Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: April 1 – April 5, 2024
1) Plaintiff has to establish a stronger case for mandatory injunction: SC explains 'triple test' for injunction orders
The Court said that Courts have to be relatively more cautious in granting mandatory injunction as compared to prohibitory injunction. In its order refusing interim relief to State of Kerala in its Suit challenging the borrowing limits imposed by the Central Government, the Court explained the Triple Test for granting Injunction Orders.
The Court denied Kerala's prayer for an interim injunction against the Union's Net Borrowing Ceiling, noting the state's failure to demonstrate fiscal space for borrowing post-adjustment of the previous year's over-borrowings.
Cause Title- State of Kerala v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 253)
Date of Judgment- April 1, 2024
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan
2) 'Letter Of Intent' does not create any right in favour of the party to whom it is issued
The Court reiterated that a 'Letter of Intent' is merely an expression of intention to enter into a contract and it does not create any right in favour of the party to whom it is issued. It imposed a cost of Rupees Five Lakhs on Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority (HIMUDA) after finding that it took the Himachal Pradesh High Court “for a ride” in a tender process in collusion with a construction company.
The Court stated that HIMUDA misused the process of law to cover up the irregularities and illegalities committed in the tender process in collusion with M/s. Vasu Constructions (Company).
Cause Title- Level 9 Biz Pvt. Ltd. v. Himachal Pradesh Housing And Urban Development Authority & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 257)
Date of Judgment- April 2, 2024
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal
3) HC can interfere in criminal appeal against acquittal only if trial court findings are either perverse or impossible
The Court observed that a High Court can interfere in the criminal appeal against acquittal only if it came to the conclusion that the findings of the trial Judge were either perverse or impossible. It added that if two views are possible in a case and Trial Judge found the other view to be more probable, an interference is not warranted by the High Court, unless the same is perverse.
The Court was deciding a criminal appeal that challenged the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by which it allowed the appeal of the State being filed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, who acquitted the accused persons under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Cause Title- Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 258)
Date of Judgment- April 2, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
4) Conditions to apply Section 14 of Limitation Act to exclude time for bona fide proceedings in court without jurisdiction: SC explains
The Court reiterated the principles pertaining to applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which deals with the exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in a court without jurisdiction. It noted that the following conditions must be satisfied before Section 14 can be pressed into service:
(1) Both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party;
(2) The prior proceeding had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith;
(3) The failure of the prior proceeding was due to defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature;
(4) The earlier proceeding and the latter proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue; and
(5) Both the proceedings are in a court.
The Court observed thus in an appeal against the final judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court by which the judgment of Munsiff, Hiranagar was affirmed in which the execution application was dismissed, being barred by limitation.
Cause Title- Purni Devi & Anr. v. Babu Ram & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 259)
Date of Judgment- April 2, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Aravind Kumar
5) Criminal court bound by civil court's declaration that cheque was only for purpose of security: SC quashes concurrent conviction in cheque bounce case
The Court quashed concurrent conviction in a cheque bounce case after noticing that a Civil Court had declared the subject cheque to be only for the purposes of security.
In this case, the appellant contested his conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881, arising from the dishonour of a cheque due to insufficient funds.
Cause Title- Prem Raj v. Poonamma Menon & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 260)
Date of Judgment- April 2, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Aravind Kumar
6) Length of delay relevant factor for considering delay condonation plea; rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to opposite party
The Court observed that the length of the delay is a relevant factor while considering delay condonation applications. It observed that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity and rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party.
The Court added that the rules of limitation were based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity and that the question of limitation was “not merely a technical consideration.” In this case, the Court stated that it would be a mockery of justice if it would condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days and once again ask a private party to undergo the “rigmarole” of the legal proceedings.
Cause Title- Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 262)
Date of Judgment- April 3, 2024
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice J.B. Pardiwala
7) Should a person who alleges breach of natural justice be required to establish prejudice: SC delivers split verdict in Shiksha Karmi Selection Case
The Court delivered a split verdict on a matter regarding bias in the selection process and the violation of the principles of natural justice in the selection process for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III. The Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice KV Viswanathan took divergent views, and accordingly, the matter has been placed before the CJI for the constitution of a larger Bench.
The dispute centred on the appointment of the appellants to the position of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, which was later invalidated because of their close familial ties with committee members. The Collector's decision to annul the selection was contested by the appellants, who argued that they were not included in the initial appeal, alleging a breach of natural justice.
Cause Title- Krishnadatt Awasthy vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 252)
Date of Judgment- April 4, 2024
Coram- Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice KV Viswanathan
8) HC should not interfere in writ for certiorari if challenge is on ground of insufficiency/inadequacy of material to sustain impugned finding
The Court reiterated that a writ of certiorari should not be invoked on mere asking, and the High Court ought to refrain from acting as an appellate Court unless the facts warrant it.
The Court said that a High Court in a writ for certiorari should not interfere when such challenge is on the ground of insufficiency or adequacy of material to sustain the impugned finding.
Cause Title- Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 266)
Date of Judgment- April 4, 2024
Coram- Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol
9) Where there is nothing to discredit eye-witness, motive of accused is of little relevance: SC upholds murder conviction
The Court upheld the conviction of an accused in a daylight murder case stating that where there is nothing to discredit an eye-witness, the motive of the accused in itself holds little relevance. The defence had argued that the prosecution had not been able to establish any motive on the accused for committing the “dastardly act”, but the Court held that this was a case of “eyewitness where there is nothing to discredit the eye-witness, the motive itself is of little relevance.”
The incident involved the accused stabbing which the sister-in-law of the deceased witnessed. According to her testimony, she saw the accused stabbing the deceased multiple times with a knife after which he fled from the scene.
Cause Title- Chandan v. The State (Delhi Admn.) [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 271]
Date of Judgment- April 5, 2024
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
10) Notice sent by company to registrar in form no. 5 is not an "instrument" as defined in Bombay Stamp Act
The Court held that a notice sent by a Company to the Registrar in Form No.5 is not an “instrument” as defined under Section 2(l) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.
The Court dismissed a civil appeal filed by the Maharashtra State against National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., challenging the order of the Bombay High Court by which it allowed the writ petition of the said company and set aside the order of the Deputy Superintendent of Stamps.
Cause Title- State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 270)
Date of Judgment- April 5, 2024
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
11) Keep GPS of mobile active always; pair it with NIA officer: SC directs Shoma Sen while granting her bail in Elgar Parishad case
The Court, while granting Bail to Shoma Sen in connection with the Elgar Parishad case, directed her to keep the location status (GPS) of her mobile phone active, twenty-four hours a day. It further directed that her phone shall be paired with that of the Investigating Officer of the NIA to enable him, at any given time, to identify her exact location.
Taking cognizance of the composite effect of delay in framing charge, period of detention undergone, and the nature of allegations against her vis-à-vis the materials available before the Court, the Apex Court had granted bail to Shoma Sen in connection with the Bhima Koregaon violence case.
Cause Title- Shoma Kanti Sen vs The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 269)
Date of Judgment- April 5, 2024
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Augustine George Masih
12) "Heinous crime of murder on a very paltry issue": Supreme Court cancels bail granted by HC to accused
The Court cancelled the bail granted to three accused in a murder case. The bench noted that they were granted bail by the Allahabad High Court merely by noticing that the other accused had also been granted bail.
The decision came following an appeal challenging the bail orders passed by the Allahabad High Court.
Cause Title- Aqeel Ahmad v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 268)
Date of Judgment- April 5, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal
13) Police cannot be allowed to tutor prosecution witnesses: SC directs enquiry into alleged witness tutoring by police officials
The Court observed that police cannot be allowed to tutor the prosecution witnesses. The Court, in a judgment delivered, directed the Director General of Police of Tamil Nadu to enquire into the alleged conduct of tutoring witnesses by police officials.
