1) SC invokes Article 142 to grant full-time appointment to part-time lecturer, directs State to release grant-in-aid for paying her salary

The Court while invoking Article 142 of the Constitution directed a part-time lecturer’s appointment on a full-time basis.

In this case, the appellant was a lecturer employed by a college affiliated with Shivaji University, Maharashtra. In 1992, she was appointed as a part-time lecturer and later, she applied for full-time lecturer positions and was appointed in 1993, initially on a temporary basis due to various administrative errors and changes in posts.

Cause Title- Vijaya Bhiku Kadam v. Mayani Bhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors.

Date of Judgment- August 28, 2023

Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol

Read further…

2) Overwhelming evidence proves that land was indeed 'agricultural': SC dismisses daughters’ claim seeking share in ancestral property

The Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the daughters of the deceased seeking a share in the ancestral property. They challenged the order of the Kerala High Court which had dismissed their claim.

The Court held that while it is possible for land labeled as a “garden” not to be used for farming, the overwhelming evidence supports the conclusion that disputed land is indeed agricultural. It further reiterated that Appellants should have demonstrated exceptional circumstances or grave injustice to reverse the impugned order and judgment.

Cause Title- M. Sivadasan (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors v A. Soudamini (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors

Date of Judgment- August 28, 2023

Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

Read further…

3) Service jurisprudence| Subsequent promotion is void after termination attains finality

The Court upheld that despite receiving a subsequent promotion based on an interim order, petitioner could not retain the benefits of that promotion once the termination of his services had attained finality.

The ruling came while dealing with a challenge against the decision of a Division Bench which had allowed the State’s appeal highlighting that the petitioner's service and promotion were sustained solely by the interim order, and his termination was valid.

Cause Title- Jagpal Singh v. The State of U.P. & Ors.

Date of Judgment- August 29, 2023

Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal

Read further…

4) Upon filing of final report Magistrate can proceed u/s. 200 CrPC either based on protest petition or original complaint

The Court upheld the discretion exercised by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in a case involving offences inter alia under Section 307 of the IPC, where the Magistrate issued summons to the accused after recording statements from the complainant and witnesses, based on a protest petition filed by the complainant.

In this case, two appeals were filed by the appellant-complainant challenging orders of the Allahabad High Court. These orders related to an application filed by the respondents-accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Cause Title- Zunaid v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Date of Judgment- August 29, 2023

Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Dipankar Datta

Read further…

5) Section 302 IPC| High Court decided appeal on same day when advocate for accused was appointed: SC remands matter for fresh consideration

The Court in a murder case while observing that the High Cout decided the appeal of the Appellant-Accused on the same day when an Advocate to represent him was appointed has remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration.

The Court held that the Advocate so appointed for the accused was not given enough time to prepare herself for the case. It noted that the objective of appointing an advocate was to ensure that justice was done to him. Therefore, the High Court did not grant the advocate enough time to prepare the case.

Cause Title- Niranjan Das @ Niru Das @ Mahanto v The State of West Bengal

Date of Judgment- August 29, 2023

Coram- Justice Abhay S.Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal

Read further…

6) Section 498A IPC: Allegations are farfetched and improbable- SC while quashing case filed by woman against in-laws

The Court quashed Section 498A IPC case (cruelty) filed by a woman against her mother-in-law and brothers-in-law on the ground that her allegations are farfetched and improbable.

The Court was deciding a batch of two criminal appeals challenging the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby it refused to quash the proceedings against them under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Cause Title- Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Judgment- August 31, 2023

Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

Read further…

7) Hindu Succession Act| To ascertain shares of heirs in coparcenary property of deceased, first step is to determine share of deceased himself

The Court reiterated that in order to determine the shares of heirs in the Mitakshara Coparcenary Property of a deceased coparcener, the first step is to ascertain the share of the deceased on the date of his death. It placed reliance on the judgment of Gurupad Khandappa Magdum vs. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum and others [(1978) 3 SCC 383.

The Court dismissed a Petition filed by one of the daughters of the deceased. The Petitioner had demanded an individual share and partition after the demise of their father, which her brother rejected. Subsequently, the Trial Court granted her 1/3rd share in the property, but the High Court modified the order to 1/6th share during an appeal.

Cause Title- Derha v Vishal & Anr.

Date of Judgment- September 1, 2023

Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar

Read further...

8) Eligibility to claim benefit of OCI card holder is undeniable: SC allows petition of US national who appeared for NEET

The Court allowed a writ petition filed by a US National who appeared for the NEET (National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test) on the ground that her eligibility to claim benefit of OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) Card Holder is undeniable.

In this case, the petitioner sought relief under Article 32 of the Constitution as she was aggrieved by the rejection of candidature to a Post Graduate medical seat. The respondent had rejected her application after she was allowed to appear in the written examination and the results were declared for the NEET (PG) and the INI-CET/2023.

Cause Title- Pallavi v. Union of India & Ors.

Date of Judgment- September 1, 2023

Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar

Read further…

9) A rule cannot be declared ultra vires without specific pleading and relief

The Court allowed an appeal which challenged a judgment by the Orrisa High Court that had superseded certain directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), in a writ petition. The respondent no. 1 before the Apex Court had filed a Writ Petition to challenge the CAT's order.

In the writ petition, the vires of Rule 4(b) were not challenged, and no such relief was sought. However, the High Court declared Rule 4(b) invalid and issued several directions.

Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. Manjurani Routray & Ors.

Date of Judgment- September 1, 2023

Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan

Read further…

10) Children from void, voidable marriages are legitimate, can claim rights in parents' property

The Court held that children born out of void or voidable marriages can claim a right in their parents' ancestral property in joint Hindu families following the Mitakshara system of law.

In this case, a three-Judge Bench was called upon to decide whether the share of children born out of void or voidable marriages is limited only to the self-acquired property of their parents under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Cause Title- Revanasiddappa & Anr. vs Mallikarjun & Ors.

Date of Judgment- September 1, 2023

Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra

Read further…

11) Witness can be recalled for further examination in order to avoid mistake of either party in bringing valuable evidence on record

While deciding a complaint by the appellant regarding theft of his company’s data by his ex-employees to manufacture similar equipment like that of the appellant, the Court allowed the application filed by the appellant under Section 311 CrPC for his recall to be further examined as a witness.

The Court allowed the application for recall after considering the submission that the comparison of the two sets of data was the main essence of the complaint and without the same, the trial itself would be reduced to a farce.

Cause Title- Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Date of Judgment- August 29, 2023

Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N Bhatti

Read further...

12) Respondent's application u/s. 438 CrPC should not have been entertained as he was a proclaimed offender: SC sets aside High Court's order granting anticipatory bail

While considering an appeal by the State of Haryana seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the sole respondent by the Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Court set aside the order granting anticipatory bail finding that the appellant was a proclaimed offender.

The Court also pointed out that the courts can consider a plea seeking anticipatory bail only in exceptional and rare cases.

Cause Title- State of Haryana v. Dharamraj

Date of Judgment- August 29, 2023

Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N Bhatti

Read further...