Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 — Section 23 — Punjab Rural Development Act, 1987 — Section 5 — Exemption from Market fees — Market fees and Rural Development fees are distinct fees levied under two different statutes with different objects and purposes — The court further clarified that the exemption from Market fees under the 2003 Industrial Policy does not automatically extend to Rural Development fees — The court set aside the orders of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and dismissed the writ petition exemption from payment of Rural Development fees.
2024 INSC 526 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S PUNJAB SPINTEX LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prashant…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 494 — Bigamy — The appellant accused his wife (first accused) of committing bigamy by marrying the second accused while their marriage was still valid — The trial court convicted the first and second accused, but the High Court later acquitted them — Whether the High Court was right in not restoring the sentence imposed by the trial court and whether the sentence was too lenient — The Supreme Court modified the sentence to six months of simple imprisonment and reduced the fine to Rs. 2,000 each — The Court emphasized the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need to impose adequate punishment for serious offenses like bigamy.
2024 INSC 523 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BABA NATARAJAN PRASAD — Appellant Vs. M. REVATHI — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 23 Rule 3 — Validity of Compromise Decrees — The court clarified that for a valid compromise decree, there must be a lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties, which must then be proved to the satisfaction of the court — Mere statements of the parties before the court about such a said compromise cannot satisfy the requirements of Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC. The court held that if an order is not a compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3, then the restrictions imposed under Rule 3A would have no relevance. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 52 — Doctrine of Lis Pendens — The court clarified that the execution of a sale deed during the pendency of a suit does not make the sale deed void ab initio — The purchaser takes the bargain subject to the rights of the plaintiff in the pending suit.
2024 INSC 527 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMRO DEVI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JULFI RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 — Withdrawal of prosecution — The Supreme Court has set aside the withdrawal of prosecution of an accused in a double murder case, who was elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) in Uttar Pradesh — The court observed that political power should not be leveraged to secure the withdrawal of prosecution of an accused person named in the charge sheet after thorough investigation — The court also criticized the High Court for repeatedly allowing adjournments in the case, allowing the accused persons to deploy dilatory tactics to delay their trial — The court directed the High Court to ensure that justice is not further delayed or compromised due to political influence or any other extraneous factors — The court emphasized the paramount importance of ensuring the progression of the trial without further delay.
2024 INSC 529 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAILENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and…
Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 — Paragraph 13 — Recovery of overcharged amount of drugs — Demand made by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to recover an overcharged amount for a Cloxacillin-based drug formulation called Roscilox — The Court found that the appellant’s admission of purchasing the drug directly from the manufacturer made it liable under Paragraph 13 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 (DPCO) — The Court also rejected the appellant’s claim that it was only a ‘dealer’ and not a ‘distributor’ under the DPCO, as the definitions of these terms under the DPCO are not mutually exclusive — The Court further noted that the objective of the DPCO is to control the prices of medicinal drug formulations and ensure they are made available to the common man, and thus, the provision should not be subjected to a restricted or hidebound interpretation — Appeal Dismissed.
2024 INSC 521 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and…
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 19 — Interim bail — Whether the “need and necessity to arrest” is a separate ground to challenge the order of arrest passed under Section 19(1) of the Act (PMLA) to a larger bench — The court also questioned whether the “need and necessity to arrest” refers to the satisfaction of formal parameters to arrest and take a person into custody or if it relates to other personal grounds and reasons regarding the necessity to arrest a person in the facts and circumstances of the case — The court further questioned the parameters and facts that are to be taken into consideration by the court while examining the question of “need and necessity to arrest” — The court’s observations are for deciding the present appeal and will not be construed as findings on the merits of the case or allegations — The court granted interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, who was arrested in connection with a money laundering case.
2024 INSC 512 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARVIND KEJRIWAL — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal…
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.
2024 INSC 502 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,…
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).
2024 INSC 511 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MD. RAHIM ALI @ ABDUR RAHIM — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and…
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.
(2024) INSC 429 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LEHNA SINGH (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. GURNAM SINGH (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram…
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.
(2024) INSC 433 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DANI WOOLTEX CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHEIL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S.…