Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Ss. 127 and 129 — Penalty imposed for transportation of consignment without proper e-way bill — Interference with: Looking into peculiar facts of the case, Supreme Court interfered and reduced penalty imposed on assessee. However, clarified that this decision shall not be treated as a precedent, [Vardan Associates (P) Ltd. v. Commr. (GST), (2024) 3 SCC 187]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 21 Rr. 90, 66 and 89 — Execution proceedings: Requirements of setting aside of sale on ground of irregularity or fraud under Or. 21 R. 90, or on deposit under Or. 21 R. 89, summarized, [Jagan Singh & Co. v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, (2024) 3 SCC 308]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Ss. 11 and 100 — Res judicata: Binding effect of findings in previous round of litigation which had attained finality, explained, [Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary, (2024) 3 SCC 224]
Constitution of India — Art. 13 and Pt. III — Law struck down as being violative of fundamental rights, held, ceases to exist: Benefit of such striking down of the law concerned, thus held, would enure to other affected person(s), including in pending proceedings.Thus, held, there is no requirement for such other affected person(s), subsequent to such declaration of invalidity of the law concerned by the Court, to challenge the struck down law again so as to become entitled to the benefit of the striking down of the law concerned, [Anjum Ara v. State of Bihar, (2024) 3 SCC 246]
Constitution of India — Arts. 21 and 14 — Orders for curtailment of pollution issued by NGT: While granting relief to some, infringement of rights of others, not permissible. Directions issued to Central Government to formulate policy for replacement of heavy vehicles from BS IV to BS VI, [Container Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Ajay Khera, (2024) 3 SCC 216]
Constitution of India — Arts. 300-A, 14 and 21 — Land acquisition: Landowner-purchaser of suit land (which was agricultural land) not having mutated the land in their name but being in possession and having only converted a part of the land to nonagricultural use, whether entitled to procedural safeguards of notice and compensation prior to dispossession (as provided under S. 52 of the 1959 Act) and such procedural safeguards whether mandatory in nature; in view of disagreement at the Bench, matter referred to larger Bench, [Urban Improvement Trust v. Gordhan Dass, (2024) 3 SCC 250]
Insurance — Payment of Claim or Repudiation of Claim/Termination/Remedies/Relief — Rescission/Repudiation of Insurance Claim/Policy/Breach of terms and conditions: Canvassing a stand beyond repudiation letter by Insurance Company is not permissible, [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mudit Roadways, (2024) 3 SCC 193]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 302 — Murder by aluminium phosphide poisoning, or, case of suicide — Determination of: Matters to be considered while determining whether the case will fall under murder by aluminium phosphide poisoning, or, it was a case of suicide, explained, [Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2024) 3 SCC 164]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302, 323 and 34 — Liability of accused — Absence of reliability of injured eyewitnesses and recovery of weapons — Relevance of: In this case, conviction of appellant A-2 under Ss. 302/34 on the basis of doubtful statements of star eyewitnesses, held, not sustainable and set aside, but his conviction under Ss. 323/34 maintained. Appeal challenging acquittal of respondent A-1 under Ss. 302/34, dismissed, [State of Haryana v. Mohd. Yunus, (2024) 3 SCC 180]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — S. 16 — Agreement to sell immovable property — Time whether of the essence of the contract — Determination of: Law clarified on factors to be considered for determining whether time is of the essence of the contract in agreement to sell immovable property, need for performance within reasonable time, even when time is not found to be of the essence, effect of prescription of time-limit(s) in the agreement and discretion to grant specific performance whether should be exercised when performance of plaintiff is not in accordance with such time-limit(s), nor within reasonable time, [Alagammal v. Ganesan, (2024) 3 SCC 232]