The Court had to discard interested witnesses' testimonies as an effect of the possibility of “teaching” the witnesses inside a Police Station. “This amounts to gross misuse of power by the Police machinery,” the court stated.
Cause Title- Manikandan v. State (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 272)
Date of Judgment- April 5, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
14) Section 5 of TPA won’t be of any assistance: SC allows DDA to withdraw principal amount in lease case
The Court permitted the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to withdraw the principal amount of more than 2 crores in a lease matter.
The Court was deciding an appeal filed by a company against the judgment of the High Court as its representations were not favourably considered by DDA.
Cause Title- M/s. Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. (Presently known as M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.) v. Delhi Development Authority (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 273)
Date of Judgment- April 5, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
15) "He is willing to undergo the potentiality test": Supreme Court allows husband's plea for potentiality test
The Court allowed a husband to take a potentiality test after it noticed that he is willing to undergo the test.
The Court allowed the appeal filed by the husband against the order of the High Court. The case arose from marital disputes which cropped between the husband and the wife.
Cause Title- Deep Mukerjee v. Sreyashi Banerjee (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 274)
Date of Judgment- April 5, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
16) SC orders Operational Mobilisation Group to maintain & audit account statements for smooth functioning of educational institutions & health centres
The Court ordered the Operational Mobilisation Group to properly maintain their account statements and get them audited by a chartered accountant for the smooth functioning of educational institutions and health centres.
In this case, the Crime Investigating Department (CID) after a long investigation had filed a chargesheet in connection with the alleged misuse of crores of public funds by Operational Mobilisation Group (organization) under An FIR for allegations under Sections 409, 420, 477(A), and Section 37 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA Act) was registered against the organization at the behest of the Economic Offences Wing-CID, following the investigation. The Supreme Court in 2021 granted a stay on the freezing of accounts concerning salary and institutional expenses of the organization.
Cause Title- Operation Mobilization India & Ors. v. State Of Telangana & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 275)
Date of Judgment- April 2, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
17) Commercial disputes can’t be decided in summary proceeding under Consumer Protection Act
The Court observed that the commercial disputes cannot be decided in summary proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The Court observed thus in an appeal seeking correctness of the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) by which the revision was dismissed and the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (DCDRF) was upheld.
Cause Title- Annapurna B. Uppin & Ors. v. Malsiddappa & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 276)
Date of Judgment- April 5, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
18) Civil proceedings metamorphosed into criminal dispute: SC restores criminal complaint in property dispute
The Court restored a criminal complaint emanating from a property dispute setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that had quashed it.
The Court examined the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC regarding quashing of an FIR, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. It stated that the Madhya Pradesh High Court had exercised its power under Section 482 of the CrPC “on the assumption that the Suit Property did not vest in the State of Madhya Pradesh.”
Cause Title- The State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Shilpa Jain & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 278)
Date of Judgment- April 5, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
19) Change of date of birth in service records cannot be claimed as a matter of right
The Court reiterated that an application for the change of date of birth by an employee cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Court held that an employee should not be permitted to raise a claim for back wages almost after a decade based on principles of estoppel.
The Court observed that the employee’s actions, including the delayed disclosure of a revised date of birth and the absence of documentary evidence, was a “well-thought out plan hatched by him.”
Cause Title- The General Manager, M/S Barsua Iron Ore Mines v. The Vice President United Mines Mazdoor Union & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 264)
Date of Judgment- April 2, 2024
Coram- Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
20) Employee can’t dictate terms of his employment to his employer; competent authority’s view within organization prevails
The Court observed that a person in the employment of any company cannot dictate terms of his employment to his employer and that the view of the competent authority within the organization prevails.
The Court observed thus in an appeal filed by Bharti Airtel Limited against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court by which it dismissed the appeal of the company which was occasioned on account of the Single Judge partly allowing the writ petition of the employee.
Cause Title- M/s Bharti Airtel Limited v. A.S. Raghavendra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 265)
Date of Judgment- April 2, 2024
Coram- Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
