Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: April 8 – April 12, 2024
1) ‘Sufficient cause' u/s 5 Limitation Act can only be liberally construed when no negligence or lack of bonafide is imputable to litigant
The Court reiterated that ‘sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act can only be given a liberal construction when there is no negligence or inaction imputable to the litigant.
The Court noted that the Allahabad High Court had rightly refused to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution after noting an inordinate delay of 14 years in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 7 of the CPC to set aside an ex-parte order of the trial court.
Cause Title- K.B. Lal (Krishna Bahadur Lal) v. Gyanendra Pratap & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 281)
Date of Judgment- April 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
2) Right to contest election or question it via election petition neither common law nor fundamental right
The Court reiterated that the right to contest election or question the election through an Election Petition is neither a common law nor fundamental right, rather a statutory right governed by the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RP Act).
The Court was deciding a civil appeal preferred against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in an Election Petition by which it dismissed the same under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), seeking rejection of the Election Petition of the original election petitioner.
Cause Title- Karim Uddin Barbhuiya v. Aminul Haque Laskar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 282)
Date of Judgment- April 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
3) Statement made by Karta of HUF on oath before a court is binding upon the successors-in-interest
The Court said that a statement made by a Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) on oath before a Court would be binding upon the successors-in-interest.
The Court's decision followed the defendant's argument, contending that “mere joint venture or residence under one roof till 1975 was not by itself any type of source or nucleus to connect them into a Joint Hindu Family or Hindu Undivided Family as there were no funds, source or property to hold as joint family or ancestral family property.” Moreover, it pointed out that the late brother did not treat the garage business as his own independent enterprise at any point of time and, on the other hand, gave evidence under oath that it was a joint family business with his brother, the plaintiff.
Cause Title- Vitthalrao Marotirao Navkhare v. Nanibai (Dead) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 283)
Date of Judgment- April 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar
4) High Court not to blindly convert or treat petition u/s 482 CrPC as revision petition filed u/s 397 CrPC without reference to other issues, including limitation
The Court observed that it is not open for the High Court to blindly convert or treat a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) as one filed under Section 397 of CrPC without reference to other issues, including limitation.
The Court observed thus in a criminal appeal filed against the order of the Allahabad High Court by which it set aside the discharge order of the Special Judicial Magistrate by which the accused persons were discharged of a charge under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Cause Title- Vipin Sahni and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 284)
Date of Judgment- April 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar
5) Directly approaching High Court without approaching concerned criminal court u/s 451 CrPC not proper: SC dismisses plea for release of seized vehicle
The Court dismissed an appeal for the release of a seized vehicle stating that directly approaching a High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution without approaching the concerned criminal court under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C was not the proper course.
The Court explained the distinction between confiscation and seizure of property noting that the proper procedure outlined under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C, which empowers a criminal court to decide on the custody and disposal of a seized property, was not followed.
Cause Title- Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. The State Of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 285)
Date of Judgment- April 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal
6) Supreme Court summarises principles for condonation of delay under Limitation Act
The Court has explained some important points to be kept in mind regarding the law of limitation and condonation of delay.
The Court was deciding a Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred by the legal representatives of a man in a land acquisition case.
Cause Title- Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs & Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 286)
Date of Judgment- April 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal
7) Specific declaration that document is invalid not necessary if it ex facie reveals that conveyor doesn't have title
The Court observed that if a document seeking to convey immovable property ex-facie reveals that the conveyer does not have the title over it, specific declaration that the document is invalid would not be necessary.
The Court was deciding an appeal preferred by the legal representatives that arose out of a suit for partition by a person claiming shares in the property.
Cause Title- Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan (Dead) Thr. LRs. v. Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 287)
Date of Judgment- April 9, 2024
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
8) No Valid Documentary Evidence Produced For Substantiating Any Enforceable Debt Or Liability: SC Upholds Acquittal In Cheque Dishonour Case
The Court upheld an acquittal in a cheque dishonour case stating that no valid documentary evidence was produced by the complainant for substantiating the existence of any enforceable debt or liability.
