1) Possibility of mistaken identity cannot be ruled out: Supreme Court acquits murder accused
The Court acquitted a murder accused observing that there is a possibility of mistaken identity. The Court noted that the incident took place in the year 2006, and the appellant was arrested in the year 2008.
The Court held that a conviction relying solely on the appellant's identification in court, made for the first time over four and a half years after the incident, would not be sufficient to maintain the same.
Cause Title- Suresh @ Unni @ Vadi Suresh v. The State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 350)
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
2) Confessional statements u/s 67 NDPS Act are not admissible in evidence
The Court reiterated that a confession recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not admissible in evidence.
The Bench pointed out that how the appellant in this case was apprehended and brought to the NCB Office at Ahmedabad in the purported exercise of recording his statement under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) was full of “doubt and creates grave suspicion.”
Cause Title- Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan v. The State of Gujarat & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 351)
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2024
Coram- Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
3) Peculiar practice of filing 'minutes of order' in Bombay HC: Supreme Court lays down guidelines
The Court held that it is the duty of a court to determine the lawfulness of an order passed in accordance with the "Minutes of Order" after these minutes were presented to the court by the advocates.
The Bench noted that the practice of filing “Minutes of Order” which prevailed in the Bombay High Court is done as a “courtesy” to assist the Court by the advocates appearing for the parties to the proceedings.
Cause Title- Ajay Ishwar Ghute & Ors. v. Meher K. Patel & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 353)
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
4) Process of re-labelling amounts to ‘manufacture:’ SC affirms CENVAT credit availed by Jindal Drugs Ltd.
The Court affirmed the the CENVAT Credit availed by Jindal Drugs Ltd. (Jindal) holding that the process of labelling amounted to ‘manufacture.’ The Bench explained that the word ‘manufacture’ included any process which was incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product.
Any process outlined in the First and Third Schedules of the Central Excise Tariff Act (the Act), such as packing or repacking goods into unit containers, labelling or re-labelling containers, including the declaration or alteration of the retail sale price, or adoption of treatments to render the product marketable to consumers, constituted manufacturing under the Act.
Cause Title- Commissioner of Central Excise Belapur v. Jindal Drugs Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 354)
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
5) Order 22 Rule 5 CPC | Final decision on question of legal representative has to be taken by appellate court after considering the report of subordinate court
Court ruled that under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC appellate Court can direct the subordinate Court to decide the question of legal representative but the final decision has to be made by the Court itself.
In this case, Swami Shivdharmanand was sued in a property dispute. After his death, two claimants sought substitution in his place. The High Court initially allowed both but later, after the Supreme Court order, upheld Swami Satyanand as the legal representative.
Cause Title- Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj v. Shyam Lal Chauhan (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 352)
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2024
Coram- Justice A.S.Bopanna and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
6) "Claim was rightly settled": SC sets aside NCDRC order directing New India Assurance to pay 13+ crores to Tata Steel
The Court dismissed consumer complaints by Tata Steel Ltd. against the New India Assurance Company by holding that the claims were rightly settled.
The Court set aside the NCDRC order that awarded an amount of Rs.13,15,27,000/- with interest at 10% per annum to the complainant.
Cause Title- New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs M/s Tata Steel Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 356)
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2024
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan
7) While considering plea for quashing criminal proceedings u/s 482 CrPC, HC can neither conduct mini trial nor enter into appreciation of evidence
The Court reiterated that while examining prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings, the High Court can neither undertake to conduct a mini trial nor enter into appreciation of evidence.
The Court was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by a woman against the order of the Jharkhand High Court by which the proceedings initiated under Sections 323, 498A, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act) and non-bailable warrants were quashed.
Cause Title- Priyanka Jaiswal v. The State of Jharkhand and Others (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 357)
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar, and Justice Sandeep Mehta
8) State Legislature can impose & collect stamp duty on insurance policies as per rate prescribed by Parliament
The Court held that State legislature has the legislative competence to impose and collect stamp duty on policies of insurance under Entry 44 of List III of the Constitution, as per the rate prescribed by the Parliament under Entry 91 of List I.
The Court held thus in a batch of civil appeals in which the issue for consideration was whether the Rajasthan State has the power and jurisdiction to levy and collect stamp duty on policies of insurance issued within the State.
Cause Title- Life Insurance Corporation of India v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 358)
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2024
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar
9) MP State Service Examination | SC upholds segregation of deserving meritorious reservation category candidates with meritorious unreserved category candidates at preliminary examination stage itself
The Court upheld the process of segregating deserving meritorious reservation category candidates with meritorious unreserved category candidates at the preliminary examination stage itself under the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015.
The State of Madhya Pradesh amended the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 (2015 Rules) in 2020 and subsequently recalled it in 2021. The original Rule 4 of the 2015 Rules outlined the method for preparing the select list, involving the merging of meritorious reservation category candidates with meritorious unreserved category candidates at the final selection stage.
Cause Title- Deependra Yadav & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 362)
Date of Judgment- May 1, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar
10) Order or entry by revenue authorities which are competent to determine rights of parties must be respected & given effect to
The Court observed that where revenue authorities are competent to determine the rights of parties by exercising powers alike Civil Courts, any order or entry which attains finality must be respected and given effect to.
The Court observed thus in a civil appeal arising out of a suit for possession and confirmation of possession over the suit land which was decreed in his favour by the court of first instance but the decree was set aside in First Appeal and was affirmed by the High Court.
Cause Title- Ram Balak Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 360)
Date of Judgment- May 1, 2024
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
11) Chargesheet is complete when it refers to material & evidence sufficient to take cognizance & for trial
The Court while dealing with a batch of criminal appeals, elaborated on certain aspects relating to contents of Chargesheet.
The Court said that the chargesheet is complete when it refers to material and evidence sufficient to take cognizance & for trial.
Cause Title- Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 363)
Date of Judgment- May 1, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
12) Timeline for refund must be mandatorily followed while recovering dues under Delhi VAT Act
The Court ruled that the Department of Trade and Taxes must adhere to the timeline stipulated under Section 38(3) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 so that refunds are processed and issued promptly.
In this case, the High Court quashed the adjustment order and directed a refund along with interest as per Section 42 till the date of realisation.
Cause Title- Commissioner of Trade And Taxes v. FEMC Pratibha Joint Venture (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 364)
Date of Judgment- May 1, 2024
Coram- Justice P S Narasimha and Justice P B Varale
13) J&K Civil Services| Govt. Employee cannot claim HRA while sharing rent free accommodation alloted to his father, a Kashmiri pandit & retired govt. employee
The Court held that, under Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules, 1992, a Government Employee cannot claim House Rent Allowance if he is sharing government accommodation provided to his father, a retired Government employee.
In this case, the appellant was asked to deposit a certain amount as determined HRA without entitlement. The appellant failed to satisfy the authorities when asked to prove dispossession of the quarters.
Cause Title- R.K. Munshi v. UT of Jammu & Kashmir (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 365)
Date of Judgment- May 2, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
14) "Much stronger evidence required than mere probability of complicity": SC sets aside order of summons u/s 319 CrPC
The Court reiterated that the degree of satisfaction required to exercise power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C has to be much stronger than mere probability of complicity.
The Bench examined the legality of summoning orders under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and held that the deposition of a first informant (mother of the deceased), who was not an eye witness, was not sufficient enough to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 CrPC to summon.
Cause Title- Shankar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 366)
Date of Judgment- May 2, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar
15) University is bound to comply with what is declared in its advertisement: SC while holding candidate's appointment as illegal
The Court while holding an appointment of a candidate as illegal observed that the University is bound to comply with what is declared in its advertisement.
The Court observed thus in civil appeals preferred against the judgment of the Division Bench by which it upheld the order of the Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court.
Cause Title- Chaitra Nagammanavar v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 367)
Date of Judgment- May 2, 2024
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar
16)
17) When detailed enquiry is needed to determine interest & welfare of minor child, HC cannot entertain habeas corpus plea in custody matters
The Court held that a High Court cannot entertain a habeas corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when a detailed enquiry is required to determine the interest and welfare of a minor child in custody matters.
The Bench clarified that such an exercise could only be done in proceedings under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (the Act), whenever a detailed enquiry involving the welfare of the minor child and his preference was required.
Cause Title- Nirmala v. Kulwant Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 370)
Date of Judgment- May 3, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
18) Misuse of Section 498A IPC: SC urges Parliament to make necessary changes in Sections 85,86 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita before it comes into force
While quashing a criminal case filed by a wife against husband under Section 498A IPC, the Supreme Court has requested the Legislature to consider making necessary changes in Sections 85 and 86 respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, before the new provisions come into force. It noted that the Legislature has not seriously looked into the suggestions made by it 14 years ago in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand 2010 Criminal Law Journal 4303. In the said judgment, it was observed that a serious relook of the entire provision (Section 498A IPC) is necessary.
The Court was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by a man against the judgment of the High Court by which it rejected his petition and declined to quash the chargesheet under Sections 323, 406, 498A, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Cause Title- Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 369)
Date of Judgment- May 3, 2024
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
20) Section 498A IPC cannot be applied mechanically; police machinery cannot be utilised for holding husband at ransom
The Court, while quashing a criminal case filed by a wife against husband, observed that Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically.
The Court said that the Police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends.
Cause Title- Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 369)
Date of Judgment- May 3, 2024
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
21) S 145 Evidence Act | Witness should be given chance to explain contradiction in testimony by showing relevant part of previous statement
The Court observed that it is a rule of fairness to give the witness a chance to explain the contradiction in his testimony by showing him the relevant part of his prior statement.
In this case, the appellants, accused numbers 3, 1, 6, and 7, were convicted for the murder of Sahabuddin Choudhury under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for an incident that occurred on February 3, 2013.
Cause Title- Alauddin & Ors vs The State of Assam & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 376)
Date of Judgment- May 3, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
22) Doctrine of lis pendens takes effect from date of filing suit for injunction
The Court observed that the doctrine of lis pendens would take effect from the date subsequent to the filing of a suit for injunction, and not from the date of grant of injunction.
The Bench said that once the property transactions were deemed illegal due to the doctrine of lis pendens the defence of the parties that they were bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration entitled to protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TP Act) were liable to be rejected.
Cause Title- Chander Bhan (D) v. Mukhtiar Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 377)
Date of Judgment- May 3, 2024
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
23) 'Avoidable Litigation': SC allows appeal in a dispute about non-deposit of ₹14 in a suit for pre-emption; imposes 1l costs on appellant
The Court allowed an appeal that raised a dispute about non-deposit of ₹ 14 in a suit for pre-emption.
The Court, however, imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on appellant for making the other litigate for decades.
Cause Title- Kanihya @ Kanhi (Dead) Through LRs. v. Sukhi Ram & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 374)
Date of Judgment- May 3, 2024
Coram- Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
24) In disputes related to construction irregularities by owner, the appropriate remedy for private person is to approach municipal authority
The Court observed that in case of dispute related to construction irregularities by the owner on their plot, the appropriate remedy is to approach the Municipal Authorities.
The Court held that if no proper response from them, then the Civil Court would be the appropriate forum.
Cause Title- Dr. Ranbeer Bose v. Anita Das (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 379)
Date of Judgment- May 3, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
25) 'Adamant & high-handed approach': SC directs MP Govt. to pay 10l costs to eligible candidate who was denied appointment
The Court allowed appeal of a female candidate who was denied appointment to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III in spite of having passed the selection exam.
The said woman had challenged the judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by which it refused to grant the relief of appointment to her despite holding that denial of such appointment was grossly illegal and arbitrary.
Cause Title- Smita Shrivastava v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 378)
Date of Judgment- May 3, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
26) Property disputes between family members should normally be settled through alternative disputes redressal (ADR) process
The Court reiterated that the Court should try to resolve property disputes between family members by adopting alternate means namely mediation and conciliation.
An appeal was preferred against the judgment passed by the High Court, whereby the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in a property dispute was upheld.
Cause Title- Mahendra Nath Soral v. Ravindra Nath Soral (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 372)
Date of Judgment- May 3, 2024
Coram- Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice P B Varale
27) "We don't find sufficient cause": SC refuses to condone delay of 1633 days in filing SLP by State of UP
The Court refused to condone the huge delay of 1633 days in filing the petition by the State Of Uttar Pradesh.
The Court held thus after an application was also filed seeking condonation of delay of 1,633 days in filing the petition which was filed to challenge the impugned order passed by the Division bench of the High Court.
Cause Title- State of U.P. v. Mohan Lal (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 375)
Date of Judgment- May 3, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal
28) "Reproductive freedom is a fundamental right": SC issues guidelines to medical boards dealing with termination of pregnancy cases
The Court in a case relating to medical termination of pregnancy, said that the reproductive freedom is a fundamental right.
The Court, in its judgment, concluded few points and issued guidelines to Medical Boards dealing with termination of pregnancy cases.
Cause Title- A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 371)
Date of Judgment- April 29, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.
29) Pregnancy can also be experienced by some non-binary people & transgender men: SC judgment uses the term ‘pregnant person’ instead of ‘pregnant woman’
The Court, in its judgment, used the term ‘pregnant person’ instead of ‘pregnant woman’. In the footnote, CJI DY Chandrachud, who authored the judgment in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra, noted thus:
“We use the term ‘pregnant person’ and recognize that in addition to cisgender women, pregnancy can also be experienced by some non-binary people and transgender men among other gender identities.”
The Court was deciding a civil appeal preferred by a mother of sexual assault victim against the judgment of the Bombay High Court which denied her minor daughter, the permission to terminate her pregnancy.
Cause Title- A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 371)
Date of Judgment- April 29, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.