Supreme Court Monthly Digest- January 2025

AdalatRefund court fees - The petitioner sought a refund of court fees paid in the trial court, first appellate court, and second appellate court after the High Court decided the second appeal based on an amicable settlement between the parties. The High Court rejected the petitioner's prayer for a refund, holding that no grounds for refund were made out. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that refund of court fees is permissible only if the case is resolved through arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement (including Lok Adalat or mediation), and not in cases of out-of-court settlements. Since the settlement in this case was not reached through any of the aforementioned mechanisms, the petitioner was not entitled to a refund of court fees. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's refusal to refund court fees, as the settlement was not reached through a formal dispute resolution mechanism. Jage Ram v. Ved Kaur, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 138Aircraft Act, 1934Section 12B - Investigation by Local Police - The appeals challenged the High Court's judgment quashing an FIR registered against the respondents, including a Member of Parliament, for alleged offences under Sections 336, 447, and 448 IPC and Sections 10 and 11A of the Aircraft Act, 1934. The FIR alleged that the respondents forcibly entered the Air Traffic Control (ATC) room at Deoghar Airport and pressured officials to grant take-off clearance for their chartered flight after sunset, violating airport security protocols. The High Court quashed the FIR, holding that it was vitiated by mala fides and that allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the legal process. The court noted that the Aircraft Act, 1934, is a complete code, and the IPC provisions were not applicable. It also observed that the respondents, including a sitting MP and members of aviation committees, had no role in influencing the ATC clearance, which was granted by the Kolkata ATC. Held, the allegations did not make out offences under Sections 336, 447, or 448 IPC. The respondents' actions did not amount to rash or negligent behavior endangering human life (Section 336 IPC), nor did they involve criminal trespass or unlawful entry (Sections 447 and 448 IPC). The Aircraft Act, 1934, and its rules constitute a complete code for aviation safety and security. Section 12B of the Act mandates that cognizance of offences can only be taken on a complaint by authorized aviation authorities, not by the local police. The local police could only forward the material collected during the investigation to the authorized officer under the Aircraft Act, who would then decide whether to file a complaint. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision to quash the FIR. However, it granted liberty to the State to forward the investigation material to the authorized officer under the Aircraft Act within four weeks for further action, if deemed necessary. The FIR was quashed, and the respondents were cleared of the charges under IPC and the Aircraft Act. The Court reinforced the primacy of the Aircraft Act, 1934, in matters of aviation security and the limited role of local police in such cases. State of Jharkhand v. Nishikant Dubey, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 101ArchaeologyIssue of the unauthorized occupation and poor maintenance of the Gumti of Shaikh Ali, a heritage structure from the late 15th century Lodhi Era, located in Delhi - The Court had previously ordered an inspection of the site, which was conducted by Dr. Swapna Liddle, who prepared a detailed report highlighting the structure's unique architectural design and its status as a Grade I Heritage Building. The report criticized the encroachment and poor maintenance by Respondent No. 4, the Defence Colony Resident Welfare Association, and warned of the imminent decay of the heritage site if urgent measures were not taken. The Court directed the Department of Archaeology (NCT of Delhi) to prepare a restoration plan within three weeks and ordered Respondent No. 4 to hand over peaceful possession of the site to the Land and Development Office, Ministry of Urban Affairs, Government of India. Additionally, the Court appointed Shri Gopal Shankar Narayan, Senior Advocate, as the Court Commissioner to supervise the handover process and ensure minimal harm to the structure during the removal of encroachments. Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 145Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Limitation - The Court expressed concerns about the stringent application of limitation laws, which may curtail the remedy to challenge arbitral awards. The current legal position may lead to injustice in cases where parties are unable to file applications within the prescribed period due to genuine reasons. The Court suggested that the legislature reconsider the limitation framework to ensure uniformity and fairness, particularly in arbitration matters....

Supreme Court Monthly Digest- January 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags