Supreme Court Digest, 16 to 30 April 2024

Stpl law

May 10, 2024
12:55 pm

Supreme Court Digest, 16 to 30 April 2024

Nominal Index

Ajay Ishwar Ghute & Ors. Vs. Meher K. Patel & Ors.
2024 STPL(Web) 306 SC: High Court jurisdiction – Construction of compound wall

Aniruddha Khanwalkar Vs. Sharmila Das & Others
2024 STPL(Web) 289 SC: Quashing set aside – Marriage fraud by wife

Association For Democratic Reforms Vs. Election Commission Of India And Another
2024 STPL(Web) 287 SC: Electronic Voting Machines – No replacement by Paper ballots

Association Of Engineers And Others Etc. Vs. State Of Tamil Nadu And Others Etc.
2024 STPL(Web) 260 SC: Service Law – Appointment

Arcadia Shipping Ltd. Vs. Tata Steel Limited And Others
2024 STPL(Web) 297 SC: Territorial Jurisdiction – Cause of Action

Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar And Others Vs. State Of Karnataka
2024 STPL(Web) 273 SC: Murder – Conviction by High Court set aside

Commissioner Of Central Excise Belapur Vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd.
2024 STPL(Web) 307 SC: Central Excise – Labelling as manufacture

Dharambir @ Dharma Vs. State of Haryana
2024 STPL(Web) 261 SC: Murder – Conviction set aside

Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan Vs. State Of Gujarat & Anr.
2024 STPL(Web) 304 SC: NDPS – Search and Seizure

Fertilizer Corporation Of India Limited & Ors. Vs. M/S Coromandal Sacks Private Limited
2024 STPL(Web) 301 SC: Sick Industry – Recovery Suit

Global Credit Capital Limited And Another Vs. Sach Marketing Pvt. Ltd. And Another
2024 STPL(Web) 300 SC: Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Financial Creditor

Govind Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs. Bank Of Baroda & Ors.
2024 STPL(Web) 277 SC: SARFAESI – Auction Sale

Hansraj Vs. State Of M.P.
2024 STPL(Web) 271 SC: Robbery – Conviction set aside

Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board Of India Vs. Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu & Ors.
2024 STPL(Web) 272 SC: Quashing of Complaint – Jurisdiction of Special Court

Jadunath Singh Vs. Arvind Kumar & Anr. Etc.
2024 STPL(Web) 276 SC: Bail – Cancelation of

Jasobanta Sahu Vs. State Of Orissa
2024 STPL(Web) 302 SC: Murder – Conviction set aside

Jyoti Devi Vs.Suket Hospital & Ors.
2024 STPL(Web) 281 SC: Medical Negligence – Compensation enhanced

Kariman Vs. State Of Chhatisgarh
2024 STPL(Web) 298 SC: Murder – offence modified

Kirpal Singh Vs. State Of Punjab
2024 STPL(Web) 265 SC: Murder – Conviction set aside

Life Insurance Corporation Of India Vs. State Of Rajasthan And Ors
2024 STPL(Web) 310 SC: Legislative Competence – Stamp Duty

Maya Gopinathan Vs. Anoop S.B. And Another
2024 STPL(Web) 299 SC: Recovery – Stridhan Property

Maneesha Yadav And Others Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
2024 STPL(Web) 295 SC: Quashing of FIR – Abuse of process of law

M/S Madura Coats Private Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise And Anr.
2024 STPL(Web) 283 SC: Central Excise – Remand Order

Mohd. Ahsan Vs. State Of Haryana
2024 STPL(Web) 285 SC: Murder – offence modified

Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley And Others
2024 STPL(Web) 267 SC: Invocation of Extraordinary Jurisdiction – Delay and Laches

Mukhtar Zaidi Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
2024 STPL(Web) 269 SC: Quashing of Summoning – Protest Petition

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Manager Vs. M/S Tata Steel Ltd.
2024 STPL(Web) 308 SC: Insurance – Interpretation of insurance policy

Parteek Bansal Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
2024 STPL(Web) 275 SC: Quashing of FIR – Quashed with Cost

Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
2024 STPL(Web) 278 SC: Excise – Application of repealed and substituted rules

Priyanka Jaiswal Vs. State Of Jharkhand And Others
2024 STPL(Web) 309 SC: Quashing of criminal proceedings – Sufficiency of complaint

Raj Reddy Kallem Vs. State Of Haryana & Anr.
2024 STPL(Web) 293 SC: Quashing – Compensatory Jurisprudence

Rehan Ahmed (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Akhtar Un Nisa (D) Thr.Lrs.
2024 STPL(Web) 280 SC: Execution – Objections

Ramayan Singh Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
2024 STPL(Web) 274 SC: Bail – Challenge to

Ramvir @ Saket Singh Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 STPL(Web) 262 SC: Murder – Conviction upheld

Sanjay Maruti Jadhav & Anr Vs. Amit Tatoba Sawant
2024 STPL(Web) 290 SC: Leave and Licence Agreement – Settlement

Sanjay Singh Vs. Directorate Of Enforcement
2024 STPL(Web) 291 SC: Bail – Money Laundering

Shivani Tyagi Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr
2024 STPL(Web) 292 SC: Suspension of sentence – Acid attack

Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi Vs. Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar And Others
2024 STPL(Web) 286 SC: Public Trusts – Change Reports

Shriram Manohar Bande Vs. Uktranti Mandal & Ors
2024 STPL(Web) 284 SC: Service Law – Acceptance of Resignation

Sanju Rajan Nayar Vs. Jayaraj & Anr.
2024 STPL(Web) 282 SC: Quashing of FIR – Set aside

Sandeep Kumar Vs. Gb Pant Institute Of Engineering And Technology Ghurdauri & Ors.
2024 Stpl(Web) 263 SC: Service Law – Termination

State Of West Bengal Vs. Jayeeta Das
2024 STPL(Web) 266 SC: UAPA – Jurisdiction of Court

State Of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Satish Jain (Dead) By Lrs & Ors.
2024 STPL(Web) 268 SC: Adverse Possession – Ownership Dispute

State Of Arunachal Pradesh Vs. Kamal Agarwal & Ors. Etc.
2024 STPL(Web) 270 SC: Territorial Jurisdiction- Misuse of Process of Law

The State Of Telangana & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) Per Lrs.
2024 STPL(Web) 264 SC: Review jurisdiction – Factual findings

State Of Odisha Vs. Nirjharini Patnaik @ Mohanty & Anr.
2024 STPL(Web) 288 SC: Quashing set aside – Forgery and Conspiracy

Suresh @ Unni @ Vadi Suresh Vs. State Of Kerala
2024 STPL(Web) 303 SC: Conviction Set aside – Identification evidence

Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj (D) Thr Lrs. Vs. Shyam Lal Chauhan & Ors.
2024 STPL(Web) 305 SC: Substitution of legal representatives – Determination of legal representatives

Wg Cdr A U Tayyaba (Retd) & Ors Vs. Union Of India & Ors.
2024 STPL(Web) 296 SC: Service Law – Pensionary Benefits

Yash Raj Films Private Limited Vs. Afreen Fatima Zaidi & Anr
2024 STPL(Web) 279 SC: Promotional trailer of Film – Deficiency of service

Yash Tuteja & Anr. Vs. Union Of India & Ors.
2024 STPL(Web) 294 SC: Quashing of Complaint – Money Laundering

Subject Index

Arbitration

Constitution of India, Article 226; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 9 – High Court jurisdiction – Construction of compound wall – Writ petition – “Minutes of Order” – Necessary parties -legality of order – The Supreme Court considered the legality of an order passed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, permitting the construction of a compound wall under police protection. The main contention revolved around whether the High Court was justified in passing such an order based on the “Minutes of Order” submitted by the advocates representing the parties, without adequately considering the rights of third parties likely to be affected by the construction.

The failure of the Division Bench of the High Court to address the concerns raised by senior district-level officials regarding the impact of the compound wall on the rights of third parties. – The illegality of the order passed in terms of the “Minutes of Order” and the necessity of remanding the matter to the High Court for proper adjudication in accordance with the law.(Para 21); Ajay Ishwar Ghute & Ors. Vs. Meher K. Patel & Ors.: 2024 STPL(Web) 306 SC

Civil

Invocation of Extraordinary Jurisdiction – Delay and Laches – Principles of Equity – Equitable Relief – The Supreme Court considered whether the writ court was justified in entertaining a writ petition challenging the approval granted for starting LPG distributorship at a certain location. The appellant and respondent both applied for LPG distributorship, and the appellant was selected through a draw of lots and granted approval by BPCL. The respondent, after a lapse of four years, raised objections regarding the land offered by the appellant, leading to litigation.The Division Bench set aside the allotment in favor of the appellant, citing violations of guidelines and retrospective application of amendments.

The Supreme Court held that delay and laches disentitled the respondent from obtaining discretionary relief.It emphasized that delay defeats equity, and the court should consider delay and laches while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226. Referring to precedents, the court highlighted that delay without adequate explanation may lead to refusal of relief, even in cases involving fundamental rights.The Supreme court reinstated the order of the Learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition due to delay and laches, thereby allowing the appeal. (Para 9, 13, and 15), Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley And Others: 2024 STPL(Web) 267 SC

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sections 89, 96, Order VII Rule 11, Order VI Rule 17 – Adverse Possession – Ownership Dispute – Ex-parte Decree – Agreement Credibility. The State of Madhya Pradesh appeals against the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment, contesting the correctness of a decision that set aside a trial court order and directed compliance with an arbitrator’s award.The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by Satish Jain (deceased) against the State and others regarding ownership of land, alleging adverse possession by defendant No.1 and subsequent transfer of rights to the plaintiff.

The trial court initially decreed the suit ex-parte in favor of the plaintiff. However, the State appealed, contesting the delay in filing the appeal, which was eventually allowed, remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

During the pendency of the suit, an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the Bhopal Municipal Corporation (BMC) regarding the disputed land’s use for constructing a bus stand.Subsequently, BMC filed an application under Section 89 CPC, seeking arbitration for settlement, which led to an arbitrator’s award.

The State objected to the award, contending that the land was still owned by the State and BMC had no authority to deal with it without State consent. The trial court accepted the State’s objections, setting aside the award. However, the High Court reversed this decision, prompting the State’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court observed that the ex-parte decree had been set aside, rendering the basis of the agreement between the plaintiff and BMC questionable. The Court ruled that BMC, as an allottee of the State, was bound to utilize the land as per its designated purpose and should have taken steps to remove the plaintiff’s unauthorized possession.

It concluded that the trial court was justified in setting aside the arbitrator’s award, and the High Court erred in not considering the relevant aspects of the case.Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and directing the trial court to proceed with the suit on its merits. (Para 7), State Of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Satish Jain (Dead) By Lrs & Ors.: 2024 STPL(Web) 268 SC

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – SARFAESI – Auction Sale – Compliance with Rules, Status of Tenants, Refund of Auction Money – The appellants, who were tenants of the property sold, were the highest bidders at the auction.

The DRT and DRAT set aside the sale due to the bank’s failure to comply with the mandatory notice requirements under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the importance of statutory compliance.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that upon setting aside the sale, the status of the appellants reverted to that of tenants, and the bank had no right to claim physical possession from them. It directed the bank to refund the auction money along with compound interest at 12% per annum to the appellants, calculated from the date of deposit.

Additionally, the Court directed the bank and the borrower to reconcile their accounts, with any surplus amount to be returned to the borrower and any remaining dues to be paid by the borrower to the bank. It ordered the bank to issue a No Dues Certificate upon settlement of accounts. (Para 12, 13, 14); Govind Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs. Bank Of Baroda & Ors. :2024 STPL(Web) 277 SC

Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 – Rule 13, 16, 9 – Excise – Application of repealed and substituted rules – Penalty – Substituted rule reduced the quantum of penalty – Principles of retrospective operation of laws – The Supreme Court considered the question of the applicability of penalty provisions under the Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996, concerning a violation occurring during the license period of 2009-10.

The issue centered around whether the penalty should be imposed based on the rule existing at the time of the violation or the rule substituted later. The Court held that the purpose of the amendment to the rule was to balance crime and punishment, emphasizing the need for a proper deterrent while avoiding disproportionate penalties.

Referring to legal precedents, the Court distinguished between the concepts of supersession and substitution of rules, affirming that substitution entails the repeal of the old rule and the introduction of a new one.

Analyzing the statutory provisions and principles of interpretation, the Court found that the substituted rule should apply to pending proceedings, ensuring uniformity and avoiding arbitrary classification of offenders.

Rejecting arguments against retrospective application, the Court clarified that the substituted rule operated retroactively, as it was made applicable to proceedings initiated after its enactment. The Court underscored the importance of interpreting laws in line with their intended purpose and objectives, emphasizing simplicity and clarity in legal processes.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, and directed imposition of penalties based on the substituted rule, emphasizing fairness and adherence to legislative intent. (Para 2.1, 12, 32, 34, 35); Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.: 2024 STPL(Web) 278 SC

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 47 – Order XXIII, Rule 3 – Execution – Objections – The present appeal challenges the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which set aside the order of the Executing Court rejecting objections under Section 47 of the CPC and declared the decree of the Trial Court as inexecutable and a nullity. The dispute arose from a compromise reached in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell property. The compromise, signed by the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1, was later verified by Defendant No. 2. The Trial Court decreed the suit based on this compromise.

However, objections to execution were raised, contesting the validity of the compromise and decree. The High Court erroneously held that the property was jointly owned, and procedural requirements were not met in verifying the compromise. The Supreme Court, after careful consideration, found that the compromise was valid, Defendant No. 1 being the sole owner, and procedural requirements were fulfilled. Previous objections raised by Defendant No. 2’s legal heir had been dismissed, rendering similar objections by another legal heir unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the Executing Court’s order and rejecting the objections under Section 47 of the CPC. (Para 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14); Rehan Ahmed (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Akhtar Un Nisa (D) Thr.Lrs. : 2024 STPL(Web) 280 SC

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 41D, 70, 70A – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Public Trusts – Change Reports – Limitation – Curable Defect – Acceptance of Change Reports in relation to the Vahiwatdar and Trustees of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi, a Public Trust, under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was challenged before the High Court. The primary contention was the delay in filing the Change Reports by the concerned parties.

The statutory provisions under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, particularly Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 govern the registration and management of public trusts, including the procedure for filing Change Reports.

The Act provides for condonation of delay in filing Change Reports, as evidenced by the addition of a proviso in Section 22(1) in 2017. This indicates that such delay is curable and does not automatically invalidate the changes in the Trust.

The High Court’s decision to attach excessive importance to the delay in submitting the Change Reports was criticized as a hyper-technical approach. The delay, being a curable defect, should not impact the validity of the changes in the Trust.

Objectors to the Change Reports, who were devotees of the Temple, had their revision regarding the registration of the Trust dismissed, indicating their lack of legitimate grievance with the succession to the post of Vahiwatdar. The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals, confirming the acceptance of Change Report Nos. 899 of 2015 and 1177 of 2017, and set aside the High Court’s judgment. (Para 19-25); Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi Vs. Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar And Others: 2024 STPL(Web) 286 SC

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Leave and Licence Agreement – Settlement – Parties to apply in two weeks if any settlement arrived – Appellants, as owners of the property, entered into a leave and licence agreement with the respondent. Allegations of illegal, unauthorized, and forceful eviction by appellants against respondent.Respondent filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, within six months of dispossession. Concurrent Findings: Trial Court and High Court concurred on the illegal dispossession of the respondent and the maintainability of the suit under Section 6 of the Act. (Para 4); Sanjay Maruti Jadhav & Anr Vs. Amit Tatoba Sawant: 2024 STPL(Web) 290 SC

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 20(c) – Territorial Jurisdiction – Cause of Action – Bill of Lading – Sale of Goods – Shipment – Joint Liability – Joined Defendants – Question of territorial jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The dispute arose from a series of transactions involving the sale and shipment of galvanized steel corrugated sheets from Delhi to Djibouti, Ethiopia, with various parties involved, including Bhushan Steel, TYO Trading, Bank of Ethiopia, and Arcadia Shipping Ltd.

The appellant, Arcadia, contested the jurisdiction of the High Court at Delhi, arguing that their involvement was restricted to the shipment from Mumbai and, therefore, Delhi lacked territorial jurisdiction. However, the Court held that the transactions were interconnected, and a part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi.

Referring to relevant provisions of the CPC, the Court emphasized the permissibility of joining multiple defendants in one suit when the relief claimed arises from the same act or transaction. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Division Bench’s decision to set aside the finding of lack of territorial jurisdiction by the Single Judge.(Para 8); Arcadia Shipping Ltd. Vs. Tata Steel Limited And Others: 2024 STPL(Web) 297 SC

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 5(7), 5(8), 5(11), 5(21) – Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Financial Creditor – The issue before the Supreme Court involved the determination of whether certain creditors qualified as financial creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), and whether the debts owed to them constituted financial debts or operational debts.

The Court reiterated that for a debt to be classified as a financial debt, it must meet the criteria of being a disbursal against the consideration for the time value of money. This criterion applies to transactions falling under categories (a) to (i) of Section 5(8) of the IBC.

In evaluating the nature of transactions and debts, the Court emphasized the importance of understanding the real essence of the agreements or arrangements involved. Mere terminology used in agreements is not conclusive; the substance of the transaction determines its classification as financial or operational debt.

The Court analyzed specific agreements between the corporate debtor and the creditors. It found that the amounts involved had the commercial effect of borrowing, meeting the conditions specified under Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC.

Furthermore, the Court examined whether the debts were connected to the provision of goods or services, a crucial factor in determining operational debts. It concluded that the debts in question did not have a significant correlation with the services rendered, thus failing to meet the criteria for operational debts.

Consequently, the Court affirmed the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) judgments, confirming the creditors as financial creditors and dismissing the appeals.(Para 13, 16, and 21); Global Credit Capital Limited And Another Vs. Sach Marketing Pvt. Ltd. And Another: 2024 STPL(Web) 300 SC

Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 – Sections 22(1) Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 – Sections 19 – Sick Industry – Recovery Suit – Maintainability – The term ‘suit for recovery’ as it appears in the said provision must be construed ejusdem generis, meaning thereby that only such a suit for recovery which is in the nature of execution or any other coercive enforcement will be suspended by the effect of the provision. There is nothing in the said provision so as to hold the legal proceedings to be not maintainable, or liable to be halted.

The suit for recovery was not of a nature which could have proved to be a threat to the properties of the defendant sick company or would have adversely impacted the scheme of revival. The suit was a simple suit for recovery of money towards the dues arising under the alleged illegal deductions under the contract. This cannot be said to be a proceeding in the nature of execution, distress or the like and hence the suit was not hit by Section 22(1) of the 1985 Act.

The adjudication and determination of a contested liability under a contract is undoubtedly the domain of the civil court or an arbitral tribunal and not that of the BIFR or the AAIFR.

By no stretch of imagination could it be said that the legislature intended to include even the proceedings for the adjudication of the liabilities not admitted by a sick company within the protective ambit of Section 22(1) of the 1985 Act.

The original plaintiff’s suit wasn’t barred by Section 22(1) of the 1985 Act, thus the decree stands valid. High Court’s award of 24% interest is maintained but calculated excluding the period of sickness under the 1985 Act.(Para 89, 96,98, 99, 104, 142, 143, 144); Fertilizer Corporation Of India Limited & Ors. Vs. M/S Coromandal Sacks Private Limited: 2024 STPL(Web) 301 SC

Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 – Sections 22(1 – Sick Industrial Company – Recovery of Money –Suspension of Legal Proceedings – Suspension of Legal Proceedings under Section 22(1) of the 1985 Act -The applicability of Section 22(1) of the 1985 Act hinges on three conditions:

I. Pending inquiry under Section 16, preparation/consideration of scheme under Section 17, or pending appeal under Section 25.

II. The nature of proceedings, including those akin to the types enumerated in the provision.

III. The proceedings threatening the assets and rehabilitation scheme of the sick company. The Court clarified that the provision doesn’t shield proceedings unrelated to rehabilitation or execution of the scheme.

The legislative intent behind Section 22(1) is to ensure expeditious revival, not absolute immunity for sick companies. (Para 67, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 108, 109, 110, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 124); Fertilizer Corporation Of India Limited & Ors. Vs. M/S Coromandal Sacks Private Limited: 2024 STPL(Web) 301 SC

Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 – Sections 4, 5, 6 – Small Scale Industry – Rate of Interest – Compound Interest, Harmonious Construction – The High Court’s award of 24% compound interest is upheld. However, interest accrual during the period of sickness under the 1985 Act is excluded. Harmonious construction of the 1985 and 1993 Acts is emphasized.(Para 125, 126, 127, 128); Fertilizer Corporation Of India Limited & Ors. Vs. M/S Coromandal Sacks Private Limited: 2024 STPL(Web) 301 SC

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 22 Rule 5 – Substitution of legal representatives – Determination of legal representatives – Limited purpose of substitution – Procedure for substitution,

The Supreme Court addressed the correct procedure for the substitution of legal representatives in appeals, emphasizing the limited purpose of substitution as conferring the right to represent the estate of the deceased in pending proceedings.

The Court clarified that the mere filing of an application for substitution does not grant the right to represent the estate until the court determines the legal representative. The decision on legal representation under Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC is solely for the limited purpose of representation in the case and does not confer any property rights.

The Court underscored the significance of proper procedure, highlighting that the appellate court may consider the findings of a subordinate court but retains discretion in determining the legal representative. In the instant case, the High Court erred in its interpretation of the rule and the previous order of the Supreme Court, failing to consider objections and pending applications. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders and remitted the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision on substitution, reiterating that the decision pertains only to procedural matters and not the merits of the claims.(Para 18); Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj (D) Thr Lrs. Vs. Shyam Lal Chauhan & Ors.: 2024 STPL(Web) 305 SC

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d), 2(1)(r) – Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section – 2(a), 2(b), 2(h) – Promotional trailer of Film – Deficiency of service – Contract – ‘Proposal’, ‘Promise’, and ‘Contract’ – The key questions involved whether promotional trailers create contractual obligations and if the absence of advertised content in the movie constitutes an unfair trade practice. The Court held that promotional trailers are unilateral advertisements and do not constitute offers, promises, or contracts enforceable by law. Therefore, discrepancies between the content of the promotional trailer and the movie do not amount to deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Additionally, the Court determined that the promotional trailer did not engage in unfair trade practices as it did not contain false representations or intend to mislead viewers. The Court emphasized the creative freedom inherent in entertainment services and distinguished the standard of judgment for such transactions. Consequently, the Court set aside National Commission findings of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, allowing the appeal.(Para 4, 14, 18, 20); Yash Raj Films Private Limited Vs. Afreen Fatima Zaidi & Anr: 2024 STPL(Web) 279 SC

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Medical Negligence – Compensation enhanced – Foreign material left in body after surgery – The Supreme Court of India in the present case dealt with an appeal arising out of a medical negligence claim under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant, Jyoti Devi, underwent an appendectomy at Suket Hospital, which resulted in persistent pain due to the presence of a foreign body (needle) in her abdomen. Despite treatment at various hospitals, her suffering continued for over five years. The District Forum awarded Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation, which was reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the State Commission but further enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/- by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The appellant appealed seeking enhancement of compensation.

The Court reiterated the principles under the Consumer Protection Act, emphasizing its benevolent purpose and the requirement to provide prompt remedies for grievances against deficient services. It outlined the elements required to establish medical negligence, emphasizing the duty of care, breach thereof, and resulting harm. The Court noted that compensation should be fair, equitable, and adequate, considering the balance of interests.

The application of the Eggshell Skull Rule was discussed, holding the wrongdoer liable for all consequences of their actions, even if the victim has a pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition. However, the Court found the application of this rule in the present case lacking, as no specific pre-existing condition was established.

The Court set aside the lower awards and restored the District Forum’s award of Rs. 5,00,000/-, emphasizing the deficient services provided by the hospital and the appellant’s prolonged suffering. Additionally, interest at 9% and litigation costs were awarded, to be paid within four weeks. (Para 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 17, 18); Jyoti Devi Vs.Suket Hospital & Ors.: 2024 STPL(Web) 281 SC

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – C – Calculation of compensation – Reinstatement Value Clause, Depreciation Basis, Calculation of Loss, Settlement of Claim, Applicability of Case Law. Appeal against Consumer National Commission order – The Supreme Court considered the interpretation of the Reinstatement Value Clause and the computation of loss on a depreciation basis under an insurance policy.

It was established that the Reinstatement Value Clause formed a part of the policy based on pleadings and other evidence. The insurer’s application of depreciation at 60% was found to be justified given the circumstances, including the failure of the insured to provide necessary documentation.

The Court rejected the insured’s argument that the base figure for computation of loss should have been higher, finding it untenable due to lack of evidence.The judgment emphasized the insurer’s obligation to pay compensation based on the policy terms and prevailing circumstances.

The applicability of a prior case law, Oswal Plastic Industries, was dismissed as the factual similarity was not established, and the argument was raised belatedly.

The Court set aside the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) order and upheld the insurer’s settlement of the claim. Consequently, the insurer’s appeal was allowed, and the insured’s appeals were dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the original complaint before the NCDRC.(Para 82); New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Manager Vs. M/S Tata Steel Ltd.: 2024 STPL(Web) 308 SC

Company

Constitutional Law

Constitution of India – Seventh Schedule – Entries 91 of List I, 63 of List II, and 44 of List III – Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952. – Legislative Competence – Stamp Duty – Insurance Policies – Applicability of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 – The Supreme Court examined the issue of whether the state of Rajasthan possesses the authority to impose and collect stamp duty on insurance policies issued within its territory.

The Court affirmed the power of the state government to levy stamp duty under the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952, rejecting contentions regarding lack of legislative competence. Analyzing the relevant constitutional provisions, the Court concluded that while the Parliament holds exclusive power to prescribe rates of stamp duty on certain instruments under Entry 91 of List I, the state legislatures have the authority to enact charging provisions under Entry 44 of List III, subject to the prescribed rates by the Parliament.

