Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 447, 504, 506, 341, 323 and 34 — Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Sections 3, 4 and 45 ——The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant, emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception — The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of money laundering against the appellant
2024 INSC 637 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREM PRAKASH — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…
Service Law — Employment — Caste Certificate — The court cannot question the validity of caste certificates issued by the competent authority after following the due process of law, even if the caste is later de-scheduled or de-notified – The court cannot alter or amend the Presidential Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, as it has no power to do so within the meaning, content, and scope of these articles.
2024 INSC 634 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. NIRMALA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. CANARA BANK AND ANOTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta,…
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483(3) — Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Sections 4 and 44(1)(b) — The Supreme Court has set aside orders of the Delhi High Court that stayed the bail granted to appellant accused in a money laundering case — The court observed that the power to grant an interim stay of an order granting bail can only be exercised in exceptional cases where a strong prima facie case of the existence of grounds for cancellation of bail is made out — The court further clarified that as a normal rule, ex parte stay of an order granting bail should not be granted and the court must record brief reasons for coming to the conclusion that the case was an exceptional one — The appeals were allowed on these terms, and the findings recorded in the judgment were only for considering the legality and validity of the order of stay on the order granting bail.
2024 INSC 546 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARVINDER SINGH KHURANA — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih,…
National Highways Act, 1956 — National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 — The Court concluded that it would be impossible to return the collected toll/fee to the road users, and any order modifying the interim order would be detrimental and harmful to the road users as additional amounts would have to be collected to make up for the cost of the highway — Therefore, the Court allowed the present appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court — The Court also directed that the amount lying deposited in the nationalized bank along with interest may now be utilized by NHAI and would be treated as toll/fee collected from the users, and it would be accounted towards the actual cost to be recovered.
2024 INSC 556 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ARVIND KUMAR THAKUR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 143A — Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court regarding the interpretation of Section 143A of the Act 1881 — The High Court had held that an authorized signatory of a company is not a “drawer” of a cheque within the meaning of Section 143A of the NI Act —The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the NI Act and the legal precedents on the subject, and concluded that the primary liability for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act lies with the company itself, and the company’s management is only subsequently and vicariously liable — Therefore, it is only the company that is to be considered as the “drawer” of the cheque.
2024 INSC 551 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRI GURUDATTA SUGARS MARKETING PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. PRITHVIRAJ SAYAJIRAO DESHMUKH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath…
Service Law — Pension — Pension entitlement — The court clarified that only those UPSRTC employees who were absorbed from the State Government and held permanent posts prior to their absorption in the UPSRTC are entitled to pension — This means that employees who were not holding any pensionable post prior to their deputation or absorption in the corporation are not entitled to pension.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UP ROADWAYS RETIRED OFFICIALS AND OFFICERS ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant…
Consumer Law — Housing — Delay in delivery of possession of the Flat — Appellants purchased a flat from a developer but faced significant delays in receiving possession — They filed a complaint seeking a refund and interest — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) partly allowed the complaint, ordering the developer to refund the full amount paid along with interest at 9% per annum — On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the refund order but increased the interest rate to 12% per annum from the date of deposit until the refund. The court also dismissed other claims for compensation.
2024 INSC 557 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIDYA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…
Advocates Act, 1961 — 24(1)(f) — Enrolment fees and miscellaneous charges levied by State Bar Councils (SBCs) for the admission of advocates — The petitioner challenges the SBCs’ practice of charging fees in excess of the statutory limit prescribed in Section 24(1)(f) of the Act, 1961 —Whether SBCs can charge enrolment fees beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act? — Whether the SBCs’ practice of charging additional fees violates the Constitution? — The enrolment fees charged by SBCs exceed the statutory limit prescribed in Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act —The additional fees charged by SBCs violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution — The Court held that Section 24(1)(f) prescribes the enrolment fee, and SBCs cannot charge additional fees beyond this limit —The court reasoned that charging excessive fees creates entry barriers for marginalized and economically weaker sections, violating the principle of substantive equality — The court clarified that all fees charged at the time of enrolment must be construed as part of the enrolment fee and cannot exceed the statutory limit.
024 INSC 558 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GAURAV KUMAR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI. and…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 239AA(4) —Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Section 3(3)(b)(i) — The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Delhi Lieutenant Governor’s power to nominate persons with special knowledge in municipal administration to the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) — The court held that the power of nomination under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, as amended in 1993, is a statutory duty vested in the Lieutenant Governor and not the executive power of the Government of NCT Delhi — The court also clarified that the Lieutenant Governor is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in exercising this power — The court added two principles to the relations between the Union and NCT Delhi, stating that the power of nomination was incorporated to reflect the constitutional changes in the NCT Delhi’s structure and that the Lieutenant Governor is intended to act as per the mandate of the statute, not guided by the Council of Ministers’ advice.
2024 INSC 578 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya…
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.…