Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420 and 34 — Nature of Offence —The Court’s decision to grant bail in a case involving Sections 420 and 34 IPC indicates that while these sections pertain to serious offenses (cheating and criminal conspiracy, respectively), bail may still be granted if the circumstances of the case, such as the nature of the transaction and the relationship between the parties, warrant it.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DILHARAN LAL DEWANGAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.…
Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) — PPA between Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, and the Hirehalli Solar Power Project LLP — The respondent sought an extension of the scheduled commissioning date (SCD) under the force majeure clause of the PPA due to delays in obtaining necessary approvals and licenses —The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) rejected the force majeure claim, but the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) reversed the decision, finding that the delay was not attributable to the respondent and that the force majeure clause was applicable — The Supreme Court agreed with the APTEL’s findings and dismissed the appeals — The court also rejected the appellant’s contention that the APTEL’s direction to pay late payment surcharge to the respondent was unjustified, as it was rooted in the PPA and in furtherance of the intention of the parties.
2024 INSC 631 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. HIREHALLI SOLAR POWER PROJECT LLP AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam…
Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 — Sections 45(1) — Application of Proviso to Section 45(1) — The Supreme Court clarified that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, which grants special treatment to certain categories of accused including women, should be applied without automatically denying bail based on the accused’s social or political status — The Court emphasized that the provision is intended to protect vulnerable individuals, including women, who may be misused in criminal activities Bail granted- The Court clarified the interpretation of its previous judgment in Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 6 SCC 401, which discussed the sensitivity required in dealing with bail applications of women and vulnerable individuals under the PMLA — The Court clarified that Saumya Chaurasia did not limit the application of the proviso to Section 45(1) to only “vulnerable women” but emphasized the need for courts to be sensitive and sympathetic towards all categories of persons mentioned in the provision, including women of all backgrounds.
2024 INSC 632 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHA — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Criminal…
NDMC contended that DSGMC’s closure of the school without approval made DSGMC responsible for the staff’s pay and benefits — The Supreme Court dismissed DSGMC’s appeals, upheld the High Court’s decision, and directed NDMC to pay the remaining dues to the staff — The closure was invalid as it lacked prior approval, making DSGMC responsible for the staff’s pay and benefits — Rule 46 of the Delhi Education Rules requires prior approval for school closure, which DSGMC did not obtain —
2024 INSC 635 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MANJU TOMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and…
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail to respondent no.1 —The High Court’s decision was not in line with established principles for granting bail — The material on record indicates respondent no.1’s involvement in the scam — The Court emphasized the need to consider the nature of the accusation, the role of the accused, and the potential impact on the trial when granting bail —
2024 INSC 636 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANIK MADHUKAR SARVE AND OTHERS Vs. VITTHAL DAMUJI MEHER AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,…
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…