Supreme Court Judgments [January 2024]

Kanwar Raj Singh (D) vs Gejo (D) 2024 INSC 1 – Registration Act

Registration Act, 1908 - Section 47 - A registered sale deed where entire consideration is paid would operate from the date of its execution - A registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof was required. Thus, when a compulsorily registerable document is registered according to the Registration Act, it can operate from a date before the date of its registration. The date of the operation will depend on the nature of the transaction. If, in a given case, a sale deed is executed and the entire agreed consideration is paid on or before execution of the sale deed, after it is registered, it will operate from the date of its execution. The reason is that if its registration was not required, it would have operated from the date of its execution. (Para 6)

Registration Act, 1908 - Section 47 -Referred to Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer AIR 1961 SC 1747: Section 47 of the Registration Act does not deal with the issue when the sale is complete - Section 47 applies to a document only after it has been registered, and it has nothing to do with the completion of the sale when the instrument is one of sale - Once a document is registered, it will operate from an earlier date, as provided in Section 47 of the Registration Act - The decision of the Constitution Bench only deals with the question of when the sale is complete- it does not deal with the issue of the date from which the sale deed would operate. (Para 8-10)

Registration Act, 1908 - Section 47 - The corrections unilaterally made by the first defendant after the execution of the sale deed without the knowledge and consent of the purchaser will have to be ignored. Only if such changes would have been made with the consent of the original plaintiff, the same could relate back to the date of the execution. (Para 11)

Punjab Courts Act, 1918 - Section 41 - A decision being contrary to law is a ground for interference(Para 13)

Vashist Narayan Kumar vs State of Bihar 2024 INSC 2 – Public Employment

Summary: Appellant applied for Police Constable Post and cleared the written examination and the Physical Eligibility Test - He was declared failed for the reason that in the application form uploaded online, his date of birth was shown as 08.12.1997, in the school mark sheet, his date of birth was reflected as 18.12.1997 - High Court dismissed his writ petition challenging this result -In appeal, Supreme Court held: the appellant has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully. The error in the application is trivial which did not play any part in the selection process. The State was not justified in making a mountain out of this molehill - We do not think that the appellant could be penalized for this insignificant error which made no difference to the ultimate result. Errors of this kind, as noticed in the present case, which are inadvertent do not constitute misrepresentation or wilful suppression.

Legal maxim - De minimis non curat lex - Law does not concern itself with trifles. (Para 15)
 
Vishal Tiwari vs Union of India 2024 INSC 3 – SEBI – Judicial Review – Adani-Hindenburg

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 32, 226 - Judicial Review - SEBI - a. Courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitability, and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to expert regulatory agencies on matters of policy which they are entitled to formulate- b. The scope of judicial review, when examining a policy framed by a specialized regulator, is to scrutinize whether it (i) violates the fundamental rights of the citizens- (ii) is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution- (iii) is opposed to a statutory provision- or (iv) is manifestly arbitrary. The legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review- c. When technical questions arise – particularly in the domain of economic or financial matters – and experts in the field have expressed their views and such views are duly considered by the statutory regulator, the resultant policies or subordinate legislative framework ought not to be interfered with- d. SEBI’s wide powers, coupled with its expertise and robust information gathering mechanism, lend a high level of credibility to its decisions as a regulatory, adjudicatory and prosecuting agency- and e. This Court must be mindful of the public interest that guides the functioning of SEBI and refrain from substituting its own wisdom in place of the actions of SEBI. (Para 17)

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 32, 226 - Power to transfer an investigation from the authorized agency to the CBI or constitute an SIT - Such powers must be exercised sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances. Unless the authority statutorily entrusted with the power to investigate portrays a glaring, willful and deliberate inaction in carrying out the investigation the court will ordinarily not supplant the authority which has been vested with the power to investigate. Such powers must not be exercised by the court in the absence of cogent justification indicative of a likely failure of justice in the absence of the exercise of the power to transfer. The petitioner must place on record strong evidence indicating that the investigating agency has portrayed inadequacy in the investigation or prima facie appears to be biased - The power to transfer an investigation to investigating agencies such as the CBI must be invoked only in rare and exceptional cases. Further, no person can insist that the offence be investigated by a specific agency since the plea can only be that the offence be investigated properly. (Para 32-33)

State of Uttar Pradesh vs Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad 2024 INSC 4 – Contempt Of Court- Summoning Of Govt. Officials

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The power of the High Courts to initiate contempt proceedings cannot be used to obstruct parties or their counsel from availing legal remedies- Courts must refrain from summoning officials as the first resort. While the actions and decisions of public officials are subject to judicial review, summoning officials frequently without just cause is not permissible. Exercising restraint, avoiding unwarranted remarks against public officials, and recognizing the functions of law officers contribute to a fair and balanced judicial system. Courts across the country must foster an environment of respect and professionalism, duly considering the constitutional or professional mandate of law officers, who represent the government and its officials before the courts. Constantly summoning officials of the government instead of relying on the law officers representing the government, runs contrary to the scheme envisaged by the Constitution - Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on Personal Appearance of Government Officials in Court Proceedings laid down -The appearance of government officials before courts must not be reduced to a routine measure in cases where the government is a party and can only be resorted to in limited circumstances. The use of the power to summon the presence of government officials must not be used as a tool to pressurize the government, particularly, under the threat of contempt. (Para 34, 38-44)

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - ‘Wilful disobedience’ of a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court amounts to ‘civil contempt’. On the other hand, the threshold for ‘criminal contempt’ is higher and more stringent. It involves ‘scandalising’ or ‘lowering’ the authority of any court- prejudicing or interfering with judicial proceedings- or interfering with or obstructing the administration of justice. (Para 32)
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 229 - Article 229(2) pertains only to the service conditions of ‘officers and servants’ of the High Courts and does not include Judges of the High Court (both sitting and retired judges). The Chief Justice does not have the power, under Article 229, to make rules pertaining to the post-retiral benefits payable to former Chief Justices and judges of the High Court. (Para 25)

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - The High Court, acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot usurp the functions of the executive and compel the executive to exercise its rule-making power in the manner directed by it. Compelling the State Government to mandatorily notify the Rules by the next date of hearing, in the First Impugned Order, virtually amounted to the High Court issuing a writ of mandamus to notify the Rules proposed by the Chief Justice. Such directions by the High Court are impermissible and contrary to the separation of powers envisaged by the Constitution. The High Court cannot direct the State Government to enact rules on a particular subject, by a writ of mandamus or otherwise. (Para 29)

Practice and Procedure - Merely because reference is made to a wrong provision of law while exercising power, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power of the authority can be traced to another source of law. (Para 26)

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 14 - Summary procedure, although, permitted under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be invoked as a matter of routine and is reserved for only extraordinary circumstance - Referred to Leila David v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 10 SCC 337 (Para 36)

 
Ajeet Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 5 – S 375 IPC – S 482 CrPC – Rape By Giving False Promise To Marry

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 375 - The allegation in the FIR is that the appellant maintained a physical relationship with the victim by giving her a false promise of marriage - The relationship between the appellant and the victim was a consensual relationship which culminated in the marriage. In the legal notice issued on behalf of the appellant, the factum of marriage was admitted. Therefore, on the face of it, the allegation that the physical relationship was maintained due to false promise given by the appellant to marry, is without basis as their relationship led to the solemnization of marriage. Therefore, this is a case where the allegations made in the FIR were such that on the basis of the statements, no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellant. Therefore, clause (5) of the decision of this Court in the case of the State of Haryana. (Para 9)

Neeraj Sharma vs State of Chhattisgarh 2024 INSC 6 – S 364A IPC – S 32 Evidence Act – Injured Eye-Witness

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 364A - In order to make out an offence under Section 364 A, three conditions must be met: A) There should be a kidnapping or abduction of a person or a person is to be kept in detention after such kidnapping or abduction- B) There is a threat to cause death or hurt to such a person or the accused by their conduct give rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt C) Or cause death or hurt to such a person in order to compel the Government or any foreign state or intergovernmental organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom. The necessary ingredients which the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, before the Court are not only an act of kidnapping or abduction but thereafter the demand of ransom, coupled with the threat to life of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted, must be there - When there is no allegation about demand for ransom, offence under Section 364A IPC is not attracted- Referred to Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana (2021) 9 SCC 59 and Ravi Dhingra v. State of Haryana (2023) 6 SCC 76. (Para 14-16)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32 - Statement cannot be read as a dying declaration when the person making this statement or declaration had ultimately survived. (Para 17)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 364A - Section 364A IPC does not merely cover acts of terrorism against the Government or Foreign State but it also covers cases where the demand of ransom is made not as a part of a terrorist act but for monetary gains for a private individual.

Criminal Trial - Injured Witness - Unless there are compelling circumstances or evidence placed by the defence to doubt such a witness, this has to be accepted as an extremely valuable evidence in a criminal Trial - Principles which are to be kept in mind when appreciating the evidence of an injured eye-witness - Referred to Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355. (Para 11)
 

Radhey Shyam Yadav vs State Of UP 2024 INSC 7 – Service Law

Summary: Appellants were appointed as Assistant Teachers at the Junior High School, Bahorikpur, Maharajganj, District Jaunpur, U.P- From October, 2005, abruptly their salaries were stopped - Writ petition challenging this was dismissed by Allahabad HC - Appeals allowed by Supreme Court with direction that the State shall pay the salaries of the appellants for the period from 25.06.1999 till January, 2002 in full.
 

Mary Pushpam vs Telvi Curusumary 2024 INSC 8 – Suit For Possession – Doctrine of Merger – Precedents – Judicial Discipline

Civil Suit - Suit for possession has to describe the property in question with accuracy and all details of measurement and boundaries. When this was completely lacking , a suit for possession with respect to such a property would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of its identifiability. (Para 23)

Judicial Discipline - Lower or subordinate Courts do not have the authority to contradict the decisions of higher Courts - Referred to Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr (2005) 2 SCC 673 -‘Judicial Discipline and Propriety’ and the Doctrine of precedents has a merit of promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions providing assurance to individuals as to the consequences of their actions. (Para 20, 1)

Doctrine of merger- A common law doctrine that is rooted in the idea of maintenance of the decorum of hierarchy of courts and tribunals - The doctrine is based on the simple reasoning that there cannot be, at the same time, more than one operative order governing the same subject matter- Referred to Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 359 (Para 17)

Precedent - When a decision of a coordinate Bench of same High court is brought to the notice of the bench, it is to be respected and is binding subject to right of the bench of such co-equal quorum to take a different view and refer the question to a larger bench. It is the only course of action open to a bench of co-equal strength, when faced with the previous decision taken by a bench with same strength. (Para 1)
 

Brij Narayan Shukla (D) vs Sudesh Kumar Alias Suresh Kumar (D) 2024 INSC 9 – S 100 CPC – Second Appeal- Adverse Possession

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court was hearing the Second Appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and it having reappreciated the findings to disturb findings of fact, committed an error. (Para 9.2)

Adverse Possession - The suit of the year 1944 was for the arrears of rent and not relating to any dispute of possession. The defendant respondents were tenants and therefore their possession was permissive as against the then landlords. There was no question of them claiming any adverse possession from 1944. (Para 9.4)
 

Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd vs Jaya Wadhwani 2024 INSC 10 – Insurance Law

Insurance - The date of proposal cannot be treated to be the date of policy until and unless on the date of proposal, initial deposit as also the issuance of policy happens on the same date where, for example, the premium is paid in cash then, immediately, the policy could be issued. Merely, tendering a cheque may not be enough as till such time the cheque is encashed, the contract would not become effective. The drawer of the cheque may, at any time, after issuing, stop its payment or there may not be enough funds in the account of which the cheque is issued and there could be many other reasons for which the cheque could be returned without being encashed. (Para 11)

Insurance - conditions of the contract as contained in the policy should be strictly adhered to. Otherwise mentioning of the terms and conditions would be a futile exercise, if any other interpretation is given or terms and conditions are relaxed. (Para 12)
 

State of NCT of Delhi vs Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely 2024 INSC 11 – S 43D(2)(b) UAPA

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43 D(2)(b) - The extension for investigation could be granted up to a maximum period of 180 days for the following reasons: Completion of the investigation- Progress in the investigation was explained- and Specific reasons for detention beyond a period of 90 days - In this case, the Public Prosecutor had mentioned in the request that major investigation of the case had been completed and the draft chargesheet had been prepared. However, for want of remaining sanctions and FSL report some more time was required for completing the investigation - The High Court also fell in error in not taking into consideration the reasons given under section 43D(2) (b) were clearly made out. (Para 10)
 

Rejendhiran vs Muthaiammal @ Muthayee 2024 INSC 12 – Civil Suit

Summary: High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed the Second Appeal filed by the plaintiff and the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the Sub-Judge dismissing the suit of the plaintiff were set aside and the suit was decreed - Allowing appeal, Supreme Court held: the impugned judgment cannot be sustained as it not only does not conform to the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but also as it was perverse on appreciated evidence, and also ignoring material evidence.
 

Perumal Raja @ Perumal vs State 2024 INSC 13 – Ss 27 & 106 Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 25-27 - As soon as an accused or suspected person comes into the hands of a police officer, he is no longer at liberty and is under a check, and is, therefore, in “custody” within the meaning of Sections 25 to 27 of the Evidence Act. It is for this reason that the expression “custody” has been held, as earlier observed, to include surveillance, restriction or restraint by the police- Even if the accused was not formally arrested at the time of giving information, the accused is, for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police and the bar vide Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, and accordingly exception under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, apply - formal arrest is not a necessity for operation of Section 27 of the Evidence Act - Referred to State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1961) 1 SCR 14 . (Para 28-29)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 27 - Section 27 does not lay down the principle that discovery of a fact is to be equated to the object produced or found. The discovery of the fact resulting in recovery of a physical object exhibits knowledge or mental awareness of the person accused of the offence as to the existence of the physical object at the particular place. Accordingly, discovery of a fact includes the object found, the place from which it was produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence. To this extent, therefore, factum of discovery combines both the physical object as well as the mental consciousness of the informant accused in relation thereto - the first condition imposed and necessary for bringing the section into operation is the discovery of a fact which should be a relevant fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offence. The second is that the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. A fact already known to the police will fall foul and not meet this condition. The third is that at the time of receipt of the information, the accused must be in police custody. Lastly, it is only so much of information which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered resulting in recovery of a physical object which is admissible. Rest of the information is to be excluded. The word ‘distinctly’ is used to limit and define the scope of the information and means ‘directly’, ‘indubitably’, ‘strictly’ or ‘unmistakably’. Only that part of the information which is clear, immediate and a proximate cause of discovery is admissible - Referred to Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 828. (Para 23)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 27 - Evidentiary value to be attached on evidence produced before the court in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be codified or put in a straightjacket formula. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. A holistic and inferential appreciation of evidence is required to be adopted in a case of circumstantial evidence. (Para 30)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 27 - Section 27 of the Evidence Act could not have been applied to the other co-accused for the simple reason that the provision pertains to information that distinctly relates to the discovery of a 'fact' that was previously unknown, as opposed to fact already disclosed or known. Once information is given by an accused, the same information cannot be used, even if voluntarily made by a co-accused who is in custody - Section 27 of the Evidence Act does apply to joint disclosures. (Para 43)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 106- Section 106 comes into play when the prosecution is able to establish the facts by way of circumstantial evidence - A false explanation given can be used as a link when: (i) various links in the chain of evidence laid by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved- (ii) circumstance points to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness- and (iii) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation. If these conditions are fulfilled only then the court can use the false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend an assurance to the court and not otherwise. Thus, a distinction has to be drawn between incomplete chain of circumstances and a circumstance after a chain is complete and the defence or explanation given by the accused is found to be false, in which event the said falsehood is added to reinforce the conclusion of the court. (Para 34-38)

Precedent -The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or coequal strength. (Para 26)
 (SCI) 

DBS Bank Limited Singapore vs Ruchi Soya Industries Limited 2024 INSC 14 – S 30(2)(b)(ii) IBC

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 30(2)(b)(ii) - Whether Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20161 , as amended in 2019, entitles the dissenting financial creditor to be paid the minimum value of its security interest? - Referred to a larger bench.
 

Bharti Airtel Limited vs Vijaykumar V Iyer 2024 INSC 15 – S 25(2)(a) IBC – Set Off In CIRP

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 25(2)(a)- Right to claim set-off in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, when the Resolution Professional proceeds in terms of Section 25(2)(a) to take custody and control of all the assets of the corporate debtor.Provisions of statutory set-off in terms of Order VIII Rule 6 of CPC or insolvency set-off as permitted by Regulation 29 of the Liquidation Regulations can be applied to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The aforesaid rule would be, however, subject to two exceptions or situations. The first, if at all it can be called an exception, is where a party is entitled to contractual set-off, on the date which is effective before or on the date the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is put into motion or commences. - The second exception will be in the case of ‘equitable set-off’ when the claim and counterclaim in the form of set-off are linked and connected on account of one or more transactions that can be treated as one. (Para 30-34)
 

Satish P Bhatt vs State of Maharashtra 2024 INSC 16 – S 138 NI Act – Violation Of Undertaking

Summary: Bombay HC cancelled the order of suspension of sentence and bail granted to the appellant - accused - also the intervenor (petitioner before the High Court) as they violated the undertaking given before the High Court and further violated the condition contained in the order granting extension of time to comply- Supreme Court dismissed appeal with costs quantified at Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid to the Complainant within four weeks - this amount of costs will not be adjusted against the compensation awarded to the respondent No.2 but will be in addition to it.
 

S V Samudram vs State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 17 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 281 – S 34 Arbitration Act

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Any court under Section 34 would have no jurisdiction to modify the arbitral award - The court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators. It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired- Referred to Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigration Company v. Union of India  2023 SCC On Line 982, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited v. Navigant Technologies Private Limited (2021) 7 SCC 657 and National Highways Authority of India v. M. Hakeen 2021) 9 SCC 1 (Para 14)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Arbitral proceedings are per se not comparable to judicial proceedings before the Court   The Arbitrator’s view, generally is considered to be binding upon the parties unless it is set aside on certain specified grounds. In the very same decision taking note of the opinion as is in “Russel on Arbitration”, reiterated the need for the Court to look at the substance of the findings, rather than its form, stood reiterated and the need for adopting an approach of reading the award in a fair and just manner, and not in what is termed as “an unduly literal way”. All that is required is as to whether the reasons borne out are intelligible or not for adequacy of reasons cannot stand in the way of making the award to be intelligibly readable - if the view taken by the Arbitrator is a plausible view, no interference on the specified grounds is warranted - an award passed by a technical expert is not meant to be scrutinised in the same manner as is the one prepared by a legally trained mind - Referred to Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited  (2022) 1 SCC 131 , Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project (2023) 9 SCC 85 and Dyna Technologies Private Limited v. Crompton Greaves Limited (2019) 20 SCC 1. (Para 17-19)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 31- Award of interest -Referred to Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Orissa (2015) 2 SCC 189. (Para 45)
 

Sarfaraz Alam vs Union of India 2024 INSC 18 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 267- Article 22(5) Constitution – Detention

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 22(5) - Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India can broadly be divided into two parts - The first part involves the bounden duty of the authorities in serving the grounds of detention containing such grounds which weighed in the mind of the detaining authority in passing the detention order. In doing so, adequate care has to be taken in communicating the grounds of detention and serving the relevant documents in the language understandable to the detenue. The second part is with respect to his right of making the representation. For exercising such a right, a detenue has to necessarily have adequate knowledge of the very basis of detention order. There is a subtle difference between the background facts leading to detention order and the grounds of detention. While the background facts are not required in detail, the grounds of detention which determine the  detention order ought to be found in the grounds supplied to the detenue. In other words, the knowledge of the detenue is to the subjective satisfaction of a detaining authority discernible from the grounds supplied to him. It is only thereafter that a detenue could be in a better position to take a decision as to whether he should challenge the detention order in the manner known to law. This includes his decision to make a representation to various authorities including the detaining officer. Therefore, an effective knowledge qua a detenue is of utmost importance -. On the second aspect, a detenue has to be informed that he has a right to make a representation. Such a communication of his right can either be oral or in writing. This right assumes importance as a detenue in a given case may well be a literate, semi-literate or illiterate person. Therefore, it becomes a cardinal duty on the part of the authority that serves the grounds of detention to inform a detenue of his right to make a representation - While the aforesaid two rights and duties form two separate parts of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, they do overlap despite being mutually reinforcing. Though they travel on different channels, their waters merge at the destination. This is for the due compliance of Article 22(5). The entire objective is to extend knowledge to the detenue leading to a representation on his decision to question the detention order. Such a right  is an inalienable right under scheme of the Constitution of India, available to the detenue, corresponding to the duty of the serving authority -   To what extent a communication can be made both orally and in writing?  In a case where a detenue is not in a position to understand the language, a mere verbal explanation would not suffice. Similarly, where a detenue consciously declines to receive the grounds of detention, he has to be informed about his right to make a representation. In such a scenario, the question as to whether the grounds of detention contained a statement that a detenue has got a right to make a representation to named authorities or not, pales into insignificance. This is for the reason that a detenue despite refusing to receive the grounds of detention might still change his mind and receive them if duly informed of his right to challenge a detention order by way of a representation. -In a case where a detenue receives the ground of detention in the language known to him which contains a clear statement over his right to make a representation, there is no need for informing verbally once again. Such an exercise, however, would be required when the grounds of detention do not indicate so. - Referred to Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 427 - State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya, AIR 1951 SC 157 - Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 911. (Para 13- 15)
 

Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab 2024 INSC 19 – Criminal Trial – Ss 161, 313 CrPC – Illiterate Witness – Circumstantial Evidence

Criminal Trial - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 161 - If the PWs had failed to mention in their statements u/s 161 CrPC about the involvement of an accused, their subsequent statement before court during trial regarding involvement of that particular accused cannot be relied upon. Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation. The evidence of that witness regarding the said improved fact is of no significance. [Referred to : (i) Rohtash Vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589 (ii) Sunil Kumar Shambhu Dayal Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (72) ACC 699 (SC). (iii) Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur Vs. State of Karnataka, (2004) 7 SCC 422 (iv) Vimal Suresh Kamble Vs. Chaluverapinake, (2003) 3 SCC 175] (Para 26)

Criminal Trial - Illiterate witness - Appreciation of evidence led by such a witness has to be treated differently from other kinds of witnesses. It cannot be subjected to a hyper-technical inquiry and much emphasis ought not to be given to imprecise details that may have been brought out in the evidence - The evidence of a rustic/illiterate witness must not be disregarded if there were to be certain minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the deposition. (Para 27)

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence -The normal approach in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established- that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused- that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion, that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. [See Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 ] - failure to prove a single circumstance cogently can cause a snap in the chain of circumstances. There cannot be a gap in the chain of circumstances. When the conviction is to be based on circumstantial evidence solely, then there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances. If there is a snap in the chain, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. If some of the circumstances in the chain can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis, then also the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. [See: Bhimsingh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 4 SCC 281.] (Para 9,37)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313- Standard of proof to be met by an accused in support of the defence taken by him under Section 313 of Code 21 of Criminal Procedure is not beyond all reasonable doubt, as such, a burden lies on the prosecution to prove the charge. The accused has merely to create a doubt and it is for the prosecution then to establish beyond reasonable doubt that no benefit can flow from the same to the accused. [See: Pramila vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 711] - The statement of an accused under Section 313 CrPC is no ‘evidence’ because, firstly, it is not on oath and, secondly, the other party i.e. the prosecution does not get an opportunity to cross examine the accused. [ Sidhartha Vashisht Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2010 SC 2352] (Para 31-32)

Death caused by poisoning through aluminum phosphide - Review of scholarly literature and research papers suggests that the nature of this substance (aluminum phosphide) is such that it is not conducive for deceitful administration since it carries a pungent garlic-like odour, which cannot go unmissed - Referred to Jaipal V. State of Haryana – (2003) 1 SCC 169. (Para 30)
 

Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 20 – S 372 CrPC – Appeal Against Conviction

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 372, 386 - The appellate court should be slow in interfering with the conviction recorded by the courts below but where the evidence on record indicates the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that a plausible view, different from the one expressed by the courts below can be taken, the appellate court should not shy away in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused persons.

Pradeep Kumar vs State Of Haryana 2024 INSC 21 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 306 – Circumstantial Evidence – Murder Accused Acquitted

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - While the principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, in the present case the evidence adduced gives rise to doubts, improbabilities and inconsistencies - Referred to Pritinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2023) 7 SCC 727.
 

Gurdev Singh Bhalla vs State Of Punjab 2024 INSC 22 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 319- S 319 CrPC – Summoning Order

Summary: Supreme Court upheld an order summoning police officers in a corruption case
 

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs MB Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited 2024 INSC 23 – Electricity Act – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction In Contractual Matters – Interpretation Of Statutes

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226 - When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Availability of an alternate remedy is not a complete bar in the exercise of the power of judicial review by the High Courts. But, recourse to such a remedy would be permissible only if extraordinary and exceptional circumstances are made out. (Para 95-99)

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226 - Writ Petitions in contractual matters - The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision, considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations - The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny - The State can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it - Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract - State may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. However, the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness - Even when some defect has been found in the decision making process, the court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should intervene - Unless the Court finds that the decision-making process is vitiated by arbitrariness, mala fides, irrationality, it will not be permissible for the Court to interfere with the same - Referred to Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617=2000 INSC 39 and Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 (para 94)= 1994 INSC 283. (Para 102-103)

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226 - A petition need not be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches. However, if petitioner approaches the Court with delay, he has to satisfy the Court about the justification for delay in approaching the Court belatedly. (Para 100)

Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 86(1)(b) - State Commission has ample power to regulate electricity purchase and procurement process of distribution licensees. It also empowers the State Commission to regulate the matters including the price at which electricity shall be procured from the generating companies, etc. (Para 71)

Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 63 - Appropriate Commission does not act as a mere post office under Section 63 - Clause 4, in particular, deals with tariff and the appropriate Commission certainly has the jurisdiction to look into whether the tariff determined through the process of bidding accords with Clause 4. (Para 67)

Interpretation of Statutes - The modern approach of interpretation is a pragmatic one, and not pedantic. An interpretation which advances the purpose of the Act and which ensures its smooth and harmonious working must be chosen and the other which leads to absurdity, or confusion, or friction, or contradiction and conflict between its various provisions, or undermines, or tends to defeat or destroy the basic scheme and purpose of the enactment must be eschewed. (para 90)

Words and Phrases - “all”- “any”-  The words “all” or “any” will have to be construed in their context taking into consideration the scheme and purpose of the enactment. What is the meaning which the legislature intended to give to a particular statutory provision has to be decided by the Court on a consideration of the context in which the word(s) appear(s) and in particular, the scheme and object of the legislation. (Para 87)

Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs Union of India 2024 INSC 24 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 743 – S 432 CrPC – Remission – Article 32 Constitution

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 432 -In a case where the trial has been transferred by this Court from a court of competent jurisdiction of a State to a court in another State, Government of the State within which the offender was sentenced is the appropriate Government which has the jurisdiction as well as competency to pass an order of remission under Section 432 of the CrPC. Therefore, it is not the Government of the State within whose territory the offence occurred or the convict is imprisoned which can assume the power of remission. (Para 33.6)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 432(2) -The expression “may” has to be interpreted as “shall” and as a mandatory requirement under sub-section (2) of Section 432 of the CrPC- It cannot be held that the expression “may” in the said provision is not mandatory nor can it be left to the whims and fancies of the appropriate Government either to seek or not to seek the opinion of the Presiding Judge or the Court before which the conviction had taken place.it cannot be held that the expression “may” in the said provision is not mandatory nor can it be left to the whims and fancies of the appropriate Government either to seek or not to seek the opinion of the Presiding Judge or the Court before which the conviction had taken place. (Para 52)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 432 - Factors that must be taken into account while entertaining an application for remission under the provisions of the CrPC, which are however not exhaustive - (a) The application for remission under Section 432 of the CrPC could be only before the Government of the State within whose territorial jurisdiction the applicant was convicted (appropriate Government) and not before any other Government within whose territorial jurisdiction the applicant may have been transferred on conviction or where the offence has occurred. (b) A consideration for remission must be by way of an application under Section 432 of the CrPC which has to be made by the convict or on his behalf. In the first instance whether there is compliance of Section 433A of the CrPC must be noted inasmuch as a person serving a life sentence cannot seek remission unless fourteen years of imprisonment has been completed. (c) The guidelines under Section 432(2) with regard to the opinion to be sought from the Presiding Judge of the Court which had convicted the applicant must be complied with mandatorily. While doing so it is necessary to follow the requirements of the said Section which are highlighted by us, namely i) the opinion must state as to whether the application for remission should be granted or refused and for either of the said opinions, the reasons must be stated- (ii) the reasons must have a bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case- (iii)the opinion must have a nexus to the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists- (iv) the Presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, must also forward along with the statement of such opinion granting or refusing remission, a certified copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists. (d) The policy of remission applicable would therefore be the Policy of the State which is the appropriate Government and which has the jurisdiction to consider that application. The policy of remission applicable at the time of the conviction could apply and only if for any reason, the said policy cannot be made applicable a more benevolent policy, if in vogue, could apply. (e) While considering an application for remission, there cannot be any abuse of discretion. In this regard, it is necessary to bear in mind the following aspects as mentioned in Laxman Naskar, namely, - (i) Whether the offence is an individual act of crime without affecting the society at large? (ii) Whether there is any chance of future recurrence of committing crime? (iii) Whether the convict has lost his potentiality in committing crime? (iv) Whether there is any fruitful purpose of confining this convict any more? (v) Socio-economic condition of the convict’s family. (f) There has also to be consultation in accordance with Section 435 of the CrPC wherever the same is necessitated. (g) The Jail Advisory Committee which has to consider the application for remission may not have the District Judge as a Member inasmuch as the District Judge, being a Judicial Officer may coincidently be the very judge who may have to render an opinion independently in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 432 of the CrPC. (h) Reasons for grant or refusal of remission should be clearly delineated in the order by passing a speaking order. (i) When an application for remission is granted under the provisions of the Constitution, the following among other tests may apply to consider its legality by way of judicial review of the same. (i) that the order has been passed without application of mind- (ii) that the order is mala fide- (iii)that the order has been passed on extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations- (iv) that relevant materials have been kept out of consideration- (v) that the order suffers from arbitrariness.

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 32- The right to file a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is also a Fundamental Right. The object and purpose of Article 32 of the Constitution which is also recognised to be the “soul of the Constitution” and which is a Fundamental Right in itself is for the enforcement of other Fundamental Rights in Part-III of the Constitution - The aforesaid constitutional remedy is also to enforce the goals enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution, which speak of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. (Para 22.2)

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 32- Question regarding maintainability of a PIL challenging orders of remission is kept open to be considered in any other appropriate case. (Para 27)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 432 -435 -Remission : Scope & Ambit discussed (Para 29-32)

Fraud - Fraud vitiates everything - fraud avoids all judicial acts - any litigant who is guilty of inhibition before the Court should not bear the fruit and benefit of the court’s orders. This Court has also held that fraud is an act of deliberation with a desire to secure something which is otherwise not due. Fraud is practiced with an intention to secure undue advantage. Thus, an act of fraud on courts must be viewed seriously. - fraud can be established when a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii), recklessly, being careless about whether it be true or false. While suppression of a material document would amount to a fraud on the Court, suppression of material facts vital to the decision to be rendered by a court of law is equally serious. Thus, once it is held that there was a fraud in judicial proceedings all advantages gained as a result of it have to be withdrawn. In such an eventuality, doctrine of res judicata or doctrine of binding precedent would not be attracted since an order obtained by fraud is non est in the eye of law. (Para 43)
Doctrines of per incurium and sub silentio -Although it is the ratio decidendi which is a precedent and not the final order in the judgment, however, there are certain exceptions to the rule of precedents which are expressed by the doctrines of per incurium and sub silentio. Incuria legally means carelessness and per incurium may be equated with per ignorantium. If a judgment is rendered in ignorantium of a statute or a binding authority, it becomes a decision per incurium. Thus, a decision rendered by ignorance of a previous binding decision of its own or of a court of coordinate or higher jurisdiction or in ignorance of the terms of a statute or of a rule having the force of law is per incurium. Such a per incurium decision would not have a precedential value. If a decision has been rendered per in curium, it cannot be said that it lays down good law, even if it has not been expressly overruled - a decision per incurium is not binding - A decision is passed sub-silentio when the particular point of law in a decision is not perceived by the court or not present to its mind or is not consciously determined by the court and it does not form part of the ratio decidendi it is not binding. (Para 44)

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 -The most important constitutional value is personal liberty which is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of our Constitution. It is in fact an inalienable right of man and which can be deprived of or taken away only in accordance with law. That is the quintessence of Article 21. (Para 58)

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - An order of a High Court cannot be set aside in a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution - Referred to Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1. (Para 39,44)

Rule of Law - Rule of law means wherever and whenever the State fails to perform its duties, the Court would step in to ensure that the rule of law prevails over the abuse of the process of law. Such abuse may result from, inter alia, inaction or even arbitrary action of protecting the true offenders or failure by different authorities in discharging statutory or other obligations in consonance with the procedural and penal statutes. Breach of the rule of law, amounts to negation of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution - Rule of law means, no one, howsoever high or low, is above the law- it is the basic rule of governance and democratic polity. It is only through the courts that rule of law unfolds its contours and establishes its concept. The concept of rule of law is closely intertwined with adjudication by courts of law and also with the consequences of decisions taken by courts. Therefore, the judiciary has to carry out its obligations effectively and true to the spirit with which it is sacredly entrusted the task and always in favour of rule of law. There can be no rule of law if there is no equality before the law- and rule of law and equality before the law. (Para 61-66)

Justice - Courts have to be mindful of not only the spelling of the word “justice” but also the content of the concept. Courts have to dispense justice and not justice being dispensed with. In fact, the strength and authority of courts in India are because they are involved in dispensing justice. It should be their life aim. (Para 67)
 

State of MP vs Vijay Kumar Tiwari 2024 INSC 25 – Ayurveda & Allopathy PG Course

Summary: Madhya Pradesh High Court directed State to treat the students pursuing Post Graduate in Ayurveda stream at par with the students pursuing Post Graduate Course in Allopathy stream - setting aside the HC judgment, held: The nature of duties discharged by the Postgraduate students in Ayurveda stream is not the same as that of Post Graduate students undertaking therein education in Allopathy stream - Referred to State of Gujarat v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt 2023 INSC 434.

All India Judges Association vs Union Of India 2024 INSC 26 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 327 – Second National Judicial Pay Commission – Recommendations – Judicial Service

Second National Judicial Pay Commission - Recommendations accepted - Directed the constitution of a Committee in each High Court for overseeing the implementation of the recommendations of the SNJPC as approved by this Court. The Committee shall be called the ‘Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary. - All States and Union Territories shall now act in terms of the above directions expeditiously. Disbursements on account of arrears of salary, pension and allowances due and payable to judicial officers, retired judicial officers and family pensioners shall be computed and paid on or before 29 February 2024. The CSCDJs institutionalized in terms of the directions issued earlier shall monitor compliance. Each Committee working under the auspices of the High Court shall submit its report to this Court on or before 7 April 2024 through the Registrar General of the High Court.

Objections raised against SNJPC recommendations considered - a plea of financial burden cannot be raised to resist mandatory duties of the state. Providing necessary service conditions for the effective discharge of judicial functions is one such duty - there is a need to maintain uniformity in the service conditions of judicial officers across the country. Thus, the plea that rules of each State must govern pay and allowances, lacks substance - It would be wholly inappropriate to equate judicial service with the service of other officers of the State. The functions, duties, restrictions and restraints operating during and after service are entirely distinct for members of the judicial service. (Para 10-18)

Judicial service - Judicial Service is an integral and significant component of the functions of the State and contributes to the constitutional obligation to sustain the rule of law. Judicial service is distinct in its characteristics and in terms of the responsibilities which are cast upon the officers of the District Judiciary to render objective dispensation of justice to citizens. The State is duty bound to ensure that the conditions of service, both during the tenure of office and after retirement, are commensurate with the need to maintain dignified working conditions for serving judicial officers and in the post-retirement emoluments made available to former members of the judicial service. Members of the district judiciary are the first point of engagement for citizens who are confronted with the need for dispute resolution. The conditions in which judicial officers across the country are required to work are arduous. The work of a judicial officer is not confined merely to the working hours endered in the course of judicial duties in the court. Every judicial officer is required to work both before and after the court working hours. The judicial work of each day requires preparation before cases are called out. A judicial officer continues to work on cases which may have been dealt with in court, in terms of preparing the judgment and attending to other administrative aspects of the judicial record. That apart, members of the district judiciary have wide ranging administrative functions which take place beyond working hours, especially on week-ends including the discharge of numerous duties in relation to prison establishments, juvenile justice institutions, legal service camps and in general, work associated with the Legal Services Act 1987 - The work of a Judge cannot be assessed solely in terms of their duties during court working hours. The State is under an affirmative obligation to ensure dignified conditions of work for its judicial officers and it cannot raise the defense of an increase in financial burden or expenditure. Judicial officers spend the largest part of their working life in service of the institution. The nature of the office often renders the incumbent incapacitated in availing of opportunities for legal work which may otherwise be available to a member of the Bar. That furnishes an additional reason why post-retirement, it is necessary for the State to ensure that judicial officers are able to live in conditions of human dignity. It needs to be emphasized that providing for judges, both during their tenure and upon retirement, is correlated with the independence of the judiciary. Judicial independence, which is necessary to preserve the faith and confidence of common citizens in the rule of law, can be ensured and enhanced only so long as judges are able to lead their life with a sense of financial dignity. The conditions of service while a judge is in service must ensure a dignified existence. The post-retirement conditions of service have a crucial bearing on the dignity and independence of the office of a judge and how it is perceived by the society. If the service of the judiciary is to be a viable career option so as to attract talent, conditions of service, both for working and retired officers, must offer security and dignity. (Para 13-14)

K.P. Mozika vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. 2024 INSC 27 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 488 – Article 366(29A)(d) Constitution -Assam General Sales Tax Act -Assam Value Added Tax Act

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 366(29A)(d) - In every case where the owner of the goods permits another person to use goods, the transaction need not be of the transfer of the right to use the goods. It can be simply a license to use the goods which may not amount to the transfer of the right to use. The contract will be covered by sub­clause (d) of Clause 29A of Article 366, provided all the five conditions laid down are fulfilled - To constitute a transaction for the transfer of the right to use the goods, the transaction must have the following attributes: ( a) there must be goods available for delivery- ( b) there must be a consensus ad idem as to the identity of the goods- ( c) the transferee should have a legal right to use the goods—consequently all legal consequences of such use including any permissions or licences required therefor should be available to the transferee- ( d) for the period during which the transferee has such legal right, it has to be the exclusion to the transferor—this is the necessary concomitant of the plain language of the statute viz. a “transfer of the right to use” and not merely a licence to use the goods- ( e) having transferred the right to use the goods during the period for which it is to be transferred, the owner cannot again transfer the same rights to others - Referred to concurring view of the Justice AR Lakshmanan in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 1. (Para 31-33)

Alagammal vs Ganesan 2024 INSC 28 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 374 – Specific Relief Act

Summary - Plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sale - Trial Court dismissed the suit - Appellate Court and High Court decred - Allowing appeal, the Supreme Court held: Even if the case of later payments by the respondents to the appellants is accepted, the same being at great intervals and there being no willingness shown by them to pay the remaining amount or getting the Sale Deed ascribed on necessary stamp paper and giving notice to the appellants to execute the Sale Deed, it be said that in the present 32 case, judged on the anvil of the conduct of parties, especially the appellants, time would not remain the essence of the contract - Referred to K.S. Vidyanadam v Vairavan, (1997) 3 SCC 1.

Dr. Balbir Singh Bhandari vs State of Uttarakhand 2024 INSC 29 – Service Law

The benefit of a personal/promotional pay scale was granted to the appellants by the State of Uttarakhand. The said benefit was withdrawn under a subsequent decision of the State of Uttarakhand. - Order to recover benefits from the appellants who have superannuated was challenged before High Court which dismissed it - Supreme Court dismissed appeal against HC order.

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Yogendra Mohan Sengupta 2024 INSC 30 – NGT – HP Town & Country Planning Act

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 32, 226 -Independence and separation of powers - Giving a direction or advisory sermons to the Executive in respect of the sphere which is exclusively within the domain of the Executive or the Legislature would neither be legal nor proper. The Court cannot be permitted to usurp the functions assigned to the Executive, the Legislature or the subordinate legislature - Neither the High Courts while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution nor this Court while exercising powers under Article 32 of the Constitution can direct the legislature or its delegatee to enact a law or subordinate legislation in a particular manner - Constitution of India recognizes the independence and separation of powers amongst the three branches of the State viz. the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. Each of the branches are co-equal. (Para 65-69)

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226 - High Courts exercise the power of judicial review over all the Tribunals which are situated within its jurisdiction [ Referred to L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 : 1997 INSC 288 - Priya Gupta and Another v. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (2013) 11 SCC 404 : 2012 INSC 601 ] (Para 101-107)

Precedent -Law declared by the higher court in the State is binding on authorities and tribunals under its superintendence and they cannot ignore it - Disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have a grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation - Predictability and certainty are important hallmarks of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country, as discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system - (Para 108)
Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977 - TCP Act empowers the State Government and the Director to exercise the powers to enact a piece of delegated legislation, the NGT could not have imposed fetters on such powers and directed it to exercise its powers in a particular manner - NGT could not have directed the delegatee who has been delegated powers under the TCP Act to enact the regulations, to do so in a particular manner. A. (Para 70,88)

Environment - Sustainable Development -Need to have a balance between the requirement of development and preservation of ecology and environment - While ensuring the developmental activities so as to meet the demands of growing population, it is also necessary that the issues with regard to environmental and ecological protection are addressed too. (Para 113-122) [Referred to T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others 2023 INSC 430, State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Uday Education and Welfare Trust and Others 2022 INSC 465, Essar Oil Limited v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti (2004) 2 SCC 392 : 2004 INSC 40, Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 281 : 1996 INSC 237 - N.D. Jayal and Another v. Union of India (2004) 9 SCC 362 : 2003 INSC 438 , Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority and Others (2022) 11 SCC 1: 2021 INSC 4, Residents Welfare Association and Another v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others (2023) 8 SCC 643 : 2023 INSC 22 ]

Precedent - What could be a binding precedent ? it is not profitable to extract a sentence here and there from the judgment and to build upon it -The essence of the decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein -A deliberate judicial decision arrived at after hearing an argument on a question which arises in the case or is put in issue would constitute a precedent. Referred to Union of India and Others v. Dhanwanti Devi (1996) 6 SCC 44 : 1996 INSC 911. (Para 74-75)

Distinction between legislative function and administrative function - Referred to Union of India and Another v. Cynamide India Ltd. (1987) 2 SCC 720 : 1987 INSC 100- A legislative act is the creation and promulgation of a general rule of conduct without reference to particular cases- whereas an administrative act is the making and issue of a specific direction or the application of a general rule to a particular case in accordance with the requirements of policy. It has been held that legislation is the process of formulating a general rule of conduct without reference to particular cases and usually operating in future. Whereas, administration is the process of performing particular acts of issuing particular orders or of making decisions which apply general rules to particular cases. It has also been held that rule-making is normally directed towards the formulation of requirements having a general application to all members of a broadly identifiable class- whereas an adjudication, on the other hand, applies to specific individuals or situations. (Para 49-50)

Container Corporation of India Ltd. vs Ajay Khera 2024 INSC 31 – Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority Recommendations

Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (‘EPCA’) Recommendations on the issue of shift to CNG/Hybrid/Electric - Directions issued - After examining recommendation 3.1, the Union of India shall formulate a policy of phasing out heavy­duty diesel vehicles and replacing them with BS­VI vehicles - The process of exploring the possibility of finding better sources, including CNG/Hybrid/Electric, for the use of heavy­duty vehicles shall continue-

Re: NGT observation to restrict the entry of diesel vehicles in the said ICDs at Tughlakabad by diverting these vehicles to the ICDs at Dadri, Rewari, Ballabhgarh, Khatuawas or any other ICD around Delhi so as to control the pollution in Delhi NCR - Citizens living in other parts of the country other than Delhi NCR also have a fundamental right to a pollution free environment as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such a fundamental right is equally enforceable by all and is not confined to the people of Delhi NCR. The NGT while protecting/safeguarding the above fundamental right of the people of Delhi NCR cannot allow infringement of the same fundamental right of the citizens living outside Delhi NCR. The observation of the NGT is totally unjustified and unwarranted. (Para 21)

Dinesh Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 32 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 390 – Criminal Case Over A Civil Matter – Frivolous Litigation

Litigation - Unscrupulous litigants should not be allowed to go scot-free. They should be put to strict terms and conditions including costs. It is time to check with firmness such litigation initiated and laced with concealment, falsehood, and forum hunting. Even State actions or conduct of government servants being party to such malicious litigation should be seriously reprimanded - unnecessary turning of a civil matter into a criminal case not only overburdens the criminal justice system but also violates the principles of fairness and right conduct in legal matters. (Para 1)

Summary - A criminal complaint was filed and FIR was registered despite the commercial nature of dispute. Such ill intended acts of abuse of power and of legal machinery seriously affect the public trust in judicial functioning - FIR and criminal proceedings quashed - Imposed cost of ₹25 lakhs on Complainant with a view to curb others from such acts leading to abuse of judicial remedies
 

Delhi Development Authority vs Hello Home Education Society 2024 INSC 33 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 454 – Art. 226 Constitution – Internal Notings – Public Land Transfer – Parity

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226 - Litigant who is not diligent cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - There is no justifiable or satisfactory explanation for the said period of inordinate delay of 11 years. The writ petition ought to have been dismissed on this ground alone. (Para 18.1)
Internal notings - Whether internal notings would confer any right or not ? Until and unless the decision taken on file is converted into a final order to be communicated and duly served on the concerned party, no right accrues to the said party. Mere notings and in-principle approvals do not confer a vested right. (Para 18.7)
Public Land - Whenever the State intends to transfer any land resort should be by public auction or inviting tenders. (Para 18.9)
Parity - negative parity is not recognised or approved rather it is disapproved. (Para 18.10)
 

State of Haryana vs Mohd. Yunus 2024 INSC 34 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 404 – Criminal Trial – Untrustworthy witness

Criminal Trial - S 302 IPC - For trial under Section 302 IPC, if a witness is branded as untrustworthy having allegedly twisted the facts and made contrary statement, it is not safe to impose conviction on the basis of statement made by such witness. When there is an effort to falsely implicate one accused person, statement made by such an eyewitness cannot be relied without strong corroboration. (Para 18)
 

Birla Corporation Limited vs Bhanwar Singh 2024 INSC 35 – Chittorgarh Fort – Blasting Operations

Summary -Blasting operations undertaken for limestone extraction resulting in possible damage to the existing structures of the Chittorgarh Fort - Directions issued to undertake the study of environmental pollution and impact on all the structures in the Chittorgarh Fort - The prevention of damage from any such collateral activities must be simultaneously addressed by the State Government of Rajasthan and the ASI. Therefore, through this order, a three-pronged study and action plan are implemented.

Asma Lateef vs Shabbir Ahmad 2024 INSC 36 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 517 – S 47 CPC – Order VIII Rule 10 CPC – Judgment -Interim Orders

Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 10 - Scope and extent of power - Rule 10 is permissive in nature, enabling the trial court to exercise, in a given case, either of the two 13 alternatives open to it. Notwithstanding the alternative of proceeding to pronounce a judgment, the court still has an option not to pronounce judgment and to make such order in relation to the suit it considers fit. The verb ‘shall’ in Rule 10 [although substituted for the verb ‘may’ by the Amendment Act of 1976] does not elevate the first alternative to the status of a mandatory provision, so much so that in every case where a party from whom a written statement is invited fails to file it, the court must pronounce the judgment against him. If that were the purport, the second alternative to which ‘shall’ equally applies would be rendered otiose Only on being satisfied that there is no fact which need to be proved on account of deemed admission, could the court pass a judgment against the defendant who has not filed the written statement- but if the plaint itself suggests involvement of disputed questions of fact, it would not be safe for the court to pass a judgment without requiring the plaintiff to prove the facts- Provision of Rule 10 of Order VIII, CPC is by no means mandatory in the sense that a court has no alternative but to pass a judgment in favour of the plaintiff, if the defendant fails or neglects to file his written statement - plaint in a suit is not akin to a writ petition where not only the facts are to be pleaded but also the evidence in support of the pleaded facts is to be annexed, whereafter, upon exchange of affidavits, such petition can be decided on affidavit evidence. Since facts are required to be pleaded in a plaint and not the evidence, which can be adduced in course of examination of witnesses, mere failure or neglect of a defendant to file a written statement controverting the pleaded facts in the plaint, in all cases, may not entitle him to a judgment in his favour unless by adducing evidence he proves his case/claim - Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan (1999) 8 SCC 396 (Para 15-17) - It is to avoid a situation of contradictory/inconsistent decrees that power under Rule 10 of Order VIII ought to be invoked with care, caution, and circumspection, only when none of several defendants file their written statements and upon the taking of evidence from the side of the plaintiff, if deemed necessary, the entire suit could be decided. Where even one of several defendants had filed a written statement, it would be a judicious exercise of discretion for the court to opt for the second alternative in Rule 10 of Order VIII, CPC unless, of course, extraordinary circumstances exist warranting recourse to the first alternative. (Para 22)

Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 47- The powers of an executing court, though narrower than an appellate or revisional court, can be exercised to dismiss an execution application if the decree put to execution is unmistakably found to suffer from an inherent lack of jurisdiction of the court that made the same rendering it a nullity in the eye of law - But the lack of jurisdiction must be patent on the face of the decree to enable an executing court to conclude that the decree was a nullity -All irregular or wrong decrees would not necessarily be void. An erroneous or illegal decision, which was not void, could not be objected in execution or incidental proceedings. - Referred to Rafique Bibi v. Sayed Waliuddin (2004) 1 SCC 287 and Balvant N. Viswamitra v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (2004) 8 SCC 706. (Para 29,37)

Interim Relief - Jurisdiction -Question of jurisdiction would assume importance even at the stage a court considers the question of grant of interim relief. Where interim relief is claimed in a suit before a civil court and the party to be affected by grant of such relief, or any other party to the suit, raises a point of maintainability thereof or that it is barred by law and also contends on that basis that interim relief should not to be granted, grant of relief in whatever form, if at all, ought to be preceded by formation and recording of at least a prima facie satisfaction that the suit is maintainable or that it is not barred by law. Such a satisfaction resting on appreciation of the averments in the plaint, the application for interim relief and the written objection thereto, as well as the relevant law that is cited in support of the objection, would be a part of the court’s reasoning of a prima facie case having been set up for interim relief, that the balance of convenience is in favour of the grant and non-grant would cause irreparable harm and prejudice. It would be inappropriate for a court to abstain from recording its prima facie satisfaction on the question of maintainability, yet, proceed to grant protection pro tem on the assumption that the question of maintainability has to be decided as a preliminary issue under Rule 2 of Order XIV, CPC. That could amount to an improper exercise of power. If the court is of the opinion at the stage of hearing the application for interim relief that the suit is barred by law or is otherwise not maintainable, it cannot dismiss it without framing a preliminary issue after the written statement is filed but can most certainly assign such opinion for refusing interim relief. However, if an extraordinary situation arises where it could take time to decide the point of maintainability of the suit and non grant of protection pro tem pending such decision could lead to 29 irreversible consequences, the court may proceed to make an appropriate order in the manner indicated above justifying the course of action it adopts. In other words, such an order may be passed, if at all required, to avoid irreparable harm or injury or undue hardship to the party claiming the relief and/or to ensure that the proceedings are not rendered infructuous by reason of non-interference by the court. (Para 39)

Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 -Section 2(9) - A judgment, as envisaged in section 2(9), CPC, should contain the process of reasoning by which the court arrived at its conclusion to resolve the controversy and consequently to decree the suit - Judgment - Any verdict of a competent judicial forum in the form of a judgment/order, that determines the rights and liabilities of the parties to the proceedings, must inform the parties what is the outcome and why one party has succeeded and not the other - the ‘why’ constituting the reasons and ‘what’ the conclusion. Apart from anything else, insistence of the requirement for the reason(s) to support the conclusion guarantees application of mind by the adjudicator to the materials before it as well as provides an avenue to the unsuccessful party to test the reasons before a higher court - a “judgment”, if pronounced by a court under Rule 10 of Order VIII, CPC, must satisfy the requirements of Rule 4(2) of Order XX, CPC, and thereby conform to its definition provided in section 2(9) thereof - “decree” shall follow a “judgment” in a case where the court invokes power upon failure of a defendant to file its written statement. It is, therefore, only a “judgment” conforming to the provisions of the CPC that could lead to a “decree” being drawn up. (Para 43-47)

Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 -Section 2(9) - Order VIII Rule 10 - Order XX Rule 4(2)- A “judgment”, if pronounced by a court under Rule 10 of Order VIII, CPC, must satisfy the requirements of Rule 4(2) of Order XX, CPC, and thereby conform to its definition provided in section 2(9) thereof - “decree” shall follow a “judgment” in a case where the court invokes power upon failure of a defendant to file its written statement. It is, therefore, only a “judgment” conforming to the provisions of the CPC that could lead to a “decree” being drawn up. (Para 44-45)

Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction is the entitlement of the civil court to embark upon an enquiry as to whether the cause has been brought before it by the plaintiff in a manner prescribed by law and also whether a good case for grant of relief claimed been set up by him. As and when such entitlement is established, any subsequent error till delivery of judgment could be regarded as an error within the jurisdiction. The enquiry as to whether the civil court is entitled to entertain and try a suit has to be made by it keeping in mind the provision in section 9, CPC and the relevant enactment which, according to the objector, bars a suit. Needless to observe, the question of jurisdiction has to be determined at the commencement and not at the conclusion of the enquiry. (Para 38)
 

S Rajaseekaran vs Union Of India 2024 INSC 37 – S 161 Motor Vehicles Act -Compensation of Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022 –

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 161 - Compensation of Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022 - An accident involving a motor vehicle can be considered as a hit and run accident, provided the identity of the vehicle that caused the accident cannot be ascertained despite reasonable efforts. Obviously, reasonable efforts must be made by the Police Station which registers the accident. If the Police conclude that it is a case of hit and run accident, the Police must inform the victim or the legal representatives of the victim, as the case may be, about the availability of the Scheme. There are cases where the Police, as well as the Claims Enquiry Officer, are aware of the fact that a hit and run accident has occurred. However, no efforts are made to ensure that the persons entitled to seek compensation file their claims - Directions issued - a) If the particulars of the vehicle involved in the accident are not available at the time of registration of the report regarding the accident by the jurisdictional Police Station and if, after making reasonable efforts, the particulars of the vehicle involved in the accident could not be ascertained by the Police within a period of one month from the date of registration of accident report, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall inform in writing to the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be, that compensation can be claimed under the Scheme. The contact details such as e-mail ID and office address of the jurisdictional Claims Enquiry Officer shall be provided by the Police to the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be- b) The officer in charge of the Police Station, within one month from the date of the accident, shall forward the FAR to the Claims Enquiry Officer as provided in sub-clause (1) of clause 21 of the Scheme. While forwarding a copy of the said report, the names of the victims in case of injury and the names of the legal representatives of the deceased victim (if available with the Police Station) shall also be forwarded to the jurisdictional Claims Enquiry Officer, who shall cause the same to be entered in a separate register. After receipt of the FAR and other particulars as aforesaid by the Claims Enquiry Officer, if the claim application is not received within one month, the information shall be provided by the Claims Enquiry Officer to the concerned District Legal Service Authority with a request to the said authority to contact the claimants and assist them in filing the claim applications- c) A Monitoring Committee shall be constituted at every district level consisting of the Secretary of the District Legal Service Authority, the Claims Enquiry Officer of the district or, if there is more than one, the Claim Enquiry Officer nominated by the State Government, and a police officer not below the level of Deputy Superintendent of Police as may be nominated by the District Superintendent of Police. The Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority shall be the Convener of the Monitoring Committee. The Committee shall meet at least once in every two months to monitor the implementation of the Scheme in the district and the compliance with the aforesaid directions- d) The Claims Enquiry Officer shall ensure that a report containing his recommendation and other documents are forwarded to the Claim Settlement Commissioner within one month from receipt of the claim application duly filled in. (Para 6-9)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 161(2) -Sub-section (2) of Section 161 of MV Act provides that in case of death of any person resulting from hit and run motor accident, a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs or such higher amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government shall be paid. In case of grievous injury, the compensation amount is Rs. 50 thousand. The value of money diminishes with time. We direct the Central Government to consider whether the compensation amounts can be gradually enhanced annually. The Central Government shall take an appropriate decision on this issue within eight weeks from today. (Para 10)

Solatium Scheme - Clause 20(2)- Whether the time limit prescribed in sub-clause (2) of clause 20 of the Solatium Scheme can be extended and permission be granted to the eligible claimants to apply within the extended time as a onetime measure. Even on this aspect, we expect the Central Government to decide within eight weeks from today. (Para 11)

Mohd Julfukar vs State of Uttarakhand 2024 INSC 38 – Rape Case Quashed

Summary : Petition seeking Quashing of FIR under Sections 376 and 506 IPC Against appellant dismissed by High Court - In appeal, the Supreme Court noted the complainant's statement that she was forced to marry the appellant. As such, the relationship between the appellant and the complainant was after the said marriage - even if the statement made by the complainant is taken on its face value, the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 376 IPC are not made out - now even the complainant herself does not want to proceed further with the proceedings. She has stated in her affidavit filed before this Court that they have mutually obtained a divorce and it was finalized by Talaq-E-Khula - continuation of proceedings in these circumstances would be prejudicial even to the interest of the complainant and she would be forced to continue with the case, which she does not want- FIR quashed.

Suresh Garodia vs State of Assam 2024 INSC 39 – Rape Case Quashed – 34 Years Delay To Lodge FIR

Summary: In 2016, a woman complained that the accused raped her 34 years ago - In Final report Investigation Officer opined that the case was of a civil nature and filed only for the greed for the property of the appellant- Magistrate rejected this Final Report and took cognizance under Section 376/506 of IPC- HC rejected accused's plea challenging this order - Allowing appeal, SC held: Lodging a case after 34 years and that too on the basis of a bald statement that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of commission of offence, could itself be a ground to quash the proceedings. No explanation whatsoever is given in the FIR as to why the prosecutrix was keeping silent for a long period of 34 years. The material on record shows that the relationship was consensual, inasmuch as the son who is born out of the said relationship has been treated by the appellant as his son and all the facilities, including cash money, have been provided to him. (Para 13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 190 - Magistrate, while exercising his powers under Section 190 Cr.P.C., is not bound to accept the final report of the I.O. However, if the Magistrate disagrees with the finding of the I.O., the least that is expected of him is to give reasons as to why he disagrees with such a report and as to why he finds it necessary to take cognizance despite the negative report submitted by the I.O.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The Court would normally not embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint.

Anjum Ara vs State Of Bihar 2024 INSC 40 – Service Law

Summary : Appellate Authority's order setting aside the order of appointment challenged before HC - HC dismissed writ petitions and upheld it -In appeal, the court noted: Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines imposed a restriction on such persons whose family member or members have secured appointment with the State Government or any organization of the State - In another case, HC had struck this down as unconstitutional - The only ground on which the appellant has been nonsuited was that the appellant had not challenged the said Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines before the High Court - When the said Clause of the Guidelines was struck down by the High Court , it ceased to exist. As such, it was not necessary for the appellant to challenge the validity of the same inasmuch as the same was already held to be invalid by the very same High Court - Appeal allowed with direction to reinstate Appellant .

Nara Chandrababu Naidu vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2024 INSC 41 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 549- S 17A Prevention Of Corruption Act- Split Verdict

Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988- Section 17A - Per Aniruddha Bose J: If an enquiry, inquiry or investigation is intended in respect of a public servant on the allegation of commission of offence under the 1988 Act after Section 17A thereof becomes operational, which is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken, at least prima facie, in discharge of his official duty, previous approval of the authority postulated in sub­section (a) or (b) or (c) of Section 17A of the 1988 Act shall have to be obtained. In absence of such previous approval, the action initiated under the 1988 Act shall be held illegal - Per Bela M. Trivedi J: Section 17A would be applicable to the offences under the PC Act as amended by the Amendment Act, 2018, and not to the offences existing prior to the said amendment - Referred to larger bench. 

Shadakshari vs State Of Karnataka 2024 INSC 42 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 429 – Ss 197, 482 CrPC – Sanction

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 197 - Section 197 Cr.PC does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service. It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties - The object of such sanction for prosecution is to protect a public servant discharging official duties and functions from undue harassment by initiation of frivolous criminal proceedings. (Para 17-23)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 197 , 482 - The question whether accused was involved in fabricating official documents by misusing his official position as a public servant is a matter of trial. Certainly, a view can be taken that manufacturing of such documents or fabrication of records cannot be a part of the official duty of a public servant. (Para 25)
 

Sanjay Kundu vs Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh 2024 INSC 43 - HC Direction Transferring DGP

Summary: High Court issued directions transferring the petitioner out of the post of DGP - The allegations which were levelled by the complainant are that the petitioner, in his official capacity, intervened in a civil dispute and attempted to used his office to intimidate the complainant- Setting aside HC direction, the SC held: “The consequence of shifting out of an IPS officer has serious consequences. The order was passed without an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the allegations against him or to place his response before the Court. There was thus a manifest miscarriage of procedural justice.”
 

State of Assam vs Binod Kumar 2024 INSC 44 - S 17 Assam Police Act vs Rule 63(iii) Assam Police Manual – Interpretation of Statutes

Summary : Assam Police Act, 2007- Section 14(2) -Upheld Gauhati HC judgment that held that Rule 63(iii) of the Assam Police Manual held invalid on the ground that it is in direct conflict with Section 14(2) of the Assam Police Act, 2007 - 1970 Rules/2007 Rules define reporting, reviewing and accepting authorities to mean that they must all be from the same service or department, intervention by the Deputy Commissioner during the exercise of performance assessment of SPs of the districts in the State of Assam, by virtue of Rule 63(iii) of the Manual, cannot be countenanced, being in direct conflict therewith, and would tantamount to permitting the Deputy Commissioner to interfere with the internal organization of the police force, which would be contrary to the mandate of Section 14(2) of the Act of 2007. (Para 26)

Interpretation of Statutes - the words used in a statute must be interpreted in their plain grammatical meaning and it is only when they are capable of two constructions that the question of giving effect to the policy or object of the legislation can legitimately arise. (Para 17)

Interpretation of Statutes - A a statutory provision has to be considered first and foremost as a norm of the current legal system whence it takes force, as it has a legal existence independent of the historical contingencies of its promulgation and should be interpreted in the light of its place within the system of legal norms currently in force. - Referred to Sir Rupert Cross in his ‘Statutory Interpretation’ (3rd Edition, 1995) and Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited vs. Union of India (2019) 5 SCC 480. (Para 12)
 

Ramalingam vs N. Viswanathan 2024 INSC 45 – S 227 CrPC – Discharge

Code of Criminal Procedure,1973- Section 227 - Upheld Sessions Court order discharging accused - Expert witness examined by the complainant, who admittedly carried out a post-mortem on the body of the deceased, has categorically stated that the death of the deceased was natural - In the post-mortem, no injury was found on the chest or any other part of the body of the deceased.

Kusha Duruka vs State Of Odisha 2024 INSC 46 – Bail Applications Guidelines

Bail Applications -To avoid any confusion in future it would be appropriate to mandatorily mention in the application(s) filed for grant of bail: (1) Details and copies of order(s) passed in the earlier bail application(s) filed by the petitioner which have been already decided. (2) Details of any bail application(s) filed by the petitioner, which is pending either in any court, below the court in question or the higher court, and if none is pending, a clear statement to that effect has to be made. - All bail applications filed by the different accused in the same FIR should be listed before the same Judge except in cases where the Judge has superannuated or has been transferred or otherwise incapacitated to hear the matter. The system needs to be followed meticulously to avoid any discrepancies in the orders. In case it is mentioned on the top of the bail application or any other place which is clearly visible, that the application for bail is either first, second or third and so on, so that it is convenient for the court to appreciate the arguments in that light. If this fact is mentioned in the order, it will enable the next higher court to appreciate the arguments in that light. (3) The registry of the court should also annex a report generated from the system about decided or pending bail application(s) in the crime case in question. The same system needs to be followed even in the case of private complaints as all cases filed in the trial courts are assigned specific numbers (CNR No.), even if no FIR number is there. (4) It should be the duty of the Investigating Officer/any officer assisting the State Counsel in court to apprise him of the order(s), if any, passed by the court with reference to different bail applications or other proceedings in the same crime case. And the counsel appearing for the parties have to conduct themselves truly like officers of the Court. (Para 20)

Litigation - One of the two cherished basic values by Indian society for centuries is "satya" (truth) - Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system in the pre-Independence era, however, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, the values have gone down and now litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court. They have no respect for the truth. The principle has been evolved to meet the challenges posed by this new breed of litigants. Now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The maxim supressio veri, expression faisi, i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. Its nothing but degradation of moral values in the society, may be because of our education system. Now we are more happy to hear anything except truth- read anything except truth- speak anything except truth and believe anything except truth. Someone rightly said that `Lies are very sweet, while truth is bitter, that's why most people prefer telling lies.' (Para 7)
 

Raja Gounder vs M Sengodan 2024 INSC 47 – Partition – Ss 17,18 Evidence Act – Admissions

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 17,18 - Admission is a conscious and deliberate act and not something that could be inferred. An admission could be a positive act of acknowledgement or confession. To constitute an admission, one of the requirements is a voluntary acknowledgement through a statement of the existence of certain facts during the judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, which conclude as true or valid the allegations made in the proceedings or in the notice. The formal act of acknowledgement during the proceedings waives or dispenses with the production of evidence by the contesting party. The admission concedes, for the purpose of litigation, the proposition of fact claimed by the opponents as true. An admission is also the best evidence the opposite party can rely upon, and though inconclusive, is decisive of the matter unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous by the other side.- Section 18 of the Act lays down the conditions and the requirements satisfied for applying to a statement as an admission - Section 18 of the Act deals with: (i) admission by a party to a proceeding, (ii) his agent, (iii) by a suitor in a representative character, (iv) statements made by a party in trusted subject matter, (v) statements made by a person from whom interest is derived. The qualifying circumstances to merit as admission are subject to satisfying the requirement. (Para 13-14)

Partition suit -The shares are dependent upon the nature of status and the time at which the partition is decreed. It is axiomatic that the shares fluctuate not only with the happening of events in the family but also with the circumstances established by the parties to the lis. (Para 17)

Hindu Succession Act, 1955- Section 16 -Entitlement of share to the children of void or voidable marriages - Referred to Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2023) 10 SCC 1. (Para 17-18)
 

Jay Shri vs State of Rajasthan 2024 INSC 48 – Ss 406,420 IPC -Converting Purely Civil Dispute Into Criminal Cases – Anticipatory Bail

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 406 - Mere breach of contract does not amount to an offence under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Caution against converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases - Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged - Anticipatory bail granted.

Mariam Fasihuddin vs State 2024 INSC 49 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 623 – Ss 420,468,471 IPC – Cheating and Forgery- S 12(b) Passports Act -S 173(8) CrPC- Supplementary Report

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 420 - In order to attract the provisions of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property. There are, thus, three components of this offence, i.e., (i) the deception of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, and (iii) mens rea or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducemen- For the offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when the promise or representation was made - Every deceitful act is not unlawful, just as not every unlawful act is deceitful. Some acts may be termed both as unlawful as well as deceitful, and such acts alone will fall within the purview of Section 420 IPC - A statement of fact is deemed ‘deceitful’ when it is false, and is knowingly or recklessly made with the intent that it shall be acted upon by another person, resulting in damage or loss- 'Cheating’ generally involves a preceding deceitful act that dishonestly induces a person to deliver any property or any part of a valuable security, prompting the induced person to undertake the said act, which they would not have done but for the inducement - The term ‘property’ employed in Section 420 IPC has a welldefined connotation. Every species of valuable right or interest that is subject to ownership and has an exchangeable value – is ordinarily understood as ‘property’. It also describes one’s exclusive right to possess, use and dispose of a thing. The IPC itself defines the term ‘moveable property’ as, “intended to include corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.” Whereas immoveable property is generally understood to mean land, benefits arising out of land and things attached or permanently fastened to the earth. (Para 10-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 468 ,471- Two primary components that need to be fulfilled in order to establish the offence of ‘forgery’, namely: (i) that the accused has fabricated an instrument- and (ii) it was done with the intention that the forged document would be used for the purpose of cheating. Simply put, the offence of forgery requires the preparation of a false document with the dishonest intention of causing damage or injury - The offences of ‘forgery’ and ‘cheating’ intersect and converge, as the act of forgery is committed with the intent to deceive or cheat an individual. (Para 21-23)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 173(8) - The provision for submitting a supplementary report infers that fresh oral or documentary evidence should be obtained rather than reevaluating or reassessing the material already collected and considered by the investigating agency while submitting the initial police report, known as the chargesheet under Section 173(2) CrPC. In the absence of any new evidence found to substantiate the conclusions drawn by the investigating officer in the supplementary report, a Judicial Magistrate is not compelled to take cognizance, as such a report lacks investigative rigour and fails to satisfy the requisites of Section 173(8) CrPC. (Para 27)

Passports Act, 1967- Section 12(b) -What must be established is that the accused knowingly furnished false information or suppressed material information with the intent of obtaining a passport or travel document. (Para 35-36)

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 21 - The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right of an individual, albeit not absolute, and subject to established legal procedures. (Para 38)

Summary: Husband complaint was that the wife submitted passport application with his forged signatures was submitted, to procure the minor child’s passport- FIR registered at Police Station Adugodi, Bengaluru under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC - Discharge plea dismissed - Allowing appeal, SC Quashed FIR - imposed cost of Rs. 1,00,000 on husband
 

Pramila vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2024 INSC 50 – Juvenility Plea – Murder Conviction Set Aside

Summary : Woman concurrently convicted in a murder case of the year 2000 - Juvenility claim accepted and appeal allowed - on the date on which the incident constituting the offence took place, the age of the appellant was less than 18 years - The maximum action which could have been taken against the appellant was of sending her to a special home - As the appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of more than eight years, no purpose will be served by sending the appellant before the Juvenile Justice Board.
 

State Bank of India vs Consortium of Mr Murari Lal Jalan and Mr Florian Fritsch 2024 INSC 51 – IBC – Timely Resolution Of Insolvency Cases

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The timely resolution of insolvency cases is vital for sustaining the effectiveness and credibility of the insolvency framework. Therefore, concerted efforts and decisive actions are imperative to break the deadlock and ensure the expeditious implementation of the resolution plan. (Para 24)

Adv Babasaheb Wasade vs Manohar Gangadhar Muddeshwar 2024 INSC 52 – Doctrine Of Necessity- Societies Registration Act

Doctrine of Necessity - Under given circumstances an action is required to be taken under compelling circumstances -law permits certain things to be done as a matter of necessity which it would otherwise not countenance on the touchstone of judicial propriety. Stated differently, the doctrine of necessity makes it imperative for the authority to decide and considerations of judicial propriety must yield. It is often invoked in cases of bias where there is no other authority or Judge to decide the issue. If the doctrine of necessity is not allowed full play in certain unavoidable situations, it would impede the course of justice itself and the defaulting party would benefit therefrom.

Societies Registration Act, 1860- Section 15 -The effect of the proviso to Section 15 of the Registration Act - The Objectors have to be treated as suspended members and would not be entitled to any notice as they had no right to vote or to be counted as members - a clear reading and interpretation of the proviso to Section 15 of the Registration Act would disentitle such defaulting members from being given any notice even if their membership was not terminated or ceased (Para 26)

Mangalam Publications vs Commissioner of Income Tax 2024 INSC 53 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 642 – Income Tax Act – Reassesment

Income Tax Act, 1961- Section 142,143- The expression “change of opinion” would imply formulation of opinion and then a change thereof. In terms of assessment proceedings, it means formulation of belief by the assessing officer resulting from what he thinks on a particular question. Therefore, before interfering with the proposed reopening of the assessment on the ground that the same is based only on a change of opinion, the court ought to verify whether the assessment earlier made has either expressly or by necessary implication expressed an opinion on a matter which is the basis of the alleged escapement of income that was taxable. If the assessment order is non-speaking, cryptic or perfunctory in nature, it may be difficult to attribute to the assessing officer any opinion on the questions that are raised in the proposed reassessment proceedings- When the assessee had not made any false declaration, it was nothing but a subsequent subjective analysis of the assessing officer that income of the assessee for the three assessment years was much higher than what was assessed and therefore, had escaped assessment. This is nothing but a mere change of opinion which cannot be a ground for reopening of assessment. (Para 42)
Income Tax Act, 1961- Section 139 -A return filed without the regular balance sheet and profit and loss account may be a defective one but certainly not invalid. A defective return cannot be regarded as an invalid return. The assessing officer has the discretion to intimate the assessee about the defect(s) and it is only when the defect(s) are not rectified within the specified period that the assessing officer may treat the return as an invalid return. Ascertaining the defects and intimating the same to the assessee for rectification, are within the realm of discretion of the assessing officer. It is for him to exercise the discretion. The burden is on the assessing officer. If he does not exercise the discretion, the return of income cannot be construed as a defective return. As a matter of fact, in none of the three assessment years, the assessing officer had issued any declaration that the returns were defective. (Para 43)

Income Tax Act, 1961- Section 139- While the duty of the assessee is to disclose fully and truly all primary and relevant facts necessary for assessment, it does not extend beyond this. Once the primary facts are disclosed by the assessee, the burden shifts onto the assessing officer. (Para 40)

Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association vs Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. 2024 INSC 54- S 14 IBC – Moratorium – Company Directors/Officers

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016- Section 14 - The protection of the moratorium will not be available to the directors/officers of the company - Referred to Anjali Rathi vs. Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2021) SCC OnLine SC 729 and P. Mohanraj vs. Shah Bros. Ispat (P) Ltd. (2021) 6 SCC 258.

Prakashchandra Joshi vs Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi @ Kuntal Visanji Shah 2024 INSC 55 - Article 142 Constitution -Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 142- Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 (1) of the Constitution of India is clearly permissible to do ‘complete justice’ to a ‘cause or matter’ and this Court can pass an order or decree which a family court, trial court or High Court can pass and when such power is exercised, the question or issue of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction does not arise- in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, has the discretion to dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown. This discretionary power is to be exercised to do ‘complete justice’ to the parties, wherein this Court is satisfied that the facts established show that the marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility that the parties will cohabit together, and continuation of the formal legal relationship is unjustified - Referred to Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varubn Sreenivasan (2023) SCC online SC 544- In this case, the Court noted that parties are residing separately since February, 2011 and there have been no contact whatsoever between them during this long period of almost 13 years. The wife is not even responding to the summons issued by the courts - It seems she is no longer interested in continuing the marital relations with the husband. Therefore, the present is a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as there is no possibility of the couple staying together.
 

Raja Nayakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2024 INSC 56 – Criminal Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – S 313 CrPC – S 27 Evidence Act

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116=1984 INSC 121 - the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established - The accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused - There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’ - The facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty- The circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved - There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused - The suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent 10 unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (Para 8-9)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 27 - Referred to Pulukuri Kotayya and others v. King-Emperor 1946 SCC OnLine 47=AIR 1947 PC 67 - Only such statement which leads to recovery of incriminating material from a place solely and exclusively within the knowledge of the maker thereof would be admissible in evidence. (Para 13)
Criminal Trial - The sole circumstance of recovery of blood-stained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the accused - Referred to Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2011 SC 2769=2011 INSC 487. (Para 19)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 313- A case based on circumstantial evidence, the nonexplanation or false explanation of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as an additional link to complete the chain of circumstances. It can only be used to fortify the conclusion of guilt already arrived at on the basis of other proven circumstances - it is only after the prosecution discharges its duty of proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt that the false explanation or non-explanation of the accused could be taken into consideration. (Para 21)

Goa Foundation vs State Of Goa 2024 INSC 57- Identification Of Private Forests

Please see In Re: TN Godavarman Thirumalpad vs UoI 2024 INSC 59 

CBI vs Kapil Wadhawan 2024 INSC 58 – S 173 CrPC :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 677 – Incomplete Charge Sheet – Default Bail

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 173 - Once from the material produced along with the chargesheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. - Though ordinarily all documents relied upon by the prosecution should accompany the chargesheet, nonetheless for some reasons, if all the documents are not filed along with the chargesheet, that reason by itself would not invalidate or vitiate the chargesheet. (Para 23)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 173 - The right of the investigating officer to pray for further investigation in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 is not taken away only because a chargesheet is filed under sub-section (2) thereof against the accused. (Para 23)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 173 - Statutory requirement of the report under Section 173 (2) would be complied with if the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. The report under Section 173 is an intimation to the court that upon investigation into the cognizable offence, the investigating officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into the offence and the necessary information is being sent to the court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175 (5) - It is not necessary that all the details of the offence must be stated. (Para 22)
 

In Re: TN Godavarman Thirumalpad vs UoI 2024 INSC 59 :: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 187 – Identification Of Private Forests

Identification Of Private Forests - existing criteria for identification of private forests in the State of Goa are adequate and valid, hence, they require no alteration. The Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change guidelines, as well as the Scheduled Tribes & other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, are clear and unambiguous, as they have exempted the application of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, on areas that are less than 1 hectare and where not more than 75 trees have to be cut. (Para 69)
 

Krishan vs State of Haryana 2024 INSC 60 – Murder Accused Acquitted- Recovery Of Weapons

Summary - Appeal against concurrent murder conviction - Prosecution relied upon the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant and the fact that the appellant disclosed the place where he had thrown the dead bodies - the recovery was allegedly made one month and four days after the occurrence - the recovery was made from open space in a garden -the place was easily accessible to many - Prosecution Witnesses did not state that the weapon and cartridges were buried underground and were recovered only after digging. Lastly, though independent witnesses were available, they were not made witnesses to the Panchnama made pursuant to the alleged statement made by the appellant - The evidence of recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant cannot be accepted as reliable - A serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case - The benefit of the doubt must be extended to the appellant - Acquitted.

D Ganesan vs Union Of India 2024 INSC 61 – Disciplinary Proceedings

Disciplinary Proceedings - In the facts of the given case, the disciplinary proceeding could continue simultaneously with the criminal inquiry. There is no legal bar on running such parallel proceedings though in certain situations, this Court has not permitted continuance of dual proceedings.
Summary: High Court assumed the role of a disciplinary authority and imposed punishment also - Such a finding and the consequential decision were not warranted.

Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd vs U.P. Gun House 2024 INSC 62 – SARFAESI – Auction Purchase

Summary: Cooperative Bank will pay an amount of Rs.54,00,000/-12 (rupees fifty four lakhs only) to the respondent in full and final settlement of his claims.

Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod vs State Of Gujarat 2024 INSC 63 – S 118,138,139 NI Act – S 73 Evidence Act – Bankers’ Books Evidence Act – Specimen Signature – Cheque Bounce Case

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 73 - Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 - Certified copy of a document issued by a Bank is itself admissible under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 without any formal proof thereof. Hence, in an appropriate case, the certified copy of the specimen signature maintained by the Bank can be procured with a request to the Court to compare the same with the signature appearing on the cheque by exercising powers under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Section 138,139, 118 - Presumption regarding indorsements made on the negotiable instrument being in order in which they appear thereupon- The presumption of the indorsements on the cheque being genuine operates in favour of the holder in due course of the cheque in question which would be the complainant herein. In case, the accused intends to rebut such presumption, he would be required to lead evidence to this effect - The presumptions under the NI Act albeit rebuttable operate in favour of the complainant. Hence, it is for the accused to rebut such presumptions by leading appropriate defence evidence and the Court cannot be expected to assist the accused to collect evidence on his behalf. (Para 13-17)

JN Puri vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 64 – Restoration Application

Summary: High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed an application for restoration of the writ petition holding that it was submitted with a delay of seven years -Allowing appeal, the SC observed: As a matter of fact, the application for restoration was filed within a period of one month-the appellant still claims to be in possession of the land under acquisition, we feel that the writ petition preferred by the appellant should have been heard and decided on merit.

Director General, CSIR vs JK Prashar 2024 INSC 65 – Service Law

Summary: HC reversed the promotion of some persons on the post of Under Secretary on the ground that their promotion was in violation of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Administrative Services (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 1982 - Appeal dismissed.

Sanjay Upadhya vs Anand Dubey 2024 INSC 66 – Defamation Complaint Quashed

Summary : Defamation Case filed by Advocate Against newspaper owner for report titled: “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj” - Supreme Court upheld Magistrate's order rejecting the complaint observing that the news article was published in good faith and in exercise of the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

PC Jain vs Dr. RP Singh 2024 INSC 67 – Consumer Complaint – Medical Negligence

Medical Negligence - NCDRC upheld the compensation awarded by the DCDRC to the complainant (Rupees Two Lakhs) - However, the interest @ 12% was held to be excessive and accordingly, the same was reduced to 6% - Allowing appeal, SC directed that the appellant P.C. Jain shall be entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs only with interest @ 12% per annum from the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh with effect from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment is made.

Dasharat Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2024 INSC 68 – S 3 SC-ST Act – Outraging Modesty – Acquittal

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(xi) - Offence of outraging the modesty should be committed with the intention that the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste categoryt the offence of outraging the modesty should be committed with the intention that the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste category - As per the FIR and the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix/complainant was engaged for doing household jobs in the house of the accused appellant who tried to outrage her modesty while the prosecutrix/complainant was doing the household chores - Even from the highest allegations of the prosecutrix, the offending act was not committed by the accused with the intention that he was doing so upon a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste - Referred to Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra 2000(3) SCC 557 .

Rani Chander Kanta (D) vs Union Of India 2024 INSC 69 – Suit For Declaration

Summary: Suit for declaration to the effect that the appellants/plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property as absolute owners - Decreed by Trial Court - Dismissed by First Appellate Court and High Court- Dismissing Appeal, SC held: Merely with the identity of the property or its number, no title can be passed on any prospective buyer, once a conscious decision had been taken by the authority concerned to sell only a portion thereof and not the entire area.