Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up: May 2024

Here's a comprehensive overview of the Supreme Court of India proceedings during April 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 May, providing a succinct overview.Orders/ Judgments S.138 NI Act | Courts Can't Compel Complainant To Give Consent For Compounding, Mere Repayment Won't Absolve Accused : Supreme Court Case Title: RAJ REDDY KALLEM Versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR Coram: Justices AS Bopanna and Sudhanshu Dhulia Recently, the Supreme Court observed that the Courts cannot compel the complainant in a cheque dishonour case to give consent for the compounding of the complaint merely because the accused has compensated the complainant. State Can Impose Stamp Duty On Insurance Policies Executed Within State : Supreme Court Rejects LIC's Challenge To Rajasthan's Demand Case Title: LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VERSUS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3391 OF 2011 Coram: Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) against the demand of stamp duty of approximately Rs 1.19 crores raised by the State of Rajasthan. The Court upheld the legislative competence of the State to levy stamp duty on insurance policies executed within the State subject to the rates determined by the Central legislation. 'Misconceived' : Supreme Court Registry Rejects Centre's Application To Clarify 2G Case Verdict For Administrative Allotment Of Spectrum The Supreme Court's Registrar refused to receive the application filed by the Union Government seeking clarification of the 2012 judgment in the 2G Spectrum case. The Government sought a clarification that the verdict does not bar the allocation of spectrum through means other than public auction in certain situations. Chargesheet Must Contain Clear & Complete Entries, Specify Role Of Each Accused; Witness Statements Be Enclosed With It : Supreme Court Case Title: Sharif Ahmed and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh, VAKIL AHMAD & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME & ANR. Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti Taking note of the importance of the submission of a charge sheet to take cognizance of an offence by a magistrate, the Supreme Court observed that the charge sheet must contain clear and complete entries of all columns to enable the court to understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on the file. Non-Bailable Warrants Shouldn't Be Issued Unless Accused Charged With Heinous Crime Is Likely To Abscond Or Destroy Evidence: Supreme Court Case Title: Sharif Ahmed and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh, VAKIL AHMAD & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME & ANR. Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on May 1, cautioned against the routine issuance of non-bailable warrants. The Court said that non-bailalble warrants not be issued unless the accused is charged with a heinous crime, and is likely to evade the process of law or tamper/destroy evidence. Suit For Recovery Against 'Sick Company' Not Barred If It Doesn't Affect Company's Properties Or Revival Scheme : Supreme Court Case Title: FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. vs. M/S. COROMANDAL SACKS PRIVATE LIMITED, CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5366-5367 OF 2024 Coram: Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta If the recovery proceedings against the Sick Company do not pose a threat to its properties or have adversely impacted the scheme of the revival of the Sick Company, then there wouldn't be a bar for filing a suit for the recovery of the dues against the Sick Company, observed the Supreme Court. S.138 NI Act | Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Decision Allowing Amendment Of Cheque Date Mentioned In Complaint Case : Munish Kumar Gupta v. M/s Mittal Trading Company The Supreme Court recently set aside a judgment of the High Court which allowed a complainant in a cheque dishonour case to amend the date of the cheque mentioned in the complaint. The Supreme Court noted that the amendment application was moved after the evidence stage was over. Here, the date of the cheque was mentioned as 22.07.2010 in the complaint. The same date was mentioned in the legal notice which was issued after the dishonour of the cheque. Also, in the evidence as well, the very same date was mentioned. S.205 CrPC | Court Can Exempt Accused From Personal Appearance Before Grant Of Bail : Supreme Court Case Title: Sharif Ahmed and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh, VAKIL AHMAD & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME & ANR. Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti The Supreme Court...

Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up: May 2024

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags