Daily Judgments of 04 March
Supreme Court of India
CRL.A. NO.-000540-2013
Parties: SURESH VS STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, setting aside his conviction under Section 302 IPC. The court found the deceased's dying declaration to be inconsistent with her prior statements and lacking in corroborative evidence. The court held that in the absence of reliable supporting evidence, the dying declaration alone could not form the sole basis for the conviction, and the benefit of doubt had to be given to the appellant.
C.A. NO.-003547-2025
Parties: MUKESH PRASAD SINGH VS THE THEN RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY (NOW DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD CENTRAL AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY)
Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
Area of Law: Service Law
The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and directing the university to provide the appellant with retiral benefits under the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme. The Court held that as per the university statutes and the 2008 office order, the default retiral benefits scheme for employees who did not opt for the Contributory Provident Fund is the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme. Since the appellant did not exercise his option to join the Contributory Provident Fund scheme, he is entitled to the default scheme benefits. The Court reasoned that the High Court's dismissal of the appellant's writ petition on the ground of non-exercise of option was erroneous, as the non-exercise of option resulted in the appellant's inclusion in the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme as per the applicable rules.
SLP(CRL) NO.-004774-2024
Parties: K.S. MEHTA VS M/S MORGAN SECURITIES AND CREDITS PVT. LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA, JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Area of Law: Corporate Law
The Court held that the non-executive directors, K.S. Mehta and Basant Kumar Goswami, cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for the dishonor of cheques issued by the company. The court found that the complaint lacked specific allegations about the appellants' direct involvement in the financial affairs and operations of the company at the relevant time. Mere designation as directors and attendance at board meetings were not sufficient to impose liability, as the appellants' roles were limited to governance oversight without any executive decision-making authority. The court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants, as the requirement of establishing their active responsibility for the conduct of the company's business was not met.
C.A. NO.-004048-2024
Parties: SARANGA ANILKUMAR AGGARWAL VS BHAVESH DHIRAJLAL SHETH
Judge(s): JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH, JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
Area of Law: Banking Law
The Supreme Court held that the execution of penalty orders passed by the NCDRC against the appellant cannot be stayed under the interim moratorium provisions of Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The court found a fundamental distinction between civil and criminal proceedings concerning a debt moratorium, and that while civil proceedings are generally stayed under IBC provisions, criminal proceedings, including penalty enforcement, do not automatically fall within its ambit unless explicitly stated by law.
The court emphasized that the penalties imposed by the NCDRC are regulatory in nature and arise due to non-compliance with consumer protection laws, which are distinct from "debt recovery proceedings" under the IBC. The court held that such penalties do not constitute "debt" as envisioned under the IBC, and are instead covered under the category of "excluded debts" under the Code. Therefore, the moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC does not extend to the enforcement of these regulatory penalties.
The court relied on the principle that the IBC is designed to deal with insolvency resolution.
CRL.A. NO.-001076-001083-2025
Parties: M.S. NAGABHUSHAN VS D.S. NAGARAJA
Judge(s): JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH, JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Area of Law: Negotiable Instruments Law
The Court held that the appellant-accused could not be held liable to pay the full security deposit amount of Rs. 9,00,000 to the respondent-complainant, as the respondent-complainant had continued to occupy the flat without paying rent or vacating the premises even after the lease term ended. The Court set aside the judgments of the appellate court and high court that had upheld the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 9,00,000. The Court restored the trial court's judgment, directing the appellant-accused to pay only Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation to the respondent-complainant, and the remaining amount to be reimbursed to the appellant-accused.
C.A. NO.-003548-2025
Parties: C PRABHAKAR RAO AND ANR VS SAMA MAHIPAL REDDY AND ANR
Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
Area of Law: Civil Law
The Court held that the High Court was correct in condoning the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree, but erred in automatically proceeding to set aside the ex-parte decree itself, as the respondents had not filed a revision against the order dismissing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. The court emphasized that the circumstances, justification, consideration and legal remedies for 'condoning the delay' and 'setting aside the ex-parte decree' are distinct and must be dealt with independently. The Supreme Court revived the application to set aside the ex-parte decree and directed the Trial Court to hear and dispose of it on its own merits.
C.A. NO.-002289-002291-2025
Parties: SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS DR. KULBIR SINGH RANA
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Area of Law: Service Law
The Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's and the Delhi High Court's orders, which directed the Sports Authority of India (SAI) to consider the respondents as "initial constituents" under its 2022 Recruitment Rules. The court found that the respondents, who were working as physiotherapists on a contractual basis with SAI, had undergone a proper selection process and their appointments were not "illegal" but only "irregular." The court noted that under the relevant rules, such employees can be deemed as part of SAI's "initial constitution" after approval by a screening committee. The Supreme Court dismissed SAI's appeals, agreeing with the reasoning of the lower courts that the respondents were entitled to be treated as regular employees of SAI.
Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)-17210/2024
Parties: COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA & ORS. Vs NIRBHAY KUMAR SANTOSH
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court of Delhi held that the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was correct in retaining the Original Application (OA) filed by the respondent at the Principal Bench in Delhi. The court found that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, as per the respondent's contention that the final decision on his representation had to be taken by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAGI), who is headquartered in Delhi. The court noted that the CAGI's own circular required the case details to be forwarded to its headquarters in Delhi for a final decision by the competent authority. Therefore, the Principal Bench of the CAT had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the OA.
LPA-491/2024
Parties: DR SHAHSHI BHUSHAN Vs UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, holding that the appellant, who was the first candidate in the waiting list, had no indefeasible right to appointment against the vacancy that arose due to the resignation of a selected candidate. The court relied on the judgments in Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana and Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, which established that once the selected candidates are appointed, the waiting list ceases to exist, and any subsequent vacancy must be filled through a fresh advertisement and selection process. The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the DOPT Office Memorandum dated 13 June 2000 was applicable to the University, as the University follows its own Statutes, Rules, and Ordinances for the selection process.
W.P.(C)-12130/2018
Parties: MADAN MOHAN Vs UNION OF INDIA
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court of Delhi held that the allocation of disciplinary powers over Group A officers from the Union Finance Minister (MOF) to the Minister of State for Finance (MOS) through an Office Order dated 3 April 2018 was valid and did not amount to an illegal sub-delegation.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court rulings in A. Sanjeevi Naidu and Samsher Singh, which established that a Minister can allocate work within their Ministry to officers as a matter of administrative convenience, without this being considered a delegation of power. The acts of the MOS in exercising disciplinary powers would be deemed as the acts of the MOF himself, as the Minister in charge.
The High Court dismissed the petition, finding that the Office Order merely involved an internal allocation of work by the MOF and was legally valid. The Court noted that this allocation did not require prior consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training under the Transaction of Business Rules.
W.P.(C)-934/2023
Parties: INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ACC (IMPORT) NEW CUSTOM HOUSE NEW DELHI & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA, JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Tax Law
The Court held that the duty or tax or cess under Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is not an independent levy and is merely a collection mechanism placed at the point of reimport. The Court found that the classification of the transaction as a supply of service under the CGST and IGST Acts cannot be recharacterized as an import of goods by the customs authorities. The Court quashed the amendments introduced by Notification No. 36/2021 and the clarificatory Circular No. 16/2021 on the ground that they were intended to expand the tax net and could not be considered as clarificatory. The Court also set aside the orders of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) which had upheld the levy of IGST on the reimport of the subject goods.
MAC.APP.-406/2022
Parties: KOTAK MAHINDRA GIC LTD Vs PARVATI BASNET & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Area of Law: Insurance Law
The High Court upheld the compensation award of Rs. 31,86,556/- with 8% interest per annum granted by the Tribunal to the wife and daughter of the deceased, Dilip Kumar, who died in a road accident. The court rejected the challenges raised by both the insurance company and the claimants.
The key legal points addressed were:
(i) the determination of the deceased's age as 40 years and the use of a multiplier of 15
(ii) the use of the deceased's actual income as an Assistant Supervisor rather than minimum wages
(iii) the addition of 30% towards future prospects and
(iv) the appropriateness of the 8% interest rate per annum. The court found no merit in the appeals filed by both parties and dismissed them.
MAC.APP.-369/2022
Parties: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs SMT SUSHILA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Area of Law: Insurance Law
The High Court held that the compensation in the case of death of an 11-year-old child in a road accident should be calculated based on the minimum wages for a skilled worker in the relevant state, rather than the notional income method. The court applied a multiplier of 18 and added 40% for future prospects, while deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. The total compensation was revised to Rs. 14,63,000/- along with interest at 7% per annum. The court also awarded compensation under non-pecuniary heads such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses.
BAIL APPLN.-1337/2024
Parties: CHRISTIAN JAMES MICHEL Vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Judge(s): JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court of Delhi granted regular bail to Christian James Michel, the applicant, observing that his continued incarceration of over 6 years without the commencement of trial would violate his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court noted that while Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) imposes stringent conditions for bail, the Supreme Court has held that this provision cannot be interpreted to permit indefinite pre-trial detention, especially when the delay is not attributable to the accused.
Considering that the applicant has already spent over 6 years in custody, the investigation remains ongoing, and the trial has not even begun, the court found that the continued detention of the applicant would amount to pre-trial punishment. The court accordingly allowed the bail application, subject to the applicant furnishing a personal bond and surety, and other conditions as may be imposed by the trial court.
Bombay High Court
IAST/33508/2024
Parties: SUBHASH RAGHO PATIL AND ANR Vs YASHWANT JANA MHATRE AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE M.S. SONAK, JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN
Area of Law: Land Acquisition Law
The Court held that the acquisition of the Petitioners' agricultural lands for the "Navi Mumbai Project" was invalid. The Court found that the requirements under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for hearing objections from the landowners were not complied with, as there was no notification or direction invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17 to dispense with the Section 5A inquiry.
The Court held that the invocation of the urgency provisions under Section 17 was not justified, as there was no material on record to show real and exceptional urgency that could not brook even a few weeks or months' delay. The Section 6 declaration and the impugned award were accordingly quashed. However, the Court left the Section 4 notification untouched, allowing the respondents to acquire the lands after following due process and considering the Petitioners' objections under Section 5A.
BA/2254/2024
Parties: CHANDRABHAN JANARDHAN YADAV Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Judge(s): JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court allowed the bail applications of four accused persons (Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6) in a case under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The court found that while the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act (which makes bail the exception) apply, the prosecution's failure to fully comply with the procedural requirements under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 made it difficult to deny bail. The court emphasized the duty of the investigating authorities to strictly comply with the prescribed procedures and issued directions to the police departments to ensure the proper implementation of the statutory provisions.
CARBPL/32740/2024
Parties: HERITAGE LIFESTYLES AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs MADHUGIRI CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED
Judge(s): JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Area of Law: Contract Law
The High Court held that the four instruments relied upon by Heritage Lifestyles & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (the Revised Proposal, Members' Approval, Heritage Clarification, and Madhugiri Approval Communication) did not collectively constitute a binding amendment to the original Development Agreement and Supplemental Development Agreement between the parties.
The court found that the parties had not reached a consensus ad idem (meeting of minds) on the essential terms of the proposed amendment, particularly regarding the development potential of the plot and its sharing between Heritage and Madhugiri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The court observed that the parties were still negotiating these crucial details even after the four instruments were exchanged.
Applying the principles laid down in the Pittie Antariskh case, the court upheld the Arbitral Tribunal's prima facie view that Madhugiri's termination of the original agreements was valid, as the parties had not finalized the essential terms of the proposed amendment.
CARAP/31/2022
Parties: KARTIK RADIA Vs BDO INDIA LLP AND ANR
Judge(s): JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court held that disputes between a partner of a limited liability partnership (LLP) and the LLP itself can be covered by the arbitration agreement contained in the LLP agreement, even though the LLP is not a signatory to the agreement. The court rejected the respondents' arguments that the LLP is an "alien" or "third party" to the LLP agreement, finding that the LLP is the very subject matter of the agreement and its affairs are governed by it under the LLP Act. The court appointed a nominee arbitrator for the respondents, directing the arbitral tribunal to proceed with the matter. The court noted that the issue of which claims are arbitrable would be for the tribunal to decide under its jurisdiction.
Calcutta High Court
WPA/30412/2024
Parties: HOOGHLY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. vs GOPAL DAS & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court of Calcutta held that the respondent worker, who worked as a 'badli' (substitute) worker for the petitioner company for 38 years, is entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court drew an adverse inference against the employer for failing to produce the relevant employment records, as required under Section 25D of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court found that the worker had provided continuous service for the required period and was therefore eligible for the gratuity benefits, despite the employer's claims. The court dismissed the petitioner's writ application, upholding the orders of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority.
CO/12/2024
Parties: TIRUPATI VINIMOY PRIVATE LIMITED vs KARNANI PROPERTIES LIMITED
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court dismissed the revisional application filed by the defendant, upholding the trial court's decision to reject the defendant's application for recalling the plaintiff's witness (PW1) for further cross-examination.
The court held that while the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be used to recall a witness in exceptional circumstances, this case did not warrant the exercise of such power.
The court found that the questions the defendant wanted to ask PW1 about the registration of the lease deed had already been put to the witness during the original cross-examination, and the delay of almost 3 years in filing the application for recall was unreasonable. The court concluded that the trial court's decision to reject the application for recall was justified, as the defendant had already had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness on the relevant issues.