Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 — Sections 139 and 140 — Primary responsibility for property taxes on whom to rest —Supreme Court upheld the High Court decision to refund a portion of property tax paid by Respondent No. 2 the Appellant — The dispute concerned tax arrears for a period before Respondent No. 2 acquired ownership of the property on September 3, 2015 — The Court ruled that under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, the liability for property tax lies with the owner of the property at the time of assessment — Since Respondent No. 2 became the owner after the arrears had accrued, it was not liable for those taxes — The Court also noted that the previous owner had deposited a significant portion of the disputed tax in ongoing legal proceedings, further supporting the refund to Respondent No — 2. This decision clarifies that property tax liability is tied to ownership and cannot be automatically transferred to new owners for periods prior to their ownership.
2024 INSC 596 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Augustine…
Motor Accident Claims — Accurate Disability assessment — Supreme Court addressed the issue of compensation for a motor accident victim who sustained injuries to both hands requiring surgery and resulting in permanent disability — The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) initially awarded Rs.5,38,872/- as compensation, considering a 25% disability — The insurance company appealed, and the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.4,74,072/-, adjusting the disability percentage to 20% — The Supreme Court upon reviewing the medical records and testimony of doctor, who certified a 50% disability, set aside the High Court’s judgment — It restored the Tribunal’s decision, which had assessed a 25% disability — The Court directed the insurance company to deposit the full compensation amount, as determined by the Tribunal — The appeal was thus allowed, emphasizing the importance of accurate disability assessment in determining fair compensation for accident victims.
2024 INSC 598 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAHUL — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and R. Mahadevan, JJ.…
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12 — Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 201 and 120B — Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 3 — Manish Sisodia’s bail applications were rejected by the High Court of Delhi — He is involved in cases registered by the CBI and ED related to alleged irregularities in Delhi’s Excise Policy for 2021-22 —Whether the appellant is entitled to bail considering the prolonged incarceration and the right to a speedy trial — Petitioner argues that the trial is delayed, and the appellant has been in custody for a long time — The prosecution has not completed the investigation, and the trial is proceeding at a snail’s pace — ED Contends that the appellant is influential and may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses — The trial delay is due to the appellant’s actions — The Supreme Court granted bail to Manish Sisodia, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and noting the prolonged incarceration — The trial has not commenced despite assurances, and the appellant’s prolonged detention violates the right to liberty — The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and bail should not be withheld as punishment — The court also considered the large volume of documents and witnesses involved — The appellant is granted bail with conditions to ensure his presence at trial and prevent tampering with evidence.
2024 INSC 595 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANISH SISODIA — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Criminal…
Suit for Partition of jointly owned Property — Liability to render accounts — The court held that the defendant Nos. 3(a) and defendant Nos. 15 to 19 are liable to render accounts and contribute rent as assessed by the Trial Court during the course of passing the final decree for the portions in their respective possession The court clarified that being in self-occupation of a property does not absolve a co-sharer from rendering accounts — The defendant No. 3(a) who purchased the property from defendant No. 3 after it had already been vacated by a tenant, was held liable to contribute rent as determined by the Trial Court. Business carried out in the property — The court held that defendant Nos. 15 to 19, who admitted to carrying on their own business in the portion of the property in their possession, are liable to render accounts and contribute rent as determined by the Trial Court.
2024 INSC 552 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJINDER KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR USHA — Appellant Vs. GURBHAJAN KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS UPINDER KAUR AND OTHERS — Respondent…
NEET Examination — Supreme Court ruled that a fresh NEET (UG) 2024 examination is not necessary, and the results of the examination should be declared as valid, subject to certain modifications — The Court found no systemic breach in the sanctity of the examination and no conclusive material to lead to the conclusion that the entire result stands vitiated or that there was a systemic leak of the question paper — The Court allowed students with individual grievances to pursue their rights and remedies in accordance with law, including by moving the jurisdictional High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution — The Court also constituted a seven-member Expert Committee to strengthen the process of conducting NEET (UG) and other examinations and prevent similar instances in the future.
2024 INSC 553 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VANSHIKA YADAV — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J…
Genetically Modified Organisms — Regulation and approval of genetically modified organisms — Environmental release of transgenic mustard hybrid DMH-11 — The Supreme Court has quashed the approval of the environmental release of transgenic mustard hybrid DMH-11, developed by the Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants (CGMCP) at the University of Delhi — The court found that the decision-making process was arbitrary and violated the precautionary principle — The court directed the government to take a fresh decision on the release of the transgenic mustard hybrid, considering the recommendations of the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture — The court also directed the government to formulate a National Policy on GM crops, involving all stakeholders, and to ensure transparency and public participation in the decision-making process — The court emphasized the importance of protecting the environment, biodiversity, and the health of citizens in the context of genetically modified organisms.
2024 INSC 545 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GENE CAMPAIGN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Sanjay…
Service Law — Termination — The Supreme Court upheld the termination of a CRPF constable’s services for concealing information about pending criminal cases against him in his verification roll — The court held that the CRPF constable had deliberately withheld material information from the CRPF while filling up the verification roll, despite being aware of the FIR registered against him and the ensuing criminal cases — The court noted that the standard of rectitude to be applied to any person seeking appointment in a law enforcement agency must always be higher and more rigorous — The court also held that the CRPF had exercised its discretion as an employer in a reasonable manner and the decision to terminate the services of the constable was justified.
2024 INSC 550 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHISHU PAL @ SHIV PAL — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and…
Service Law — Promotion — Completion of the required service period for promotion does not automatically entitle an employee to be promoted from the date the position became vacant — The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, but it does not translate into a vested right for promotion unless the rules explicitly provide for it. Seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively unless it is expressly provided by the relevant service rules – that promotion to a higher position should only be granted from the date of promotion and not from the date on which a vacancy may have arisen — The court reiterated that no retrospective promotion can be granted unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant service rules.
2024 INSC 549 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DHARAMDEO DAS — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,…
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 7 — Liability of a corporate debtor and its subsidiary — The court emphasized that a holding company and its subsidiary are distinct legal entities, and the assets of a subsidiary cannot be included in the resolution plan of the holding company. Separate applications under Section 7 — The court held that a financial creditor can file separate applications under Section 7 of the IBC against the corporate debtor and the corporate guarantor, which can be filed simultaneously. The court clarified that the payment made by the corporate guarantor under a resolution plan does not discharge the liability of the corporate debtor to repay the loan amount.
2024 INSC 548 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRS VENTURES INVESTMENTS LTD. — Appellant Vs. SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…
Customs Act, 1962 — Sections 28, 28AB and 125 — When goods are confiscated under Section 125 of the Act, 1962, and later redeemed by paying a fine, the owner of the goods is liable to pay customs duty under Section 28 of the Act — This duty obligation arises only after the option to pay the fine is exercised, and it is a precondition for redemption — The court also held that the interest on delayed payment of duty under Section 28AB of the Act is also applicable in such cases — The decision settles the confusion regarding the applicability of Section 28 and Section 28AB in confiscation proceedings under Section 125 of the Act.
2024 INSC 547 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…