Landmark Supreme Court Judgments December 2024: Major Rulings Explained
Table of Contents
Why Landmark Supreme Court Judgments December 2024 Matter for Indian Law?
1. Indore Vikas Praadhikaran & Anr. V. Shri Humud Jain Smaj Trust & Anr.
Citation: Indore Vikas Praadhikaran (IDA) & Anr. v. Shri Humud Jain Samaj Trust & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 931, Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Hon’ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Dated 29.11.2024
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Indore Vikas Praadhikaran against the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had directed the Authority to pay compensation to Shri Humud Jain Samaj Trust under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The dispute arose after the Authority resumed land that had been leased to the Trust in 1972 for a public project. The Supreme Court held that the Trust, being a lessee and not the owner of the land, was not entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act, which is intended solely for landowners. The Court clarified that leaseholders must seek remedies under the terms of their lease agreement or under statutes such as the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The Court directed the Trust to vacate the land but permitted it to pursue alternative relief for improvements made on the property.
This judgment is significant as it clarifies that only landowners are entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act, and not lessees or tenants. It reinforces the distinction between ownership rights and tenancy rights in land acquisition cases, and ensures that compensation claims are limited to those with legitimate ownership interests. The ruling upholds the legislative intent of the 2013 Act and provides clear guidance for public authorities and leaseholders in disputes involving government-leased land.
2.Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University Hisar & Anr. v. Monika & ors.
Citation: Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar & Anr. v. Monika & Ors., 2024 INSC 911, Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon’ble justice R. Mahadevan, Dated 29.11.2024.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had directed the University to regularize the services of Monika and other respondents who were employed as contractual workers. The respondents had claimed regularization on the ground of long and continuous service. The Supreme Court held that mere continuation in service on a contractual or ad hoc basis does not entitle an employee to regularization, especially in the absence of a sanctioned post or compliance with the recruitment rules. The Court relied on the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, reiterating that regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that public employment must be in accordance with constitutional and statutory provisions. The Court further observed that any direction to regularize services in violation of recruitment rules would be contrary to public policy and the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
This judgment is significant as it reinforces the settled legal position that regularization of service cannot be claimed solely on the basis of long or continuous contractual employment. It upholds the principles of fair recruitment, compliance with statutory rules, and the need to protect the sanctity of public employment processes.
3. Devendra Agrawal & ors. V. state of Uttar Pradesh & ors.
Citation: Devendra Agarwal & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Allahabad High Court, decided by Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, Dated 13.05.2025.
The Allahabad High Court held that an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable against proceedings or orders passed by a Judicial Magistrate or Sessions Court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioners, Devendra Agarwal and others, sought quashing of proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the DV Act. The State opposed the petition, relying on previous decisions that denied the maintainability of Section 482 CrPC applications in DV Act matters. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, after examining conflicting judgments, found that the earlier decisions were per incuriam and contrary to the Full Bench decision in Dinesh Kumar Yadav. The Court clarified that Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to challenge proceedings or orders under the DV Act. However, given the conflicting views on the issue, the matter was referred to a larger bench for authoritative determination.
This judgment is significant as it clarifies that Section 482 CrPC is available as a remedy against proceedings or orders under the DV Act, providing an important procedural safeguard for parties aggrieved by lower court actions in domestic violence cases. The ruling also underscores the importance of judicial consistency and the need for authoritative resolution by a larger bench.
4.Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI APIC SMO MCML
Citation: Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV), 2024 INSC 857, civil appeal nos. 9486-9487 of 2019 Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble CJI D.Y Chandrachud, Hon’ble justice P. Narsimha , Hon’ble justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon’ble justice J.B Pardiwala, Hon’ble justice Manoj Misra, dated 08.11.2024.
The Supreme Court, in a Constitution Bench decision, held that arbitration clauses in public contracts that allow unilateral appointment of arbitrators by public sector entities are invalid and unenforceable. The case arose from a dispute between the Central Organisation for Railway Electrification (CORE) and ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) regarding a railway electrification contract, where the arbitration clause permitted CORE to appoint arbitrators solely from a panel of retired railway officers. The Court found that such clauses violate Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates arbitrator impartiality, as well as Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The Court clarified that arbitration agreements must ensure fairness and neutrality in the appointment of arbitrators, especially in public-private contracts, and that arbitrator panels curated exclusively by one party are inherently biased. The judgment applies prospectively to arbitrator appointments made after the date of the decision.
This judgment is significant as it reinforces the principles of impartiality and equality in arbitration, particularly in government and public sector contracts. It brings India’s arbitration law in line with international standards, clarifies the application of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, and mandates that public sector entities revise their standard arbitration clauses to ensure balanced and fair tribunal formation.
5. Kashyap Infra projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: Kashyap Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. v. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2067 of 2024, NCLAT New Delhi Bench, decided by Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Hon’ble Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Hon’ble Indevar Pandey (Technical Member), Dated 28.11.2024
The NCLAT New Delhi Bench dismissed the appeal filed by Kashyap Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. challenging the admission of an insolvency application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, initiated by Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. as an operational creditor. The appellant contended that there was a pre-existing dispute regarding the quality and delivery of goods, and that the application was filed with mala fide intent. After examining the evidence, the Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to provide any credible or substantial proof of a genuine pre-existing dispute prior to the issuance of the demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC. The NCLAT reaffirmed that a mere assertion of dispute, without supporting documents or correspondence, is insufficient to bar the admission of an insolvency application under Section 9.
This judgment is significant as it reiterates the principle that for an operational debtor to successfully oppose an insolvency application under Section 9 of the IBC, there must be clear, genuine, and documented evidence of a pre-existing dispute raised before the demand notice.
