passed. This came after the appellant sought restoration of an appeal, alleging violation of compromise terms by the respondents. The Rajasthan High Court had dismissed the plea, but the Supreme Court questioned this approach, emphasizing the statutory rights of parties in such cases.
The Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, remarked that "during the pendency of any suit involving immovable property, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with, except under the authority of the Court."
The bench further stated that "the right of redemption is available to the mortgagor unless it has been extinguished by an agreement between the parties".
This came as part of a ruling on a dispute involving the execution of a loan recovery process, highlighting the significance of court orders in property transactions and the enforcement of auction sales under the SARFAESI Act.
In a notable observation, the Supreme Court held that "the redetermination under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is available only in respect of an 'award' passed by the 'court' under Part III of the Land Acquisition Act, and the judgment of the appellate court is not within the purview of Section 28-A."
This clarification arises in the context of a case where the appellants sought enhanced compensation for land acquired for the Kundli Manesar Palwal Expressway after the High Court set aside the Land Acquisition Collector’s (LAC) order.
- FAMILY LAW CASES
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that every deceitful act is not unlawful, just as not every unlawful act is deceitful. Some acts may be termed both unlawful as well as deceitful, and such acts alone will fall within the purview of Section 420 IPC.
On the issue of forgery, the Top Court held that there are two primary components that need to be fulfilled in order to establish the offence of ‘forgery’, namely: (i) that the accused has fabricated an instrument; and (ii) it was done with the intention that the forged document would be used for the purpose of cheating. Simply put, the offence of forgery requires the preparation of a false document with the dishonest intention of causing damage or injury.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India through the Division Bench of HMJ Aniruddha Bose and HMJ Sudhanshu Dhulia held that a widow who remarried lacked rights in the property of her first husband, and the said rights could not be conveyed to another.
Recently, the Supreme Court restored the Family Court's order directing the respondent-husband to pay Rs.1,75,000/- per month as maintenance to his estranged wife, observing that the High Court erred in reducing the amount without fully considering the respondent's income and properties. The Court emphasized that the wife is entitled to the same standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage, noting that the respondent owns multiple valuable properties, earns from diverse income sources, and is the sole legal heir of his father's estate.
- INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE (IBC)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that every person who at the time of the offence was responsible for the affairs/conduct of the business of the company, shall be held liable and proceeded against under Section 138 of the NIA, with the exception thereto being that such an act, if done without his knowledge or after him having taken all necessary precautions, would not be held liable. In the present case, it was noted that there was nothing on record to indicate the complicity of Appellants in the crime. Further, cheques were dated later than the resignation date of the directors., hence criminal proceedings against Appellants were quashed.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court expounded that a holding company is not the owner of the assets of its subsidiary. Therefore, the assets of the subsidiaries cannot be included in the resolution plan of the holding company. Further, it was held that the financial creditor can always file separate applications under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) against the corporate debtor and the corporate guarantor. The applications can be filed simultaneously as well.
- NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT
The Hon’ble Supreme Court expounded that the primary liability rests on the drawer, emphasizing the drawer's responsibility for maintaining sufficient funds. Further, liability under Section 141 arises from the conduct or omission of the individual involved, not merely their position within the company.
The Court opined that the distinction between legal entities and individuals acting as authorized signatories is crucial. Authorized signatories act on behalf of the company but do not assume the company's legal identity. This principle, fundamental to corporate law, ensures that while authorized signatories can bind the company through their actions, they do not merge their legal status with that of the company.
The Bench ruled that the High Court’s decision to interpret 'drawer' strictly as the issuer of the cheque, excluding authorized signatories, is well-founded.
- TAX RELATED CASES
The Supreme Court recently ruled that under the Customs Act, the Bill of Entry for subsequent imported goods can be disregarded if they are undervalued compared to previously imported identical or similar goods. This decision affirmed the findings of the Central Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The Court cited the provision allowing for discarding the transaction value if earlier imports of identical or similar goods were made at a higher price from the same seller/exporter.
Picture Source :
