Top Stories
Explained| Supreme Court verdict upholding constitutional validity of provisions relating to Personal Guarantors in IBC
In a batch of 384 petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 95 to 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’), the three-Judge Bench of Dr DY Chandrachud*, CJI., J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, JJ. has held that the provisions of Section 95 to Section 100 of the IBC are not unconstitutional as they do not violate Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
[Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1530]
Supreme Court hears Electoral Scheme bonds case
Electoral bonds were introduced through the Finance Act, 2017. To enable the introduction of these bonds, the Finance Act, 2017 amended 3 Statutes: Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Income Tax Act, 1961; Representation of People Act, 1951. Various petitions were filed before the Court challenging the amendments made to different statutes. The matter was referred to the Constitution Bench and was taken up for hearing on 31-10-2023. Read more
[Association For Democratics Reforms v. Union of India]
Criminal Conspiracy to be ‘scheduled offence’ under PMLA only if conspiracy is to commit an already Scheduled offence: Supreme Court
In a criminal appeal against the Karnataka High Court’s judgment, whereby the accused person’s application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing the complaint filed by Directorate of Enforcement (‘ED’) under the second proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘the PMLA’), the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. held that an accused in the PMLA case who comes into picture after the scheduled offence is committed by assisting in the concealment or use of proceeds of crime need not be an accused in the scheduled offence and such an accused can still be prosecuted under PMLA so long as scheduled offence exists. Read more
[Pavana Dibbur v. Enforcement Directorate, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586]
Supreme Court issues directions to streamline adoption process under Juvenile Justice Act
In an ongoing matter regarding the issue of adoption under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (‘JJ Act’), when the Central Adoption and Research Agency (‘CARA’) brought in certain suggestions for the Court’s consideration, the Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. issued several directions to ensure a streamlined and expeditious process of adoption. Read more
[Temple of Healing v. Union of India]
[RSS Route March] Supreme Court directs TN Government to submit proposal before Madras HC on allowing future route marches without Court’s intervention
In a batch of Special Leave Petitions filed by the State against two judgments, one by the Principal Bench of the Madras High Court dated 16-10-2023 and the other by its Madurai Bench dated 18-10-2023, whereby various writ petitions filed by the different units of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (‘RSS’) were disposed of , by directing the police authorities to permit the RSS to conduct the Route March on the prescribed dates and subject to certain conditions mentioned in the impugned judgments, the division bench of Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, JJ. has directed the State of Tamil Nadu to submit a proposal before the Madras High Court as to how in future they will ensure that RSS is permitted to conduct the Route March without seeking intervention of the Court. Read more
[State v. K. Chandrasekar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1580]
‘Special Benches, Suo Motu cases’; SC issues guidelines for HCs for expeditious disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs
In the case related to expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members of the Parliament (MPs) and Legislative Assemblies (MLAs), the 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI and PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra, JJ has issued several directions including a direction to the Chief Justices of the High Courts to register a suo-motu case with the title, “In Re: designated courts for MPs/MLAs” to monitor early disposal of criminal cases pending against the members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. The suo-motu case may be heard by the Special Bench presided by the Chief Justice or a bench assigned by them. Read more
[Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1463]
Orders indicating steps for minimizing air-noise pollution binding on all States, even after festive season: Supreme Court
In an application seeking issuance of appropriate directions for the State of Rajasthan and particularly the District Administration of Udaipur to take immediate steps to prevent air pollution in Udaipur city, the Division Bench of A.S. Bopanna and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. clarified that the previous orders for mitigating air and noise pollution were applicable to all the States including the State of Rajasthan, not only restricted to the festive season but thereafter as well. Read more
[Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1475]
Arbitration Matters
Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order which restricted application filed under S.29A(4) of Arbitration Act after expiry of term of the Tribunal
In a petition for special leave to appeal filed by Vrindavan Advisory Services LLP (petitioner) against a Calcutta High Court judgment, wherein the Court held that the Application under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (‘Act, 1996’) cannot be filed post expiry of the term of the Tribunal, the division bench of Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. issued notice and stayed the operation of the impugned order. Read more
[Vrindavan Advisory Services LLP v. Deep Shambhulal Bhanushali, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1466]
Credible evidence is must to substantiate claim of loss of profitability; SC sets aside arbitral award in conflict with ‘public policy of India’
In an appeal by Unibros (‘appellant’) against the Judgment and Order of the Delhi High Court, whereby, the appellant’s appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) was dismissed and the Single Judge’s order was affirmed, whereby the All India Radio’s (‘respondent’) objection under Section 34 of the Act was allowed resulting in setting aside of an arbitral Award wherein, a sum of Rs. 1,44,83,830 was awarded for delay in completing the work beyond the stipulated contract period, the Division Bench of S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. dismissed the appeal for being devoid of merits and held that the arbitral award was in conflict with the ‘public policy of India’ as contemplated by Section 34(2)(b) of the Act. Read more
[Unibros v. All India Radio, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1366]
Criminal Cases
High Courts or Sessions Courts can grant transit anticipatory bail in FIRs registered outside their jurisdiction, subject to conditions: SC
In an appeal filed by the complainant/wife, against the orders dated 07-07-2022 passed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (‘Bengaluru Court’) wherein the Court has granted anticipatory bail to the accused/husband and his family which alleged commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), registered by the complainant/wife at Rajasthan, the division bench of BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan ,JJ. has held that if an offence has been committed by a person in a particular State and if the First Information Report (‘FIR’) is filed in another State and the accused is a resident in a third State, bearing in mind access to justice, the accused who is residing in the third State or who is present there for a legitimate purpose should be enabled to seek the relief of limited anticipatory bail of transitory nature in the third State. Read more
[Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1484]
‘Testimonies of prosecution witnesses are unreliable, unworthy of credence’: SC set aside Karnataka HC order overturning acquittal of 6 convicts in murder case
In an appeal filed against the Judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court, wherein the Court overturned the acquittal order in respect of A1 to A5 and A7, and convicted them for offence under Section 304 Part II, of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000 each., and acquitted the other accused persons, the division bench of Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol*, JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment, upheld the view taken by the Trial Court and said that the High Court, without assigning any cogent reasons, should not have interfered with such findings. Read more
[Manjunath v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1421]
Supreme Court restores penalty withholding 50% of monthly pension in Sexual Harassment at Workplace case
In an appeal challenging judgment and order passed by the Gauhati High Court on 15-05-2019 setting aside order of penalty of withholding of 50% pension imposed upon the respondent in connection with the disciplinary proceedings initiated following allegations of sexual harassment, the Bench of Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ. set aside the impugned judgment and restored the penalty imposed. Read more
[Union of India v. Dilip Paul, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1423]
Supreme Court, in a balancing act, commutes Death Sentence to 20 Years Imprisonment in Indiscriminate Firing case that killed 6
In a brutal case involving indiscriminate firing, resulting in the death of six innocent people a brutal act of indiscriminate firing, resulting in the death of six innocent people, the 3-judge bench of BR Gavai, BV Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ has found the case to be falling under the rarest of the rare category but has taken a middle path as far as the sentence is concerned and has commuted the deaths sentence imposed upon the accused into life imprisonment i.e. actual imprisonment for a period of 20 years without remission. This period includes the period already undergone. The Court made clear that the case of accused would not be considered for pre-mature release unless he completes the actual sentence of 20 years. Read more
[Madan v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1473]
Supreme Court acquits man in 23 years old rape case for lack of conclusive evidence on victim’s age below 16 years
In an appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision upholding the Trial Court’s conviction order under Section 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and sentence for seven years, the three Judge Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order for lack of evidence to prove the victim’s age below sixteen years. Read more
[Manak Chand v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397]
Supreme Court grants bail in NDPS case; Imposes location sharing as a bail condition
In an appeal against the judgment and order passed by Rajasthan High Court, wherein the Court dismissed the bail application of the accused for offences under the provisions of Sections 8 and 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’), the division bench of Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. has set aside the impugned judgment and directed that the accused be released on bail. Further, it directed the accused to not go beyond the Alwar District, Rajasthan without leave of the Special Court, and directed him to make available his location through mobile phone by pairing it with the mobile phone of the investigating officer round the clock. Read more
[Puranmal Jat v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1418]
Minor discrepancies in testimony and cross-examination not sufficient to totally discredit an injured eyewitness: Supreme Court