M/S Rajco Steel Enterprises, a partnership firm, lodged a complaint alleging that the respondent issued four cheques totalling Rs. 7.75 crore, which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The firm contended that it had provided financial assistance to the respondent, for which the cheques were issued to discharge the liability. However, the defence asserted that the cheques were not issued for any debt owed to the firm but were related to stock market transactions conducted through the respondent’s account.
Cause Title- M/S Rajco Steel Enterprises v. Kavita Saraff & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 288)
Date of Judgment- April 9, 2024
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar
9) Voter's 'Right to know' not absolute; candidate has 'right to privacy’ in matters irrelevant to his candidature for public office
The Court observed that is not necessary that a candidate declare every item of movable property that he or his dependent family members owns, unless the same is of such value as to constitute a sizeable asset in itself or reflect upon his candidature, in terms of his lifestyle, and require to be disclosed.
The Court, in an appeal filed by Karikho Kri an election candidate from the State of Arunachal Pradesh, observed that non-disclosure of every asset owned by a candidate would not amount to a defect of a substantial character. The Court also held that his ‘Right to Privacy’ would still survive in matters which are of no concern to the voter or are irrelevant to his candidature for public office.
Cause Title- Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang and Anr (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 289)
Date of Judgment- April 9, 2024
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar
10) NDPS Act| Power to search & seize are temporary interference with rights of accused; cannot be considered as violation of fundamental rights
The Court observed that the statutory provisions in the NDPS Act which confer authorities with the power to search and seize are only a temporary interference with the rights of the accused, and hence cannot be considered as a violation of fundamental rights.
In this case, an intelligence officer had received information about Accused No. 04 carrying narcotics in an auto-rickshaw. A raiding party attempted to intercept the auto-rickshaw, which fled, leading to a chase and the discovery of abandoned narcotics.
Cause Title- Najmunisha & Anr. vs The State of Gujarat & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 290)
Date of Judgment- April 9, 2024
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Augustine Geoge Masih
11) MACT erred in not accepting medical evidence; reduced disability percentage on surmises & conjectures: SC enhances motor accident compensation
The Court enhanced the amount of compensation in a motor accident compensation matter saying that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) and High Court committed a serious error in not accepting medical evidence. It observed that the Tribunal reduced the percentage of disability on surmises and conjectures.
The Court was dealing with a civil appeal filed against the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by which the compensation awarded by the MACT by an award in a sum of Rs. 87,700/- was enhanced to Rs. 1,27,700/-.
Cause Title- Aabid Khan v. Dinesh and Others
Date of Judgment- April 9, 2024
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Aravind Kumar
12) Curative jurisdiction may be invoked if there is a miscarriage of justice: Supreme Court allows DMRC’s curative petition against DAMEPL
The Court allowed the curative petition of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC) against Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (DAMEPL) and set aside its judgment in the case of Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (2022) 1 SCC 131.
The Court said that curative jurisdiction may be invoked if there is a miscarriage of justice.
Cause Title- Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 292)
Date of Judgment- April 10, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice B.R. Gavai, and Justice Surya Kant
13) Appellate court cannot overturn order of acquittal only on the ground that another view is possible
The Court set aside an order of conviction for murder holding that an appellate court cannot overturn an order of acquittal only on the ground that another view is possible.
The Court explained that an appellate court could interfere with an order of acquittal only if it was satisfied after reappreciating the evidence that the only possible conclusion was that the guilt of the accused had been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Cause Title- Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda & Anr. v. State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 295)
Date of Judgment- April 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
14) Armed accused led a brutal attack on unarmed victim: SC upholds murder conviction; rejects 'right to private defence' plea
The Court upheld a murder conviction, observing that the inflicted injuries were intentional rather than accidental.
One of the prosecution’s witnesses had deposed that the accused, who was armed with a chopper at the time of the incident, had threatened the victim by uttering the words “I shall finish you” before assaulting the victim. Thus, the Court said that the evidence of eyewitnesses clearly showed that the intention of the accused was to “do away” with the victim. It clarified that upon application of the principle of the right of private defence to the facts, it became evident that the victim was unarmed, rendering the principle inapplicable.
