Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up: January 2024

Here's a comprehensive overview of the Supreme Court of India proceedings during the first month of 2024. This monthly digest aims to inform you about the latest judgments, orders, and Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed in the Supreme Court during the month of January and also the updates of the Constitution bench hearing in Aligarh Muslim University's minority status matter, providing a succinct overview. Orders/ Judgments High Courts While Exercising S.482 CrPC Power Legally Bound To See If Accusations Constitute Any Offence : Supreme Court Case Title: ABHISHEK SAXENA vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH., Diary No.- 1996 – 2020., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1072 Coram: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar The Supreme Court, while allowing an appeal seeking quashing of an FIR, opined that while exercising power under Section 482, CrPC, the High Court was legally bound to see if accusations constitute any offence or not. Bar Of Limitation Can't Be Avoided By Resorting To Article 136 When Statutory Appeal Available: Supreme Court Case Title: Gopal Krishnan MS & Anr. v. Ravindra Beleyur & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.2341/2023., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 5 Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra. The Supreme Court observed that a bar of limitation cannot be obviated or circumvented by taking recourse of proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution when a statutory appeal is available. IBC - Is Dissenting Financial Creditor Entitled To Minimum Value Of Security Interest? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench, Doubts Precedent Case Title: DBS Bank Ltd Singapore v. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd and another., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 6 Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti The Supreme Court has referred to larger bench the issue whether a dissenting financial creditor is to be paid the minimum value of its security interest as per the Insolvency and the Bankruptcy Code 2016. The bench differed from the view expressed by a coordinate bench in the 2021 judgment in the case India Resurgence ARC Private Limited v. Amit Metaliks Limited & Another which held that a dissenting secured creditor cannot challenge an approved resolution plan contending that higher amount should have been paid to it based on the security interest held by it over the corporate debtor. High Court Chief Justices Have No Power To Frame Rules On Post-Retiral Benefits To Former Judges : Supreme Court Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3 Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra The Supreme Court, while setting aside the directions of the Allahabad High Court to take into custody two Secretaries of the Uttar Pradesh Government for alleged non-compliance of directions regarding the facilities to retired judges, expressly stated that the High Court Chief Justices acting on the administrative side do not have any powers to usurp the rulemaking responsibility of the executive. No Conviction Possible Under S.364A IPC If Prosecution Doesn't Prove Abduction Was Coupled With Ransom Demand & Life Threat : Supreme Court Case Title: NEERAJ SHARMA vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 7 Coram: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Satish Chandra Sharma The Supreme Court, in the context of Section 364 A (Kidnapping For Ransom) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, observed that apart from proving the act of abduction, the prosecution must also prove the demand of ransom along with the threat to the life of the abducted person. The necessary ingredients which the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, before the Court are not only an act of kidnapping or abduction but thereafter the demand of ransom, coupled with the threat to life of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted, must be there., the Court said. Supreme Court Refuses SIT/CBI Probe In Adani-Hindenburg Case; Endorses SEBI Investigation, Regulations Case Title: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 162/2023 and connected cases., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 2 Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra The Supreme Court refused to order a probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) into the allegations levelled in the Hindenburg Research report regarding stock price manipulations by the Adani group of companies. The Court refused to accept the reliance placed by the petitioners on newspaper reports and the report of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to doubt the SEBI probe. The Court also ordered SEBI and the investigative agencies of the Union government, to probe into whether the loss suffered by Indian investors due to the conduct of the Hindenburg research and any other...

Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up: January 2024

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags