Latest Post

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 131 — Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 — Section 6 — The State of West Bengal filed a suit against the Union of India, challenging the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s authority to register cases in West Bengal after withdrawing consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act — The main issue is the maintainability of the suit, which focuses on whether the CBI can continue to register and investigate cases without the state’s consent — The State argues that post-withdrawal of consent, the CBI’s actions are unconstitutional and violate federalism principles — The Union of India argues that the suit is not maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution and that the CBI is under the superintendence of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) — The Court rejected the Union’s preliminary objections, stating that the jurisdiction under Article 131 is applicable and the dispute involves a question of law on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends — The suit will proceed on its merits, with the next hearing scheduled for August 13, 2024. Foreigners Act, 1946 — Section 9 — Burden of proof — A person who is suspected of being a foreigner and whose case is referred to a Foreigners Tribunal (FT) under the Foreigners Act, 1946, must be given an opportunity to prove that they are not a foreigner — The burden of proof is initially on the state to establish a prima facie case that the person is a foreigner — If the state succeeds in doing so, the burden of proof shifts to the person to prove that they are an Indian citizen — The court must examine the evidence produced by both sides and make a determination based on a preponderance of evidence — If the state fails to establish a prima facie case, the person cannot be declared a foreigner — The court must also ensure that the person’s right to a fair trial is not violated and that they are not subjected to arbitrary detention or deportation -Sarbananda Sonowal v Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 (Referred). Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Section 41 – Second Appeals – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100 – The case revolves around the scope of Section 100 of the CPC and Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, specifically regarding the High Court’s power to re-appreciate evidence in second appeals – The petitioner argues that the High Court’s judgment was within its powers under Section 41 of the Punjab Act, and the Will in question was invalid due to suspicious circumstances – The respondent argues that the First Appellate Court’s findings were correct, the Will was genuine, and the High Court erred in its interference – The Supreme Court reviewed its previous judgment, acknowledging an error based on the legal position in Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors, (2016) 6 SCC 157, and decided to hear the Civil Appeal afresh on merits – The Supreme Court allowed the review petition, recalled its previous judgment, and decided the Civil Appeal on its merits, ultimately dismissing the appeal and upholding the trial court’s judgment. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 32(2)(c) – Termination of proceedings – The dispute revolves around the legality and validity of the termination of arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the Act, 1996, involving a development agreement and a memorandum of understanding between Appellants and Respondent – The Appellant argued that the Respondent abandoned the claim by not taking steps for eight years and failing to attend meetings, justifying the termination – The Respondent argued that there was no abandonment and the proceedings could not be terminated without a positive finding that continuation was unnecessary or impossible – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that abandonment must be established and cannot be readily inferred – The court emphasized that the power under Section 32(2)(c) should only be exercised when proceedings have become unnecessary or impossible, not casually – The Court concluded that the Arbitral Tribunal committed illegality in terminating the proceedings, and the parties were directed to appoint a substituted arbitrator in accordance with the law – The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 4, 19 and 44 (1)(b) – The appellant, accused of complaints under Section 44(1)(b) of the Act, was denied anticipatory bail – They were not arrested post-ECIR registration until the Special Court took cognizance under the PMLA – The appellants argue that the power to arrest should not be exercised post-cognizance, and if an accused appears after summons, there’s no reason for arrest or custody – They also contend that provisions of the CrPC apply to proceedings before the Special Court – The respondent asserts that once an accused appears before the Special Court, they are deemed in its custody and must apply for bail under Section 439 of the CrPC – The Court granted leave to appeal and protected the appellants from arrest through interim orders – The Court examined the applicability of CrPC provisions to PMLA proceedings and the discretion of the Special Court in issuing summons or warrants – The Court concluded that the issuance of summons is to secure the accused’s presence, not custody – If the accused defies the summons, a bailable warrant may be issued.

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 131 — Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 — Section 6 — The State of West Bengal filed a suit against the Union of India, challenging the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s authority to register cases in West Bengal after withdrawing consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act — The main issue is the maintainability of the suit, which focuses on whether the CBI can continue to register and investigate cases without the state’s consent — The State argues that post-withdrawal of consent, the CBI’s actions are unconstitutional and violate federalism principles — The Union of India argues that the suit is not maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution and that the CBI is under the superintendence of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) — The Court rejected the Union’s preliminary objections, stating that the jurisdiction under Article 131 is applicable and the dispute involves a question of law on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends — The suit will proceed on its merits, with the next hearing scheduled for August 13, 2024.

Foreigners Act, 1946 — Section 9 — Burden of proof — A person who is suspected of being a foreigner and whose case is referred to a Foreigners Tribunal (FT) under the Foreigners Act, 1946, must be given an opportunity to prove that they are not a foreigner — The burden of proof is initially on the state to establish a prima facie case that the person is a foreigner — If the state succeeds in doing so, the burden of proof shifts to the person to prove that they are an Indian citizen — The court must examine the evidence produced by both sides and make a determination based on a preponderance of evidence — If the state fails to establish a prima facie case, the person cannot be declared a foreigner — The court must also ensure that the person’s right to a fair trial is not violated and that they are not subjected to arbitrary detention or deportation -Sarbananda Sonowal v Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 (Referred).

Bail — The Supreme Court has disposed of two petitions filed by Manish Sisodia, challenging an order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application Nos. 1557 and 1559 of 2024 — The court has granted liberty to Sisodia to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances or if the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail’s pace in the next three months — The court has clarified that the observations made in the judgment are only for the disposal of the present appeals and will not influence the trial court on the merits of the case, which will proceed in accordance with law and be decided on the basis of the evidence led — The court has also noted that all disputed factual and legal issues are left open — The Solicitor General has assured that the investigation will be concluded and the final complaint/charge sheet will be filed expeditiously, and at any rate on or before 03.07.2024, after which the trial court will be free to proceed with the trial.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VACATION BENCH MANISH SISODIA — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Petition(s) for Special Leave…

Visitation Rights — Appellant-mother is appealing against an order allowing the repatriation of her minor daughter to the United States of America, where her father resides — The Supreme Court granted the father’s request for visitation rights during his visit to India from 14.06.2024 to 30.06.2024 — The visitation rights will take place at Kohinoor Continental Hotel, Mumbai, on weekends falling on 15.06.2024 and 16.06.2024; 22.06.2024 and 23.06.2024; and 29.06.2024 and 30.06.2024 — During the visitation period, the father will surrender his passport with the Registrar of the Bombay High Court and ensure that he does not harm or take the child out of Mumbai — Additionally, he will arrange accommodation for the mother at the same hotel for the entire visitation period.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VACATION BENCH SUPRIYA NAIR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ. )…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 41A — Notice of appearance before police officer — Petitioner Singh filed a Special Leave Petition against the State of Karnataka & others, challenging an order dated 23-05-2024 from the High Court of Karnataka —The main issue revolves around respondent No. 2’s non-compliance with a medical examination required by the Investigating Officer for the case’s investigation — Respondent No. 2, argued against the necessity of the medical examination, citing protection from coercive action by a previous High Court order —The Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s order, directing respondent No. 2 to undergo a medical examination on 10th July, 2024 —The Court found respondent No. 2’s unwillingness to undergo medical examination unconvincing and not protected under the right against self-incrimination —The Court emphasized compliance with Section 41-A notice and rejected apprehensions about the medical facility without a tenable basis — The Supreme Court ordered respondent No. 2 to present himself for the medical examination as part of the investigation process.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EKTA SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih (Vacation Bench),…

Water sharing Dispute — Sharing of Yamuna water between the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the States of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh — The court found that the issue is complex and sensitive, and that it lacks the expertise to decide on the matter — Instead, the court directed the Upper Yamuna River Board (UYRB), a body constituted with the agreement of the parties in a 1994 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), to consider the issue — The UYRB has already directed the State of Delhi to submit an application for the supply of additional 150 Cusec of water on humanitarian grounds, and the court directed that the application be made by 5 p.m. today and that the UYRB convene a meeting tomorrow to take a decision on the matter.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VACATION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and Prasanna Bhalachandra…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 37 Rule 3(6)(b) — Suit for Recovery — Impact of Moratorium under IBC — The appellants argued that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) should halt the proceedings — However, the High Court rejected this argument, stating that the moratorium only applies to cases where the company is undergoing insolvency proceedings — In this case, the suit was not against a company undergoing insolvency, and therefore, the moratorium did not apply.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANISH M RAWTHER @ ANEES MOHAMMED RAWTHER — Appellant Vs. HAFEEZ UR RAHMAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prashant…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 307 — The appellant, a police guard, was convicted for the murder of his cousin and neighbour, who allegedly had an affair with the appellant’s wife — The murder occurred inside a police station in Delhi —The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence, claiming self-defence or, alternatively, grave and sudden provocation — The appellant argued for self-defence, stating the deceased attempted to snatch his weapon to kill him — The prosecution presented eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence to establish a premeditated murder — The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and life sentence for murder, finding no evidence of self-defence or grave and sudden provocation.

2024 INSC 462 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURENDER SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

Bird and Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking and Other Properties) Act, 1980 – Sections 3 and 7 – Renewal of mining leases granted to Bird and Company Limited, which were later vested in Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineers Limited (BPMEL) after nationalization. BPMEL, in liquidation, and its subsidiary OMDC are central to the case – The dispute revolves around the renewal of three expired mining leases: Kolha-Roida, Thakurani, and Dalki – TGP Equity Management Private Limited, an assignee of UCO Bank’s claims against BPMEL, seeks renewal or transfer of these leases – The Government of Odisha and the Union of India argue against renewal, citing BPMEL’s non-operation and financial constraints – The Supreme Court dismissed TGP’s appeals and upheld the State of Odisha’s order, rejecting the renewal of the Kolha-Roida lease – The Thakurani and Dalki leases are also rejected, citing the impracticality of renewing leases for a defunct company and the lack of a viable mining operation plan – The dispute should be resolved, with dues settled under the Companies Act, 1956.

(2024) INSC 440 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA — Appellant Vs. BHARAT PROCESS AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.

(2024) INSC 439 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SUNDEW PROPERTIES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. TELANGANA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna…

BAIL GRANTED NDPS – PROLONGED INCARCERATION – It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered.

It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the…

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – Sections 75(1)(g) and 90- The Supreme Court ruled that Nagar Nigam’s workshop was a ‘factory’ under the Act of 1948, and that it was engaged in a manufacturing process with over 20 workers – The Corporation argued that the workshop was a ‘factory’ and should pay contributions under the Act – Nagar Nigam argued that their workshop was not a ‘factory’ and their employees were not engaged in a manufacturing process – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s order, and clarified that Nagar Nigam could seek exemption under Section 90 of the Act of 1948 – The Court relied on precedents and statutory provisions of the Act of 1948 to determine that the workshop was a ‘factory’ and subject to the Act’s provisions – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in its judgment and Nagar Nigam should have approached the Insurance Court instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.

(2024) INSC 441 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION LTD. — Appellant Vs. NAGAR NIGAM ALLAHABAD AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala…

You missed