The Court clarified that the state’s power to levy stamp duty is not invalidated by its inability to prescribe rates independently. The judgment emphasized the necessity of compliance with state laws for stamp duty payment, specifying the obligation to purchase stamps issued by the state government for instruments executed within the state’s jurisdiction. Notably, the Court directed the state government not to demand stamp duty based on specific orders issued in the past. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court’s judgment while setting aside certain findings and relief granted to the appellant.(Para 38); Life Insurance Corporation Of India Vs. State Of Rajasthan And Ors: 2024 STPL(Web) 310 SC

Criminal

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Conviction set aside – Witness credibility, Extra judicial confession, Corroboration of evidence, Benefit of doubt – The Supreme Court considered the appeal challenging the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on the prosecution’s case that the appellant fatally stabbed the deceased due to suspicion of illicit relations with his wife. The Court scrutinized the evidence presented, primarily relying on the testimonies of two key witnesses, Krishan Kumar (PW-5) and Ram Kumar (PW-8), along with circumstantial evidence. However, the Court found substantial contradictions and unreliability in the testimonies of these witnesses, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case. Notably, Krishan Kumar’s (PW-5) presence at the crime scene, his version of events, and lack of corroboration raised skepticism. Similarly, the alleged extra judicial confession, pivotal to the case, lacked corroboration and faced contradiction by another witness. In light of these inconsistencies and the absence of concrete evidence, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant, granting the benefit of doubt and quashing the impugned judgments. (Para 39), Dharambir @ Dharma Vs. State of Haryana: 2024 STPL(Web) 261 SC

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – 307, 302 – Murder – Conviction upheld – Credibility of witnesses – Right of private defence – Cross-examination – Corroboration of evidence – Trivial contradictions – Benefit of doubt. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of Kaptan Singh and the attempted murder of Indal Singh (PW-12). The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC. The Court found the prosecution witnesses, Raj Kumari (PW-7) and Indal Singh (PW-12), to be credible, noting that their presence at the crime scene was not disputed. The Court also held that the injuries caused to the deceased’s companions were explained by the prosecution’s evidence, establishing the right of private defence. Trivial contradictions and the plea of alibi raised by the appellant were dismissed as insubstantial. The Court affirmed the judgments of the trial Court and the High Court, concluding that the appeal lacked merit.(Para 16, 17, 18, 25, and 28), Ramvir @ Saket Singh Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh: 2024 STPL(Web) 262 SC

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302, 307, 34 –Murder – Conviction set aside – Credibility of Witnesses – Benefit of Doubt.The prosecution’s case primarily relied on the testimonies of Sharan Kaur (PW-5) and her son, Daljit Singh (PW-6), the first informant and an eyewitness respectively. However, the Supreme Court found serious discrepancies and contradictions in their testimonies, leading to doubts about their credibility.

The prosecution failed to provide substantial corroborative evidence to support their testimonies, particularly regarding the motive attributed to the accused. The conduct of the first informant during the investigation, including filing petitions alleging biased investigation, raised further doubts about her reliability. Notably, no weapon of crime was recovered from the appellant, weakening the prosecution’s case.

Considering these factors, the court concluded that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was wholly unreliable and did not inspire confidence.Therefore, the appellant was acquitted of all charges, and the judgments of the trial court and the High Court were set aside. (Para 16, 32), Kirpal Singh Vs. State Of Punjab: 2024 STPL(Web) 265 SC

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 121A, 122, 123, 124A, 120B – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Sections 16, 18, 18B, 20, 38 and 39 – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Section 16, 22 – UAPA – Jurisdiction of Court – The Supreme Court held that until a Special Court is constituted by the State Government under Section 22(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the Court of Sessions within whose jurisdiction the offence has been committed retains jurisdiction to try offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) as per Section 22(3) of the NIA Act. The Court emphasized that the definition of ‘Court’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the UAPA includes both a normal criminal court and a Special Court constituted under the NIA Act. Therefore, the Sessions Court had jurisdiction to permit the addition of UAPA offences to the case and extend the remand of the accused beyond 90 days. However, any extension of remand beyond 90 days without express authorization would be illegal.

The Court further noted that while the charge sheet was filed beyond the extended period of 90 days, the accused did not claim default bail, leaving the issue of the effect of evidence collected during the extended remand to be raised at the trial stage. (Para 23, 30, 37), State Of West Bengal Vs. Jayeeta Das: 2024 STPL(Web) 266 SC

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 482, 173(2), 190(1)(b), 200, 202 – Quashing of Summoning – Protest Petition – The appeal challenges the Allahabad High Court’s order dismissing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash a summoning order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in a criminal case.

The CJM rejected the police report and took cognizance of offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on a protest petition and supporting affidavits filed by the informant.

The appellant contended that the CJM erred in treating the case as a State case under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C., arguing that the petition and affidavits should have been treated as a private complaint under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C.

The State and respondent no.2 argued that the CJM relied solely on the material collected during the investigation and not on additional evidence provided with the protest petition.

The Supreme Court observed that the CJM considered both the protest petition and the supporting affidavits while rejecting the police report and taking cognizance. Referring to the legal position outlined in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court held that when a protest petition contains affidavits and other evidence, the Magistrate should treat it as a complaint and follow the procedure under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the CJM, and directed the Magistrate to treat the protest petition as a complaint and proceed according to law.(Para 11), Mukhtar Zaidi Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.: 2024 STPL(Web) 269 SC

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420/120B/34 – Territorial Jurisdiction- Misuse of Process of Law – Civil Dispute; Quashing of FIR – The Supreme Court addressed appeals arising from a First Information Report (FIR) filed under sections 420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at Police Station Pasi Ghat, District Siang East, Arunachal Pradesh. The FIR was related to the alleged non-execution of a land sale deed despite the transfer of funds. Multiple accused, including Chand Mohan Badaya and others, challenged the FIR’s validity before the Gauhati and Rajasthan High Courts. While the Gauhati High Court dismissed the petitions, the Rajasthan High Court quashed the proceedings, highlighting the lack of territorial jurisdiction. The State of Arunachal Pradesh appealed against the Rajasthan High Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court observed that the matter primarily pertained to a civil dispute, involving the transfer of funds without a clear written agreement regarding its purpose. The absence of a documented agreement raised doubts about whether the funds were intended as a loan or an advance for property purchase. The Court noted that the FIR did not disclose a cognizable offense and the alleged dispute appeared to be of a civil nature. Moreover, it found no part of the cause of action within Arunachal Pradesh, making the FIR’s registration in that state untenable.

Considering these factors, the Court quashed the FIR and the consequential proceedings initiated in Arunachal Pradesh. It further noted the complainant’s absence in challenging the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, emphasizing the civil nature of the dispute. The Court also declined to disturb the findings in favor of other respondents, affirming the Rajasthan High Court’s decision. Consequently, it set aside the Gauhati High Court’s order while dismissing the State of Arunachal Pradesh’s appeals. (Para 12, 16), State Of Arunachal Pradesh Vs. Kamal Agarwal & Ors. Etc.: 2024 STPL(Web) 270 SC

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 394, 397 – Robbery – Conviction set aside – Prosecution Evidence – Disclosure Statement – The Supreme Court adjudicated on a criminal appeal arising from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirming the appellant’s conviction under Sections 394 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellant, Hansraj, was accused of snatching jewelry from the complainant and convicted by the trial court based on the recovery of the stolen articles. However, the Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and found serious lapses in the prosecution’s case.

The prosecution’s case relied heavily on a disclosure statement allegedly made by the accused, leading to the recovery of the stolen jewelry. However, the Investigating Officer failed to properly prove the disclosure memo as required by law. Moreover, the recovery process lacked procedural adherence, with no evidence of proper sealing or secure storage of the recovered articles. Additionally, the complainant’s identification of the recovered items was influenced by police officials, casting doubt on its reliability.

Considering these deficiencies, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the Court allowed the appeal, quashing the judgments of both the trial court and the High Court. The appellant was acquitted of all charges. (Para 14, 16), Hansraj Vs. State Of M.P.: 2024 STPL(Web) 271 SC

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 – Section 73(a), 235A – Quashing of Complaint – Jurisdiction of Special Court – The primary issue was whether the offenses under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code should be tried by a Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013, as it existed when the Code came into effect, or as per subsequent amendments.

The Supreme Court analyzed whether the reference to the Special Court in Section 236(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was a ‘legislation by incorporation’ or a ‘legislation by reference.’ It referred to legal principles and precedents to determine the nature of the reference.

The Court held that the reference in Section 236(1) of the Code was specific, indicating ‘legislation by incorporation.’ Therefore, subsequent amendments to the Companies Act would not affect the jurisdiction of the Special Court as specified at the time of the Code’s enactment.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. It held that a Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge would have jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.(Para 41 to 49), Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board Of India Vs. Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu & Ors. 2024 STPL(Web) 272 SC

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(2), 302 read with Section 149 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Murder – Conviction by High Court set aside – Acquittal, Interference, Disclosures – Recoveries – The Supreme Court of India reiterates the principles governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused by the trial Court. Emphasizing the plenitude of the appellate court’s powers, it underscores the necessity of adherence to established legal principles. Referring to previous judgments, it elucidates the conditions under which an appellate court can overturn an order of acquittal, highlighting the double presumption in favor of the accused.

The Court evaluates the evidence presented, noting inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s case. It highlights discrepancies in witness testimonies, particularly regarding the timing and circumstances of the incident. Concerns are raised regarding the authenticity of the FIR, with the absence of crucial entries in the police station’s records casting doubt on its veracity.

Furthermore, the Court scrutinizes the procedure followed in the recovery of weapons allegedly used in the crime, emphasizing the requirements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It finds deficiencies in the prosecution’s evidence, rendering the recoveries unreliable.

Ultimately, the Court concludes that the trial Court’s acquittal was well-reasoned and justified, devoid of any infirmity or perversity. Consequently, the High Court’s judgment reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused is overturned, and the accused appellants are acquitted of all charges. (Para 35, 36, 37, 41, 51, 59, 66, 73); Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar And Others Vs. State Of Karnataka: 2024 STPL(Web) 273 SC

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302- Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Bail – Challenge to – Bail cancelled – The appellants sought to contest the correctness of the High Court’s orders granting bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellants were charged with various offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including murder, based on the allegations made in the FIR filed by the original complainant, Ramayan Singh.

The incident involved a brutal attack on the deceased, Jitendra Singh, by the accused persons, resulting in his death. Despite charges being framed and evidence indicating the seriousness of the crime, the High Court granted bail to the accused. The Supreme Court analyzed the parameters for granting bail, emphasizing the need for judicious exercise of discretion by the High Court.

Referring to precedents, the Court highlighted the factors to be considered while granting bail, such as the nature of the offense, the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses, and the public interest in administering justice. Considering the seriousness of the offense, the conduct of the accused, and the impact of the crime on society, the Court concluded that the High Court’s decision to grant bail was erroneous.

Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the bail orders and directing the accused persons to be taken into custody. The Trial Court was instructed to expedite the trial, aiming for completion within one year. The Court clarified that its observations in the judgment should not be construed as a reflection on the merits of the case. (Para 14, 20), Ramayan Singh Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.: 2024 STPL(Web) 274 SC

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A, 406, 384, 420 – Quashing of FIR – Quashed with Cost – Territorial Jurisdiction – Consecutive complaints – Abuse of Process of Law – Misuse of Official Position – The appellant contended that the FIR was a second complaint on the same allegations, following an earlier FIR lodged at Hisar, Haryana. The appellant’s engagement and subsequent marriage to respondent No.3, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, led to disputes resulting in complaints filed in both Hisar and Udaipur. Despite an acquittal in Hisar, the Udaipur FIR persisted, prompting the appellant to challenge its validity.

The Court noted the sequence of events, emphasizing the abuse of process by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who filed consecutive complaints without withdrawing the initial one. Despite being aware of the proceedings in Hisar, they allowed the investigation to proceed, leading to wastage of judicial time. The Court found errors in the High Court’s reasoning regarding the sequence and awareness of complaints.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, quashing the impugned order and FIR No. 156 of 2015. It imposed a cost of Rs. 5,00,000 on respondent No.2 to compensate the appellant for the misuse of the state machinery and harassment caused. Half of the cost was directed to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, while the remaining half was awarded to the appellant. (Para 7, 12), Parteek Bansal Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2024 STPL(Web) 275 SC

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302, 149 – Bail – Cancelation of – Prolonged Incarceration – Parity – The Supreme Court examined a series of criminal appeals arising from a common order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to three appellants who were convicted of serious offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellants had sought bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and parity with co-accused granted bail.

The case stemmed from an incident where the appellants, along with others, were convicted for offenses including murder under Section 302/149 of IPC. The appellant, Jadunath Singh, challenged the bail granted to the accused, highlighting their involvement in multiple criminal cases, including the murder of a police constable during trial proceedings.

The Court noted that while considering bail, the High Court did not have crucial information regarding the accused’s involvement in another murder case and their subsequent conduct. It emphasized the distinction between the roles and conduct of the co-accused, Adesh Kumar and Pramod Kashyap, who were granted bail, and the appellants, Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar, who were involved in the murder of a police constable and resisted arrest.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal against Arvind Kumar, who was not charge-sheeted in the murder case, and allowed the appeals against Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar, setting aside the bail granted to them. It directed the latter to surrender within two weeks, failing which coercive measures would be taken for their custody. (Para 10, 13, 14), Jadunath Singh Vs. Arvind Kumar & Anr. Etc.: 2024 STPL(Web) 276 SC

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7(a) – Quashing of FIR – Set aside – Allegations of corruption, Exoneration in Departmental proceedings, – Quashing of an FIR by the High Court – The FIR, filed under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was based on allegations against the respondents regarding demand for bribe. The High Court had quashed the FIR, observing a lack of direct evidence of bribery and considering the exoneration of one of the accused in departmental proceedings. However, the Supreme Court found this decision legally unsustainable, noting that crucial evidence, including a pendrive, indicated the respondent’s potential involvement. Moreover, the Court emphasized that the exoneration in departmental proceedings did not preclude criminal prosecution, as established by precedent. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the FIR for further legal proceedings.(Para 7, 8, and 10); Sanju Rajan Nayar Vs. Jayaraj & Anr.: 2024 STPL(Web) 282 SC

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302, 304 Part I – Murder – offence modified – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Sudden Fight – Heat of Passion – Alteration of Conviction

The incident in question arose out of a sudden fight at a dhaba, leading to the death of one Vikrant @ Chintu. The prosecution argued for the maintenance of the conviction under Section 302 IPC, while the appellant contended that the case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, warranting a reduced charge.

The Court observed that the incident occurred without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and upon a sudden quarrel. There was no evidence to suggest that the appellant had acted with cruelty or unusual brutality. Consequently, the Court found that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

Thus, the Court partially allowed the appeal and altered the appellant’s conviction to one under Part I of Section 304 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for eight years and fined Rs. 5,000, with a default provision of three months’ further imprisonment in case of non-payment. The Court also directed the set-off of the period spent by the appellant in custody against the imposed sentence. (Para 4, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15); Mohd. Ahsan Vs. State Of Haryana: 2024 STPL(Web) 285 SC

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Quashing set aside – Forgery and Conspiracy – Conspiracy – Government Land -Fraudulent Transactions – Misappropriation – State appeals against the High Court’s quashing of charges under various sections of IPC related to forgery and conspiracy in the illegal transfer of government land. Accused allegedly used forged documents and manipulated legal processes to acquire government land at undervalued rates.

Accused, including respondents, are accused of misusing powers and authority to facilitate fraudulent land transactions, causing losses to the public exchequer.

Supreme Court finds sufficient evidence of a conspiracy involving respondents, warranting further examination in trial court. Quash set aside. (Para 5); State Of Odisha Vs. Nirjharini Patnaik @ Mohanty & Anr.: 2024 STPL(Web) 288 SC

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 3 and 4 – Bail – Money Laundering – Concession by Directorate of Enforcement – Appellant released on bail – The respondent, Directorate of Enforcement, conceded to the release of the appellant, Sanjay Singh, on bail during the pendency of proceedings related to offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The concession, made before the commencement of arguments, led to the appellant’s release on bail, subject to terms and conditions to be determined by the trial Court. Importantly, the Court clarified that this concession would not set a precedent and abstained from commenting on the case’s merits. (Para 2); Sanjay Singh Vs. Directorate Of Enforcement: 2024 STPL(Web) 291 SC

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 389 – Suspension of sentence – Acid attack – Non-application of mind – relevant factors – Seriousness of offense. The Supreme Court considered quintuplet appeals where the victim of an acid attack challenged the suspension of sentence of life imprisonment of the convicted persons and their consequential enlargement on bail. The Court emphasized the importance of Section 389 Cr.PC, which requires careful consideration and recording of reasons for the suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal.

The Court cited various precedents highlighting that suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be routine matters but should be based on objective assessment and consideration of relevant factors.

It was observed that in cases involving serious offenses like acid attacks, the nature of the offense, severity of punishment, and other relevant factors must be carefully considered before suspending the sentence and granting bail.

The impugned judgment, in this case, was found to be infected with non-application of mind and failure to consider the seriousness of the offense. The Court held that the offer of compensation and the delay in appeal listing cannot be the sole grounds for granting bail in such cases.

Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and bail granted to the private respondents was cancelled. The appellants were directed to surrender before the trial court within four days for committal to judicial custody, failing which the private respondents would be rearrested and committed to custody.(Para 13); Shivani Tyagi Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr: 2024 STPL(Web) 292 SC

Suspension of sentence in heinous crimes – Validity of offering compensation for suspension of sentence – Suspension of Sentence – Acid Attack – Victim Compensation – Validity of Offer, Bail Cancellation – Blood Money – Criminal Justice System – The case pertains to the suspension of sentence in an acid attack case, where the victim suffered severe disfigurement. The High Court initially directed suspension of sentence based on an offer of compensation made by the convicts, but the victim refused to accept it.

The convicts offered compensation to the victim as a condition for suspension of sentence. However, the victim’s refusal to accept the compensation raised questions about the validity of such an offer. The court noted that offering compensation, akin to “Blood Money,” for suspension of sentence is not acceptable in the criminal justice system.

The court emphasized the importance of considering supervening circumstances for the cancellation of bail. It cited precedents outlining the grounds for bail cancellation, including misuse of bail, tampering with evidence, or threat to witnesses. The High Court’s decision to grant bail based solely on the offer of compensation was criticized for not considering relevant factors.(Para 27); Shivani Tyagi Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr: 2024 STPL(Web) 292 SC

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 3, 44(1)(b) – Quashing of Complaint – Money Laundering – Scheduled Offences – Prima Facie Case – Special Court’s Jurisdiction – Proceedings under PMLA – Supreme Court considered challenges to a complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

The Court emphasized that for an offence to fall under the PMLA, it must be linked to scheduled offences. Notably, it was highlighted that if no scheduled offence is established, there can be no proceeds of crime, thereby negating the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA.

The Court elucidated the jurisdiction of the Special Court under the PMLA and emphasized the applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in determining the prima facie case. Ultimately, the Court quashed the complaint against certain petitioners where no scheduled offences were established, while reserving rights and contentions for future proceedings.(Para 2); Yash Tuteja & Anr. Vs. Union Of India & Ors.: 2024 STPL(Web) 294 SC

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504 and 506 – Quashing of FIR – Abuse of process of law, Jurisdiction of High Court, Allegations in FIR – The appellants were implicated in an FIR alleging offences under various sections of the IPC, arising from unauthorized admissions in an educational institute. They are relatives of management or employee of organisation.

The Court emphasized that at the stage of quashing proceedings, the allegations in the FIR must disclose the commission of an offence against the accused. Merely being relatives of the institute’s management does not justify the continuation of criminal proceedings unless their active involvement or complicity is demonstrated.

The Court cited the principles laid down in the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, categorizing instances where the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised.

Referring to precedent, the Court reiterated that the power to quash proceedings is not restricted to the FIR stage but can be invoked even after the filing of a charge-sheet.

The Court found the High Court’s dismissal of the petitions without considering the merits of the allegations to be an abdication of its jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned orders of the High Court were quashed, and the FIRs against the appellants were set aside, preventing undue harassment and abuse of the legal process.(Para 18); Maneesha Yadav And Others Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another: 2024 STPL(Web) 295 SC

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302, 304 Part II – Murder – offence modified – Culpable Homicide – Intention to Cause Death – The appeal stemmed from the rejection of the appellant’s appeal against a c onviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), for the alleged murder of his second wife. Held: The accused can at best be attributed with the knowledge that the injury of the nature which he inflicted was likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. Thus, the act of the accused is covered under Part II of Section 304 IPC – The Court modified the appellant’s conviction to Part II of Section 304 of the IPC, reducing the sentence to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. Due to the appellant’s significant time served in custody, no fine was imposed, and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith unless required in another case.(Para 19, 21, 23); Kariman Vs. State Of Chhatisgarh: 2024 STPL(Web) 298 SC

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Conviction set aside – Eyewitness testimony – Extra-judicial confession, – Circumstantial evidence – Recovery of weapon – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – The appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, affirmed by the High Court, for the murder of Laxminarayan Sahu.

The prosecution alleged strained relations between the appellant and the deceased over property disputes, leading to the fatal stabbing of the deceased by the appellant. Witnesses PW1 and PW2 claimed to have witnessed the incident, but inconsistencies and doubts were raised regarding their credibility and the voluntariness of their statements. Additional evidence, including an extra-judicial confession and the recovery of the weapon, was also contested for reliability and sufficiency.

The Court, after careful examination, concluded that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant and quashing of the conviction and sentence.(Para 28): Jasobanta Sahu Vs. State Of Orissa: 2024 STPL(Web) 302 SC

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – 302, 307,143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 427 , 449 , 149 – Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Section 3(a) and 4(a)(i) – Arms Act, 1958 – Section 27(1) – Conviction Set aside – Identification evidence – Motive – Circumstantial evidence – recovery of weapon – Credibility of witnesses – Reasonable doubt – Acquittal. The Supreme Court, in a criminal appeal arising from the High Court of Kerala, examined the validity of the conviction of the appellant under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Arms Act, 1958, and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The appellant, Suresh @ Unni @ Vadi Suresh, was convicted for his alleged involvement in an incident where an unlawful assembly attacked a video shop resulting in the death of an individual. The High Court had partly allowed the appeal, setting aside some convictions while confirming others and modifying sentences.

Upon scrutinizing the evidence, the Court observed that while the prosecution relied on testimonies of witnesses, including injured eyewitnesses, the identification of the appellant occurred for the first time in court after a considerable time had passed since the incident. Furthermore, discrepancies in the descriptions of the appellant in charge-sheets raised doubts about the reliability of the identification. Additionally, the recovery of a weapon after a substantial period and under questionable circumstances cast doubt on its credibility. The Court highlighted the absence of a clear motive attributed to the appellant, further weakening the prosecution’s case.

Emphasizing the importance of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant’s involvement conclusively. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, quashing the judgments of both the trial court and the High Court, and acquitted the appellant of all charges, directing his immediate release if not required in any other case.(Para 19); Suresh @ Unni @ Vadi Suresh Vs. State Of Kerala: 2024 STPL(Web) 303 SC

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 8(c), 21, 29, 42(2), 50, 67 – NDPS – Search and Seizure, Secret Information, Panch Witness, Confessional Statement, Identification Parade, Admissibility of Evidence, Conviction, Acquittal – The appellants contested the validity of the conviction based on various grounds including non-compliance with procedural mandates, lack of independent witnesses, and unreliable evidence.

The Court examined the procedures followed during search and seizure, adherence to Section 42 and Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and the admissibility of confessional statements under Section 67. It observed that while the conviction of Anwarkhan(A-1) was supported by evidence establishing the seizure of contraband from his possession, the case against Firdoskhan(A-2) lacked substantial evidence and suffered from discrepancies in identification and procedural irregularities. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal of Anwarkhan(A-1) and upheld his conviction, while allowing the appeal of Firdoskhan(A-2) and acquitting him of all charges.(Para 16, 17, 19, 20, 25, 28, 30); Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan Vs. State Of Gujarat & Anr.: 2024 STPL(Web) 304 SC

Indian Penal Code, Section 323, 498A, 504, 506 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 41A, 482 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Sufficiency of complaint – The Supreme Court examined the appeal challenging the High Court’s order quashing proceedings against certain respondents accused of offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.The complaint alleged harassment related to dowry demands against the mother-in-law, father-in-law, and husband (respondent Nos. 3, 4, and 8), presenting specific incidents supporting the claims.

The High Court quashed the proceedings based on alleged violations of due process, lack of territorial jurisdiction, and omnibus nature of the allegations. The Supreme Court emphasized that at the stage of quashing, the court cannot engage in a mini-trial or evaluate the evidence’s credibility.

Examining the complaint’s contents, the Court found specific allegations against respondent Nos. 3, 4, and 8, rejecting the High Court’s decision to quash the proceedings against them.

However, the allegations against respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were found to be vague and lacking specific details, justifying the High Court’s decision to quash the proceedings against them.

Regarding territorial jurisdiction, the Court noted that the complaint indicated the appellant’s residence in Jamshedpur, thereby establishing the court’s jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the quashing order against respondent Nos. 3, 4, and 8, while affirming the order against respondent Nos. 5 to 7.(12, 14, and 17); Priyanka Jaiswal Vs. State Of Jharkhand And Others: 2024 STPL(Web) 309 SC

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 420, 120B – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 11- Quashing set aside – Marriage fraud by wife – Appellant challenges the quashing of summoning orders against respondents for offenses under IPC sections 420 and 120-B, alleging marriage fraud and false representation. Appellant alleges that respondent No. 1 concealed her previous marriage and induced him into marriage by showing a forged divorce decree. Allegations of conspiracy between respondents to deceive and induce appellant into marriage and financial transactions. Court finds that based on appellant’s complaint and evidence, a prima facie case exists warranting trial against respondents. Quashing set aside. (Para 14); Aniruddha Khanwalkar Vs. Sharmila Das & Others: 2024 STPL(Web) 289 SC

Dishonour of Cheque

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 420, 120B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 156(3), 482 – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Quashing – Compensatory Jurisprudence – Consent of Parties – The appellant, who was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, failed to meet the deadlines stipulated in a settlement agreement reached with the complainant, resulting in the frustrated settlement. Despite subsequent efforts to pay back the amount and the interest, the complainant resisted compounding the offence.

The Supreme Court observed that while Section 138 of the NI Act makes offences compoundable, the consent of the aggrieved party is crucial. Compounding is favored at initial stages but can be sought even after conviction. However, the court cannot compel the complainant to consent to compounding.

Quashing of a case differs from compounding, the former being a judicial act while the latter depends on the consent of the injured party. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Court quashed all criminal proceedings against the appellant and set aside the conviction and sentence. The trial court was directed to hand over the deposited Rs Thirty Lacs amount to the complainant. (Para 14); Raj Reddy Kallem Vs. State Of Haryana & Anr.: 2024 STPL(Web) 293 SC

Election

Electronic Voting Machines – No replacement by Paper ballots – The petitioners do not allege any malice towards the Election Commission of India or manipulation of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), but raise concerns about the possibility of tampering. Arguments presented include suggestions for the return to paper ballots, increased verification of VVPAT slips, and 100% counting of VVPAT slips alongside electronic counting.

The judgment extensively examines the procedures outlined in the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, regarding the preparation, voting process, and counting of votes using EVMs and VVPATs. Detailed scrutiny of the safeguards and protocols surrounding EVMs and VVPATs is conducted, including checks on the firmware and the performance data of EVMs.

The Court emphasizes the importance of evidence-based decisions and cautions against unfounded doubts that may undermine confidence in the electoral process. Rejects calls to return to paper ballots, citing the advantages of EVMs in eliminating malpractices and expediting the counting process.

Issues directions to further enhance the integrity of the electoral process, including sealing and securing symbol loading units and verifying burnt memory/microcontrollers in a percentage of EVMs post-election. (Para 42, 76)

Electronic Voting Machines No fault in using – The judgment delves into the intricacies of the challenge against the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system.

The petitioners raised concerns about the reliability and susceptibility to manipulation of EVMs, advocating for a return to the paper ballot system. However, the court observes that such a demand lacks merit and is aimed at discrediting the electoral process, thus casting doubts on the bona fides of the petitioners.

While acknowledging the importance of safeguarding the sanctity of the electoral process, the court emphasizes the need for transparency and accountability in the conduct of elections. It underscores the existing legal framework, including provisions for election petitions, to address any concerns regarding the integrity of the electoral process.

Highlighting the unique challenges posed by the vast electorate and diverse geography of India, the judgment underscores the significance of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in ensuring democratic principles and upholding electoral integrity.

The judgment addresses the petitioners’ contentions regarding the right of voters to know that their votes are accurately recorded and counted. It elucidates the procedures in place, including VVPAT slips verification and legal remedies, to uphold this right within the framework of free and fair elections.

The court scrutinizes the maintainability of the writ petitions, emphasizing the need for credible evidence to substantiate claims of infringement of rights. It discusses the principles of res judicata and underscores the importance of presenting new grounds distinct from previous litigation to avoid redundancy in legal disputes.

While recognizing the importance of judicial intervention in matters of public interest, the judgment cautions against frivolous litigation based on mere suspicions and conjectures. It calls for a balanced approach guided by evidence and reason to ensure the credibility and effectiveness of the electoral system. Writ petition dismissed.(Para 1, 35, ); Association For Democratic Reforms Vs. Election Commission Of India And Another: 2024 STPL(Web) 287 SC

Family

Recovery – Stridhan Property – Evidence – In this matrimonial appeal, the Supreme Court revisited the principles governing disputes regarding stridhan property and misappropriation thereof in the context of matrimonial discord. The appellant alleged that the respondents misappropriated her gold jewelry, constituting her stridhan, which she entrusted to them for safekeeping. The Family Court found merit in the appellant’s claims, based on corroborative evidence and the respondents’ admissions. However, the High Court, in exercising its appellate jurisdiction, arrived at a contradictory conclusion, dismissing the appellant’s claims.

Upon thorough examination of the evidence and legal principles, the Supreme Court held that the High Court’s judgment lacked legal foundation. The Court criticized the High Court’s approach, which demanded a standard of proof akin to criminal trials, and based its findings on assumptions rather than evidence. The Court emphasized the importance of appreciating evidence in matrimonial disputes with due regard to the complexities of marital relationships and societal norms.

Crucially, the Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s skepticism towards the appellant’s claims due to a perceived delay in initiating legal proceedings, highlighting the societal pressures and complexities surrounding matrimonial disputes.

The Court also rebuffed the High Court’s emphasis on documentary evidence to prove the acquisition of stridhan property, stating that such a requirement was unwarranted in the absence of criminal charges. Instead, the Court emphasized the importance of considering the surrounding circumstances and probabilities.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court found flaws in the High Court’s analysis of photographic evidence and its failure to appreciate the appellant’s version of events. It upheld the Family Court’s findings and concluded that the appellant had established a stronger and more credible case.

Considering the prolonged legal battle and the escalation in the cost of living, the Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to award Rs Twenty Five Lacs as compensation to the appellant, ensuring her financial security and well-being.(Para 21, 25, 27, 29, 35); Maya Gopinathan Vs. Anoop S.B. And Another: 2024 STPL(Web) 299 SC

Insurance

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Insurance – Interpretation of insurance policy – Calculation of compensation – Reinstatement Value Clause, Depreciation Basis, Calculation of Loss, Settlement of Claim, Applicability of Case Law. Appeal against Consumer National Commission order – The Supreme Court considered the interpretation of the Reinstatement Value Clause and the computation of loss on a depreciation basis under an insurance policy.

The applicability of a prior case law, Oswal Plastic Industries, was dismissed as the factual similarity was not established, and the argument was raised belatedly.

Limitation

Practice and Procedure

Forest Conservation Act, 1980 – Review jurisdiction – Factual findings – Jurisdictional error – Forest land – The Supreme Court addressed the review of a well-merited judgment by the High Court in a case involving forest land. Despite clear findings and concluded proceedings, the High Court entertained additional evidence post-decree, leading to a reversal of earlier judgments. The Court highlighted the lack of jurisdiction in reconsidering matters already decided and criticized the interference in settled issues. Additionally, the Court noted errors in jurisdictional matters and the failure to challenge proceedings under the Forest Act. The judgment was set aside, costs were imposed on both parties, and an inquiry into collusive affidavits was directed.(Para 54, 56, and 59), The State Of Telangana & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) Per Lrs.: 2024 STPL(Web) 264 SC

Service Law

Service Law – Appointment – The dispute revolved around the appointment of Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers in the Public Works Department (PWD) of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The appellants challenged these appointments on various grounds, including violation of statutory rules, the right to equality, and efficiency in public administration under the Constitution of India.

The Madras High Court, while referring to Government Order (G.O.) No. 1, upheld the eligibility of Technical Assistants for appointment as Assistant Engineers, dismissing the appellants’ contentions. Additionally, it noted that Technical Assistants’ services had been regularized as per G.O. Ms. No. 155 dated 13th August 2015.

The Supreme Court rejected the appellants’ arguments, emphasizing that Technical Assistants were entitled to be considered for appointment as Assistant Engineers based on their qualifications and service criteria specified in G.O. No. 1. The Court also highlighted that the continued employment of Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers did not violate the quota for directly recruited Assistant Engineers.

Moreover, the Court declined to interfere with the settled position prevailing for nearly 18 years, stating that such interference would be inequitable. It cited precedents to support its discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution and dismissed the appeals.

In another set of appeals, the Court allowed remand of certain matters to the Madras High Court for reconsideration, as the parties agreed that the earlier decisions lacked proper consideration of facts and submissions. (Para 16), Association Of Engineers And Others Etc. Vs. State Of Tamil Nadu And Others Etc., 2024 STPL(Web) 260 SC

Service Law – Termination -Non-disclosure of material facts -The Supreme Court allowed the appeals against judgments of the Uttarakhand High Court, which dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the termination of his services as Registrar of G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology. The High Court held that the appellant’s failure to produce minutes of a specific meeting constituted suppression of material facts.

However, the Supreme Court observed that the appellant had indeed submitted the relevant minutes, which contradicted the reasons for termination cited by the institute. The Court found the termination without holding a disciplinary enquiry to be unjustified and a violation of principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned judgments and reinstated the appellant as Registrar, with entitlement to all consequential benefits. The institute was given the option to conduct disciplinary proceedings if desired. (Para 12, 14, 18, and 20), Sandeep Kumar Vs. Gb Pant Institute Of Engineering And Technology Ghurdauri & Ors. : 2024 Stpl(Web) 263 SC

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 – Section 7 – Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation – Rule 40 – Service Law – Acceptance of Resignation – Communication – MEPS Act and Rules do not stipulate the resignation would come into effect only after its acceptance is communicated to an employee.

The appellant, an Assistant Teacher, tendered his resignation from Vasantrao Naik High School but later withdrew it. The school, however, terminated his services. The dispute reached the Tribunal, which set aside the termination, ruling it unlawful. The High Court overturned this decision, stating compliance with the MEPS Act and Rules. The Supreme Court, upon thorough analysis, upheld the High Court’s decision, finding no merit in the appellant’s claims.(Para 13, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, and 24); Shriram Manohar Bande Vs. Uktranti Mandal & Ors.: 2024 STPL(Web) 284 SC

Service Law – Pensionary Benefits – Short Service Commissioned Officers – Minimum Qualifying Service – Notional Increments – Commuted Value – Encashment of Annual Leave – ECHS Benefits – Clarifications by Supreme Court – Directions issued in Wg Cdr A U Tayyaba (retd) & Ors v Union of India & Ors [Civil Appeal Nos 79-82 of 2012]

The Supreme Court of India, in Miscellaneous Application No. 781-784 of 2024 (D No 8208 of 2024) arising from Civil Appeal Nos 79-82 of 2012, decided on 15-4-2024, addressed issues regarding pensionary benefits for women Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCOs). The Court clarified that women SSCOs, upon completing the minimum qualifying service for pension, are entitled to one-time pensionary benefits and notional increments between the date of release and the deemed completion of twenty years of service. Furthermore, the commuted value of pension, encashment of annual leave, and grant of ECHS benefits were elucidated upon. The Court directed the revision of pensionary payments and the payment of arrears by a specified date. Additionally, corrections to Pension Payment Orders (PPOs) were mandated to rectify any erroneous references. These directions resolved the grievances of the appellants, leading to the disposal of the Miscellaneous Application.(Para 3); Wg Cdr A U Tayyaba (Retd) & Ors Vs. Union Of India & Ors.: 2024 STPL(Web) 296 SC

Taxation

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Central Excise – Remand Order – The Supreme Court, in a matter concerning M/S Madura Coats Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Another, addressed the legality of a remand order issued by the High Court. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of various yarns, was subject to scrutiny by the respondent, alleging clearance of goods without duty payment. The case saw multiple rounds of adjudication, with the Tribunal issuing directions for the provision of certain documents. However, the respondent failed to comply fully with these directions, leading to appeals and subsequent modifications of orders.

The appellant contended that the Tribunal’s initial direction had attained finality and any modification thereof was unlawful. Conversely, the respondent argued that non-furnishing of a particular document did not prejudice the appellant’s case.

The Supreme Court noted that the Tribunal’s direction included a mandate for fresh adjudication, resulting in subsequent orders by the respondent. Moreover, the High Court observed that the disputed document was not crucial to the case and that the appellant’s failure to produce it was self-inflicted. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication, with the liberty for the appellant to raise all contentions, including the alleged prejudice due to non-furnishing of the document.(Para 9, 11, 13); M/S Madura Coats Private Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise And Anr.: 2024 STPL(Web) 283 SC

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 Note 3 to Chapter 18 – Central Excise – Labelling as manufacture – CENVAT Credit — Labelling activity undertaken by the respondent at its Taloja unit amounts to “manufacture” under Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The process of labelling or re-labelling of containers, as defined in the statutory provision, constitutes manufacture regardless of whether it enhances the marketability of the goods.

The substitution of the word ‘and’ with ‘or’ in Note 3 post-amendment widens the scope of activities deemed as manufacture, encompassing labelling or re-labelling of containers, repacking from bulk packs to retail packs, or any other treatment to render the product marketable.

The labelling activity undertaken by the respondent, therefore, falls within the ambit of manufacture, entitling it to avail cenvat credit and rebate on duty paid. Consequently, the appellant’s contention that labelling does not constitute manufacture is not tenable. The order of the CESTAT affirming the labelling activity as manufacture is upheld, and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed.(Para 15); Commissioner Of Central Excise Belapur Vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd.: 2024 STPL(Web) 307 SC

——

Breach of peace: It must disturb public order, not just personal peace

May 20, 2024 No Comments

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 145, 146- Breach of peace – Emergency situation – Possession dispute – Civil litigation – Non-application of mind – Proceeding under Section 145 – Attachment under Section 146 – The application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenges the orders by the Executive Magistrate, concerning a dispute under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and subsequent attachment under Section 146(1) of the same.

The petitioner contests the legality of both orders, asserting that the initiation of the proceeding and the attachment were illegal and an abuse of process. It’s argued that the jurisdiction under Section 145 can only be invoked if there’s a likelihood of a breach of peace, which wasn’t sufficiently demonstrated in this case.

The petitioner highlights that the attachment order was passed ex-parte without affording them an opportunity to respond, which is contrary to the exceptional circumstances required for such an order. Reference is made to legal precedent discouraging parallel criminal proceedings when a civil litigation is pending regarding property possession, emphasizing the binding nature of civil court decrees.

The respondents counter by claiming entitlement to the land based on a partition deed and subsequent court judgments. They argue that emergency circumstances justified the attachment due to the petitioner’s attempt to construct on disputed land.

Legal precedents are cited to emphasize that the existence of an emergency, not just the use of the term “emergency,” warrants attachment under Section 146.

The judgment critically examines the orders and the circumstances leading to them. It observes discrepancies between the assertions made in the complaint and police report, highlighting the absence of clear grounds for apprehension of breach of peace.The judgment reiterates the requirement for a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace under Section 145, emphasizing that it must disturb public order, not just personal peace.

It concludes that the impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind and jurisdictional error, resulting in injustice to the petitioner. Consequently, both orders are quashed, and the petition is allowed. Important Paragraph Numbers of Judgment: (Para 13, 19, 30, 31)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 183 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1651 Gauhati]

Md. Osman Ali Saikia And Anr. Vs. Chand Mahamod Saikia And 2 Ors.

Crl.Pet. 239 of 2021-Decided on 8-11-2023

https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2023-STPLWeb-183-Gauhati.pdf

Electricity: Outstanding arrears from previous owner

May 20, 2024 No Comments

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission [Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters] Regulations, 2004 – Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 43, 49, 50, 56 – Electricity – Outstanding arrears from previous owner – The petitioner, a partnership firm, sought a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a decision by the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) to deny a new electricity connection to their premises due to outstanding arrears from previous electricity bills.

The court directed interim relief for immediate electricity connection, subject to 50% payment of outstanding dues, with the remaining 50% to be paid upon dismissal of the writ petition.

The petitioner participated in an auction sale of a property and purchased a portion of land with a Business Centre cum Market Complex. They subsequently applied for a new electricity connection, which was denied by APDCL citing outstanding dues.

The court referred to the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission [Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters] Regulations, 2004 and the Electricity Act, 2003. It cited a Supreme Court decision (K.C. Ninan vs. Kerala State Electricity Board) regarding the liability of auction purchasers for previous dues in properties sold on ‘as is where is’ basis.

The court dismissed the writ petition, holding the petitioner liable for outstanding electricity dues as per the auction sale agreement. It directed the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues as per the interim order, with APDCL waiving the accrued interest on the principal dues. (Para 15, 16)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 182 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1650 Gauhati]

M/S Borah And Companyjiban Phukan Nagar Vs. Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. And 3 Ors.

WP(C) 989 of 2014-Decided on 7-11-2023

2023 STPL(Web) 182 Gauhati

Executive instructions cannot nullify statutory rules

May 16, 2024 No Comments

Assam Bonded Warehouse Rules, 1965 – Rule 7 – Refund of Charges – Administrative Order – Statutory Rules – The present writ petition contested an order issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Excise Department, reintroducing establishment charges under Rule 7 of the Assam Bonded Warehouse Rules, 1965, despite their abolition by the Assam Bonded Warehouse (Amendment) Rules, 2005.

The Court held that executive instructions cannot nullify statutory rules. Citing the principle established in K. Kuppusamy case, it ruled that until a rule is amended, it remains applicable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside as ultra vires. Regarding refund, relying on Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case, the Court directed the petitioner to present evidence to the Excise Commissioner, who would determine entitlement to refund within four months, considering whether the petitioner passed on the burden of charges to retailers. (Para 15)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 181 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1649 Gauhati]

M/S Centenary Distilleries P Ltd. Vs. State Of Assam And 2 Ors.

WP(C) 2875 of 2014-Decided on 7-11-2023

https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2023-STPLWeb-181-Gauhati-2.pdf

Land Disputes: Binding nature of Civil Court’s decree on Revenue Courts

May 16, 2024 No Comments

Land Disputes – Binding nature of Civil Court’s decree on Revenue Courts – The instant writ petition challenged a judgment of the Assam Board of Revenue concerning a land dispute. The dispute pertained to a plot of land associated with the Dargah of Pir Saheb. The Civil Court in Title Suit No.176/1978 had decreed in favor of the Petitioners’ predecessor, declaring their right, title, and possession over the land. The State of Assam was restrained from interference. Subsequently, the Settlement Officer issued a Khatian in favor of the Petitioners’ predecessor, and a new Dag was created. However, the Assam Board of Revenue, in its impugned judgment, disregarded the Civil Court’s decree and cancelled the Khatian issued to the Petitioners’ predecessor.

This action was deemed contrary to established principles, as Civil Court decrees are binding on Revenue Courts. Therefore, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment, restoring the Khatian to the Petitioners’ predecessor. (Para 12)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 180 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1648 Gauhati]

Sayed Moinuddin Ahmed Vs. State Of Assam And 3 Ors.

WP(C) 4701 of 2013-Decided on 7-11-2023

https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2023-STPLWeb-180-Gauhati.pdf

Supreme Court Digest, 16 to 30 April 2024

Stpl law

Supreme Court Digest, 16 to 30 April 2024

Nominal Index

Subject Index

Arbitration

Civil

Consumer

Company

Constitutional Law

Criminal

Dishonour of Cheque

Election

Family

Insurance

Limitation

Practice and Procedure

Service Law

Taxation

Breach of peace: It must disturb public order, not just personal peace

Electricity: Outstanding arrears from previous owner

Executive instructions cannot nullify statutory rules

Land Disputes: Binding nature of Civil Court’s decree on Revenue Courts

Recent Articles

Contract: Demurrage not allowed

Breach of peace: It must disturb public order, not just personal peace

Electricity: Outstanding arrears from previous owner

Executive instructions cannot nullify statutory rules

Land Disputes: Binding nature of Civil Court’s decree on Revenue Courts