Cause Title- Subhash @ Subanna & Ors. v. State of Karnataka Ministry of Home Affairs (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 294)
Date of Judgment- April 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
15) Burden of proving allegation of non-disclosure of any material fact which excludes liability to pay compensation is only on insurance companies
The Court observed that, in cases of insurance contracts, the burden of proving the allegations of any non-disclosure of material fact or any fraud, which excludes the liability of the Insurance Company to compensate the insured person or their nominee, lies only on the Insurance Company alone.
The Court also held that the onus cannot be shifted on the Insured Person to deal with such issues that have merely been alleged by the Insurance Company, without producing any evidence to support the allegation.
Cause Title- Mahakali Sujatha v. The Branch Manager, Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Limited & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 296)
Date of Judgment- April 10, 2024
Coram- Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih
16) Prosecution must establish that information given by accused led to discovery of fact for bringing case u/s 27 of Evidence Act
The Court held that for bringing case under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), the prosecution must establish that information given by an accused led to the discovery of fact. It acquitted persons in a murder case on the ground that the possibility of documents being created to rope in accused persons cannot be ruled out.
The Court was deciding a batch of appeals challenging the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court by which the criminal appeals of the accused was dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence was upheld.
Cause Title- Ravishankar Tandon v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 299)
Date of Judgment- April 10, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
17) Circumstances not consistent with hypothesis of guilt: SC acquits man in 3 decades old murder case
The Court set aside concurrent conviction of a man accused in a three decades old murder case.
The Court said that the facts established by the prosecution were not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt. The Court stated that the circumstances of the case forming part of the chain of circumstances were not duly proved by the prosecution.
Cause Title- Arun Shankar v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 298)
Date of Judgment- April 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
18) When can writ petition under Article 226 be entertained in spite of availability of alternative remedy? SC explains
The Court carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy.
The Court was deciding an appeal filed by a society named PHR Invent Educational Society against UCO Bank in an auction case.
Cause Title- PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and Others (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 297)
Date of Judgment- April 10, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Rajesh Bindal, and Justice Sandeep Mehta
19) 'Failed to handover possession despite 90% payment': SC directs pioneer urban land & infrastructure ltd. to handover possession to homebuyers
The Court directed Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. (Developer) to handover the possession of the flats to homebuyers who had made payment of 90% of the total sale consideration.
The Court set aside the directive issued by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which allowed the Developer to charge interest on the outstanding amount owed by the homebuyers.
Cause Title- Sanjay Chaudhary & Anr. v. Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 300)
Date of Judgment- April 10, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
20) Power of attorney holder can only depose about facts within his personal knowledge
The Court reiterated that the Power of Attorney holder can only depose about the facts within his personal knowledge and not about those facts which are not within his knowledge.
The Court said thus in a batch of appeals in which the dispute was in connection with easementary rights over 20 ft. wide road situated over a land.
Cause Title- Manisha Mahendra Gala & Ors. v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 293)
Date of Judgment- April 10, 2024
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
21) Financial capacity of employer is important factor that can't be ignored in fixing wage structure
The Court held that the financial capacity of an employer is an important factor that cannot be ignored in fixing wage structure.
The Court was deciding a batch of two appeals preferred against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, directing wage revisions pertaining to the workmen of a company named VVF India Limited (employer) working in two units at Sewree and Sion.
Cause Title- The VVF Ltd. Employees Union v. M/s. VVF India Limited & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 293)
Date of Judgment- April 9, 2024
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar
22) If there is no proceeds of crime, offence under PMLA not made out: SC quashes money laundering case against ex-IAS & son in Chhattisgarh liquor scam
The Court quashed the money laundering case against former IAS officer Anil Tuteja and his son Yash in the alleged Rs 2,000 crore liquor scam in Chhattisgarh, saying there were no proceeds of crime.
The Court quashed the complaint after noting that since no ex-facie scheduled offence (main offence) exists against them, no offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was made out.
Cause Title- Yash Tuteja & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 301)
Date of Judgment- April 8, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