In twin appeals against judgment and order passed by Rajasthan High Court on 8-08-2007 acquitting all the accused persons for major offences under Sections 302, 307 but convicting for Sections 323, 324, 325, 447, 147/148 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) while also reducing their sentence to the period already undergone, the Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia*, JJ. did not concur with the High Court’s view discrediting evidence of deceased’s wife, who was also injured in the said incident. The Court held that the minor discrepancies in her statement made before the police and the cross examination could not be the reason for completely discrediting her evidence. Read more
[Birbal Nath v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1396]
Can acquittal in criminal proceedings entitle delinquent employee for automatic discharge in departmental proceedings? Supreme Court answers
In an appeal filed by State Bank of India (‘SBI’) against the judgment and order dated 7-01-2009 passed by the Gauhati High Court, wherein the Court allowed the appeal of the respondent against the order of dismissal from bank services and the rejection of the departmental appeal, the division bench of Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol*, JJ. while setting aside the impugned Judgment dated 07-01-2009 and the order dated 25-06-2005 , held that Clause 4 of the Memorandum of Settlement (‘MoS’) dated 10-04-2002 does not envisage a complete standstill of departmental proceedings because of the pendency of criminal proceedings. The stay of the criminal proceedings is desirable, but the same is to be affected only for a reasonable period. The nature of proceedings being wholly separate and distinct, acquittal in criminal proceedings does not entitle the delinquent employee for any benefit in it or automatic discharge in departmental proceedings. Read more
[SBI v. P. Zadenga, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1240]
Insurance and Motor Vehicle accident claim
Insurer has no right to recover motor accident claim compensation from insured vehicle owner for driver’s fake licence: SC
In a special leave petition against the Delhi High Court order, whereby the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal’s award which granted the right of recovery to the IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (‘petitioner-insurance company’) was reversed, the Division Bench of C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. dismissed the appeal and upheld the Delhi High Court’s order, that the petitioner-insurance company was not liable to recover the damages paid to the accident victim from the owner of the vehicle for breach of the insurance conditions. Read more
[IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geeta Devi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1398]
Judicial Appointment
[Non-Disclosure of Criminal Antecedent] Supreme Court directs appointment of judiciary aspirant to post of civil judge with seniority from date of selection
In a writ petition against the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, wherein the Court decided to not appoint the petitioner for the post of Judicial officer (Civil Judge, Junior Division) for Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services, as she has not disclosed that she had a criminal case under Section 289 of the Penal Code, 1860, against her, the division bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. while quashing the impugned order, has said that the impugned order, though well intentioned, is causing grave injustice to the petitioner. Further, it directed that the petitioner should be appointed to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and that her seniority will be from the date of her selection, in order of her merit. However, she will be entitled to her salary only from the date of her joining the post. Read more
[Apoorva Pathak v. High Court of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1445]
Employment matters
Appointments can only be made for vacancies advertised, holds Supreme Court; 2 Judges retain Posts despite flawed 2013 Selection Process
The appellants in the instant bunch of appeals challenged the judgment passed by Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court which quashed their appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), and those who were also the candidates for the same post for the year 2013 who challenged the selection process and appointment of the appellants. The Division Bench of C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. upheld the High Court’s findings on law regarding flaw in the selection process. However, while exercising its powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India, the Court set aside the impugned order to the extent of quashing selection and appointment of appellants. Read more
[Vivek Kaisth v. State of H.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1485]
Court can consider parity in pay scales for historically similarly placed employees: Supreme Court reiterates
In an appeal by the Union of India challenging order passed by the Delhi High Court on 14-10-2014 setting aside orders passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’) and thereby allowing the relief of parity in pay scales in terms of recommendations in 6th Central Pay Commission (‘6th CPC’), the Division Bench of A.S. Bopanna* and P.S. Narasimha, JJ. upheld the High Court’s conclusion to reiterate that historical similarity in pay scales can be considered while allowing same pay scale for similar posts. Read more
[Union of India v. D.G.O.F. Employees Assn., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1471]
Junior Office Assistant Recruitment | State could not relax essential qualifications under Rules and Advertisement without publicizing such relaxation: Supreme Court
In a bunch of appeals challenging the judgment and order passed by Himachal Pradesh High Court regarding recruitment to the post of Junior Office Assistant, a Class III (Non-gazetted) post, the Division Bench of Hrishikesh Roy and Manoj Misra, JJ. Set aside the impugned judgment and order stating that the essential qualifications advertised in accordance with the applicable Rules could not be relaxed by the Government after last date of applications, while the same was not even publicized giving applicants the due opportunity. Read more
[Ankita Thakur v. H.P. Staff Selection Commission, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1472]
Other Notable Judgments
Explained| Supreme Court’s verdict on importance of interpreting commercial contracts in line with the original intent of parties involved
In an appeal against the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (‘APTEL’), wherein APTEL dismissed an appeal against an order of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘CERC’) dated 30-07-2013, the three-judge bench of Dr DY Chandrachud, CJI., JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra,JJ. has held that CERC and APTEL have correctly held that the as Gas Supply Agreement (GSA)/ Gas Transportation Agreement (GTA) with GAIL is permissible by the terms of the contract and the consent or approval of the MSEDCL is irrelevant. Clause 5.9 and Clause 4.3 operate in different spheres and the requirements of the former cannot be foisted on an arrangement permissible by the latter. Further, it said that a commercial document cannot be interpreted in a manner that is at odds with the original purpose and intendment of the parties to the document. A deviation from the plain terms of the contract is warranted only when it serves business efficacy better. Read more
[Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Ratnagiri Gas & Power (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1462]
UP-VAT Act entitles assessee to claim full input tax credit on exempted goods produced as by-products during manufacturing of taxable goods: Supreme Court
In appeals filed by the assessee against the common judgment and order dated 03-05-2019 passed by the Allahabad High Court, wherein the Court allowed both the Commercial Tax Revisions filed by the ‘Commissioner of Commercial Tax UP’ (‘Revenue’) against the Orders dated 04-05-2016 and 05-07-2017 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, viewing that the assessee is not entitled to the full benefit of Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’) claimed on the goods purchased by it for manufacturing its final product, the three judge bench of Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment, held that the charging Section of the UP-VAT Act, entitles the assessee to claim full amount of tax paid on the purchases as ITC. It also said that, in casethe legislative intent of the 2010 Amendment was to limit the scope and ambit of ‘goods’ under Section 13(1)(f) solely to ‘taxable goods’, there was nothing that could have prevented the Legislature from expressly using the phrase ‘taxable goods’ in Section 13(1)(f) of the UP-VAT Act. Further, it held that the High Court had committed an error in passing the impugned judgment relying on the decision in State of Karnataka v. M.K. Agro Tech. (P) Ltd., (2017) 16 SCC 210. Read more
[Modi Naturals Ltd. v. CCT, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1424]
Can rents receivable by debtors be assigned to the lender as an actionable claim? Supreme Court answers
In an appeal preferred by Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. (‘IL&FS’/ borrower) against the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’), the division bench of S. Ravindra Bhat* and Dipankar Datta, JJ. while upholding the impugned order, has held that the rents receivable by a borrower can be assigned to a lender as an “actionable claim” as per the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Read more
[Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd. v. HDFC Bank Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1371]
Supreme Court suggests amending Supreme Court Rules to include E-Copies of Original Records to cut delays and adjournments
Deprecating the practice of depositions of material witnesses not being placed on record, the Bench of Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ has suggested that Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 5 of Order XX of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 be amended to insert the words ‘soft copy’ before the words ‘original records’, resulting in e-copies of the Original Records being requisitioned. The Court noted that this would facilitate a much quicker availability of such records to the court as also further a more environmentally conscious approach. Read more
[Sajeev v. State of Kerala, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1470]
Judges not adhering to guidelines on maintenance given in Rajnesh v Neha: Supreme Court directs for re-circulation of judgment to Judges and Judicial Academies
In an appeal filed by a minor daughter, against the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, wherein the Court modified the maintenance for the minor daughter fixed by Family Court from ₹ 20,000/- per month to ₹ 7,500/- per month, the division bench of Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal*, JJ. while setting aside the impugned order, said that the impugned order passed by the High Court is cryptic and is bereft of reasons. Further, it remitted the matter to the High Court to consider it afresh. Read more
[Aditi v. Jitesh Sharma, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1451]
“No coercive steps against Journalists summoned by Crime Branch for article on Adani Group”; SC grants interim relief
In a set of two criminal petitions filed by two journalists against the summons issued by the Ahmedabad Crime Branch seeking their appearance in person to question about their critical article titled “Documents Provide Fresh Insight Into Allegations of Stock Manipulation That Rocked India’s Powerful Adani Group” published on the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (‘OCCRP’) website, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. allowed the appeal and directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners till the next hearing. Read more
[Ravi Nair v. State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1419]
Part rejection of plaint impermissible under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC: Supreme Court
In an appeal involving question regarding correct application of the principle underlying the ‘rejection of plaints’ under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) and legality of rejection of a plaint in part, the Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. set aside Karnataka High Court’s judgment and order dated 9-11-2015 to hold that application for part rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC could not be allowed. Read more
Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1407]
Never Reported Judgments
Vendor cannot urge his defective title as an answer in specific performance suit by purchaser [(1952) 2 SCC 124]
In an appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Madras High Court (‘High Court’), the three-judges bench of Mehr Chand Mahajan, Chandrasekhara Aiyar* and N.H. Bhagwati, JJ., opined that whatever might be the real truth about the title of the property, it was not to be decided in the present case as the respondent’s father was not made party in the suit and also, the respondent could not be allowed to urge his own defective title as an answer to a suit for specific performance by the purchaser. The Supreme Court opined that the respondent was bound by law to execute a conveyance as per the agreement, and his right, title or interest, whatever it might be, would pass under the same. Read more
[Kannappa Chettiar v. Abbas Ali, (1952) 2 SCC 124]
Liability for dishonestly receiving stolen property extends even to those merely acting as sales brokers: SC [(1952) 2 SCC 140]
This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the Nagpur High Court (‘High Court’) dated 19-06-1951 dismissing the petition preferred by appellant and maintaining his conviction under Section 411 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The Division Bench of M.C. Mahajan* and N.H. Bhagwati, JJ., opined that appellant’s submission that there was no material for finding that he had reason to believe that goods were stolen property was rightly rejected by the High Court as on facts and there were various sufficient circumstances present to establish appellant’s guilt. The Supreme Court, therefore, confirmed appellant’s conviction under Section 411 of the IPC. Read more
[Biran Lal v. State of M.P., (1952) 2 SCC 140]
Conviction cannot be based on ‘shifty and treacherous’ statements of eyewitnesses [(1952) 2 SCC 186]
In an appeal filed against the conviction and sentence of the appellant, the three judges bench of M.C Mahajan, Chandrasekhara Aiyar* and N.H. Bhagwati, JJ., opined that the evidence provided by the two eye witnesses was so shifty and treacherous that no one could be hanged on its strength. The Supreme Court further opined that the testimony of the witnesses who contradicted themselves in this manner, not in respect of immaterial particulars, but with regard to the very commission of the offence and who gave one version at one stage and wholly different at another stage could command no credit whatever. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the present appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Read more
[Chattar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1952) 2 SCC 189]
When Supreme Court held that purchase of high-value property at low price showed that only limited interest in property was sold [(1952) 2 SCC 307]
The 3-Judges Bench of B.K. Mukherjea, Chandrasekhara Aiyar*, and N.H. Bhagwati, JJ., opined that what was sold in the auction was the right, title, and interest of Saroj Bala, and on the facts it was obvious that she had no absolute interest in the property. The Supreme Court agreed with the Subordinate Judge that paying a low price of Rs. 205 for a property worth several thousand could have been only because limited interest was being sold. The Supreme Court thus dismissed the appeal with costs. Read more
[Naresh Chandra Bose v. Sujoy Kumar Dutta, (1952) 2 SCC 307]
Know Thy Supreme Court Judges
Justice M. Fathima Beevi, First Woman Judge of the Supreme Court of India, passes away
Justice M. Fathima Beevi, who did the unthinkable in the late 1980s and broke the proverbial glass ceiling to become the First Woman Judge of the Supreme Court of India. Read more
Throwback at a Roller-Coaster First Year of Justice Dr D.Y. Chandrachud
Great expectations followed Justice Dr DY Chandrachud when he was elevated to the post of Chief Justice of India. As 1 year has gone by in Justice Dr Chandrachud’s 2-year tenure, one thing is clear that interesting times are afoot indeed! Read more
Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice B.R. Gavai
Recapitulating the career trajectory of eminent Judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice B.R Gavai, who is in line to become only the second Chief Justice of India belonging to Scheduled Caste category after Justice K.G. Balakrishnan. Read more
Know Thy Newly Appointed Supreme Court Judge | Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Following a meticulous assessment of the qualifications, integrity, capabilities and giving due consideration to a range of factors, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended, and Centre Government approved the appointment of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma as Judge of the Supreme Court of India. Read more
Know Thy Newly Appointed Supreme Court Judge — Justice Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court Collegium recommended appointment of Justice Sandeep Mehta, Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court, as the Supreme Court Judge on 6-11-2023 and soon, the same received clearance from the Central Government. Read more
Know Thy Newly Appointed Supreme Court Judge — Justice Augustine George Masih
Dr. Justice DY Chandrachud, CJI, administered oath to Justice Augustine George Masih on 9-11-2023. Read more
