Supreme Court Monthly Digest June 2024

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 415 to 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 434Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996Section 29A - A High Court which does not have original civil jurisdiction does not have the power to extend the time limit for passing of the arbitral award. Chief Engineer (NH) PWD (Roads) v. BSC & C and C JV, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 425BailBail prayers are not to be indefinitely adjourned. Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate Of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 430Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Section 11 – Res judicata – Res judicata, as a technical legal principle, operates to prevent the same parties from relitigating the same issues that have already been conclusively determined by a court. Held, the previous decision of this Court in the first round would not operate as res judicata to bar a decision on the lead matter and the other appeals, because this rule may not apply hard and fast in situations where larger public interest is at stake. In such cases, a more flexible approach ought to be adopted by courts, recognizing that certain matters transcend individual disputes and have far-reaching public interest implications. Hence, the applicability of res judicata is negated. (Para 23 & 25) Government of NCT of Delhi v. BSK Realtors LLP, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 420Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973'Absurdity' : Supreme Court quashes FIR which alleged book in Indore law college library hurt religious sentiments. Inamur Rahman v. State of M.P. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 423Power of courts to alter charge – It is permissible for Courts to alter charges but it can only be done by careful analysis of evidence and the reasons for the same must be recorded in the judgment. The “proof” of “common intention” is necessary to alter conviction from Section 149 to 34 of IPC. In the present case no charge under Section 34 of the IPC was laid against the accused by the Prosecution but when the charge under Section 149 IPC was dropped, the trial Court decided to conveniently alter the charge and with the aid of Section 34 IPC, ordered for conviction of the accused. Held, common intention of the appellants is not established by the prosecution. Further held, the Court while altering the charge from Section 149 to Section 34 IPC omitted to furnish any reasons. Hence, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt and their conviction is unsustainable. (Para 17, 19, 20, 21) Madhusudan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 418Section 156(3) – To direct for registration of FIR – Held, no offence was made out in the complaint. Hence, the decision of the Metropolitan Magistrate in dismissing the application filed under Section 156(3) is correct and unassailable. (Para 17) State of GNCT of Delhi v. Praveen Kumar @ Prashant, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 422Constitution of IndiaArticle 142 – Applicability/non-applicability of the doctrine of merger – The extraordinary constitutional powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which is to be exercised with a view to do complete justice between the parties, remains unaffected and being an unfettered power, shall always be deemed to be preserved as an exception to the doctrine of merger and the rule of stare decisis." Held, the doctrine of merger is not of universal application and powers under Article 142 of the Constitution shall be deemed as an exception to the doctrine of merger and the rule of stare decisis. (Para 33) Government of NCT of Delhi v. BSK Realtors LLP, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 420Hierarchy in judiciary – Any orders passed by the Supreme Court, ought to be respected and fully complied with, in view of the fact that the hierarchy in the judiciary needs to be respected by one in all. In that hierarchy, the orders passed by the Supreme Court would bind not just the parties, but the judicial officers as well. (Para 8) Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Gopinath, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 428Supreme Court asks Yamuna River Board to decide Delhi Govt's plea for additional water; HP Govt withdraws statement on surplus water. Government of NCT of Delhi v. State of Haryana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 429DelaySubsequent change in law cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 415EnvironmentDelhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 - The Forest Department of the Delhi Government and the Tree Authority to keep a constant vigil in the entire area of the National Capital Territory of Delhi about the activities of illegal felling or damaging of trees. Unless these two Authorities do so, the very purpose of enacting various forest and tree laws will be completely frustrated. (Para 11) Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 433Exemplary CostsThe State of Madhya Pradesh is directed to pay costs to the appellant. The State Government is directed to recover the said amount from the officer(s) who were responsible of taking deliberate, illegal, mala fide actions for denying relief to the appellant. (Para 11) Smita Shrivastava v. State of...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest June 2024

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags