Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 43 R. 1(r) — Infructuous/Futile appeal: Appeal against interim order, held infructuous when the civil suit was itself decreed, [Anish M. Rawther v. Hafeez Ur Rahman, (2024) 8 SCC 470]
Consumer Protection — Services — Legal Services/Advocates — Complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising legal profession — Whether maintainable: Law clarified on maintainability of complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising legal profession, [Bar of Indian Lawyers v. National Institute of Communicable Diseases, (2024) 8 SCC 430]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 437(3)(a) to (c) and 439 r/w S. 438(2)(iv) — Grant of bail: Imposing any bail condition which enables police/investigating agency to track every movement of accused, violates right to privacy, [Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau, (2024) 8 SCC 415]
Education Law — Employment and Service Matters re Educational Institutions — Officers/Authorities/Staff, Faculty, etc. — Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor — Appointment of Vice-Chancellors — Constitution of Search-cum-Selection Committee: In exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 142 of the Constitution, directions issued for constitution of Search-cum-Selection Committees, for infusing transparency, independence, fairness, and impartiality in selection process, irrespective of fact that relevant provision of statute of University may contain slight variations, [State of W.B. v. Sanat Kumar Ghosh, (2024) 8 SCC 369]
Family and Personal Laws — Hindu Law— Family Property, Succession and Inheritance — Joint Family Property/Business/HUF Property vis-à-vis Self-acquired Property/Individual Income — Presumption/Burden of Proof — Suit for partition — Determination of nature of property: Whether properties form part of ancestral property held by coparcenary or are, from beginning, separate and self-acquired property of propositus and his successors-in-interest by deed of transfer, determined, [Shashidhar v. Ashwini Uma Mathad, (2024) 8 SCC 381]
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Ss. 14(3) and 15: Period of three months from date of production of child before Board in respect of preliminary assessment in case of heinous offence cannot be held to be mandatory, [X (Juvenile) v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 473]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 302 — Liability of appellant — Sole surviving eyewitness — Absence of reliability and non-framing of charge under S. 34: As per prosecution, two out of three accused fired at the deceased and, thereafter, the deceased entered certain house. All the three accused, while chasing him, allegedly entered the house and two of them again fired at the deceased and the appellant assaulted him by using a knife. Resultantly, in absence of any other ocular evidence or incriminatory material, conviction of appellant, held, not sustainable and set aside, [Virendra Kumar Chamar v. State of U.P., (2024) 8 SCC 412]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Ss. 2(1)(y), 3 and 44(1)(b) r/w Schedule — Quashing of complaint — When warranted — Scheduled offence being not made out the basis of the complaint, as factor: Alleged scheduled offences in the complaint found under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r/w Ss. 120-B, 191, 199, 200 and 204 IPC. Undisputedly, except for S. 120-B IPC, none of the offences found scheduled offences within the meaning of S. 2(1)(y). Further, held, the offence punishable under S. 120-B IPC could become a scheduled offence only if the conspiracy alleged is of committing an offence which is specifically included in the Schedule to PMLA. However, conspiracy to commit any of the offences included in the Schedule found not alleged in the complaint, [Yash Tuteja v. Union of India, (2024) 8 SCC 465]
Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 (7 of 1952) — Applicability of, to insurance policies issued between 1993-94 to 2001-02 i.e. prior to the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 coming into force: The stamp duty must be levied as per the law in force as on the date of execution of the instrument, [LIC v. State of Rajasthan, (2024) 8 SCC 325]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — S. 34 r/w Art. 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 — Suit for declaration — Limitation: In a suit for declaration that plaintiff was sole owner of one-half of property and sale deed executed in favour of husband of defendant agent was null and void, unless it was clearly established as a fact that plaintiff had knowledge of sale deed, held, it could not be inferred that plaintiff had contemporaneous knowledge of sale deed and limitation started running from date of execution of sale deed. Hence starting point of limitation will be from date of knowledge of execution of sale deed, [Thankamma George v. Lilly Thomas, (2024) 8 SCC 351]
State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951) — S. 32-G —Applicability of, for recovery of debts otherwise time-barred: Considering ruling of three-Judge Bench in V.R. Kalliyanikutty, (1999) 3 SCC 657, question on relevancy of principle that statute of limitation only bars the remedy and does not extinguish debt, referred to larger Bench, [K.P. Khemka v. Haryana SIIDC, (2024) 8 SCC 391]