6. GLAS Trust Company LLC v. Byju Raveendran
Citation: GLAS Trust Company LLC v. Byju Raveendran & Ors., 2024 INSC 811, decided by Supreme Court of India, decided by hon’ble justice DY Chandrachud. Hon’ble justice JB Pardiwala, Hon’ble justice Manoj mishra, dated 23/19.2024.
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the NCLAT that had allowed the withdrawal of the CIRP against Byju Raveendran (promoter of Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd.) based on a private settlement with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), an operational creditor. The Court held that the withdrawal of CIRP must strictly comply with Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which requires approval by 90% of the Committee of Creditors and adjudication by the NCLT. The Supreme Court emphasized that the NCLAT cannot use its inherent powers under Rule 11 to bypass the statutory procedure laid down for withdrawal of insolvency proceedings. The Court also noted concerns regarding the source of settlement funds, given ongoing investigations into alleged fraudulent transfers by Byju’s US subsidiary, and highlighted the need for transparency and collective creditor rights in insolvency matters.
This judgment is significant as it reinforces the mandatory nature of the statutory procedure for withdrawal of insolvency proceedings under Section 12A of the IBC, protects the collective interests of all creditors, and prevents the misuse of inherent powers by tribunals to override specific legal requirements.
7.State Bank of India & ors v. the consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan & Mr. Florian Fritsch
Citation: State Bank of India & Ors. v. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan & Mr. Florian Fritsch & Anr., COM (AT) no. 129 & 130 of 2023, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (Delhi), decided by Hon’ble justice Ashok Bhushan & Hon’ble Barun Mitra (T) , dated 12.03.2024.
Citation: State Bank of India & Ors. v. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan & Mr. Florian Fritsch & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 5023-5024 of 2024, 2024 INSC 852, Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra, dated 07.11.2024.
The Supreme Court ordered the liquidation of Jet Airways (India) Limited, setting aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal order that had permitted the Jalan-Kalrock Consortium (JKC)-the successful resolution applicant-to adjust ₹150 crores from the Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) towards the first tranche of payment required under the approved resolution plan. The Court held that the PBG, as per the resolution plan, was meant strictly as a security and could not be set off or used as part of the consideration for payment to creditors. The consortium’s failure to infuse the required funds within the stipulated timelines, despite multiple extensions, constituted non-compliance with the resolution plan and undermined the expectations of the Committee of Creditors and the integrity of the insolvency process. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of strict adherence to the terms of the resolution plan and the timelines agreed upon, ruling that any deviation-such as adjusting the PBG as payment-was impermissible. Consequently, the Court directed that Jet Airways be taken into liquidation.
8.Kashyap Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. v. Hi-Tech Sweet Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: Kashyap Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. v. Hi-Tech Sweet Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (2024) ibclaw.in 787 NCLAT, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (New Delhi Bench), decided by Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Indevar Pandey (Technical Member), 2024.
The NCLAT upheld the rejection of the Section 9 application filed by Kashyap Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. against Hi-Tech Sweet Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd. seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The operational creditor alleged default in payment for solar pump sets supplied, while the corporate debtor contended that there was a pre existing dispute regarding the quality and timely delivery of the goods. The Tribunal found that the corporate debtor had produced credible documentary evidence, including emails and records of meetings, to establish the existence of a genuine dispute prior to the issuance of the demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC. The NCLAT also observed that WhatsApp messages submitted as evidence were not admissible without compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the existence of a pre-existing dispute disentitled the operational creditor from initiating CIRP under Section 9 and dismissed the appeal.
This judgment is significant as it reiterates that the presence of a genuine pre-existing dispute, supported by documentary evidence, is a valid ground for rejecting an application under Section 9 of the IBC. It also clarifies the evidentiary requirements for electronic communications and underscores that the IBC process cannot be used as a substitute for debt recovery in cases where disputes about the quality or delivery of goods or services remain unresolved.
9.Trimex International FZE Ltd., Dubai v. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd., India
Citation: Trimex International FZE Ltd., Dubai v. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd., India, Arbitration Petition No. 10 of 2009, Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble Justice P. Sathasivam, 22.01.2010
The Supreme Court held that a binding contract can be formed through an exchange of emails if the essential terms-such as price, quantity, delivery, and payment-are clearly agreed upon by the parties, and the intention to be bound is evident, even if a formal contract is not executed.
The Court found that in this case, the parties’ minute-to-minute email correspondence demonstrated consensus on all material terms, including an arbitration clause, and that the subsequent refusal to sign a formal agreement did not negate the existence of a concluded contract or the enforceability of the arbitration agreement. The Court clarified that under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitration agreement can be inferred from an exchange of communications, and technicalities or the absence of a signed document do not defeat the parties’ clear intention to arbitrate. Accordingly, the Court appointed an arbitrator, reaffirming that commercial contracts negotiated and accepted over email are legally binding and enforceable in Indian law.
10. KLA Const. Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Embassy of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
Citation: KLA Const. Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Embassy of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) No. 82/2019 & I.A. no. 7023/2019, Delhi High Court, Hon’ble Justice J.R. Midha, dated 18.05.2021.
The Delhi High Court held that a foreign state, including its embassy, cannot claim sovereign immunity to resist the enforcement of an arbitral award passed in India, and that prior consent of the Central Government under Section 86(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not required for such enforcement proceedings. The Court enforced the arbitral award dated 26 November 2018 against the Embassy of Afghanistan, directing the embassy to deposit the awarded amount and disclose its assets in India, and further ordered Kotak Mahindra Bank to maintain a minimum balance in the embassy’s accounts to secure the decree-holder’s interests in light of the prevailing political uncertainty in Afghanistan.
The Court emphasized that the award, having attained finality and not having been set aside, was enforceable as a decree under Indian law, and the embassy’s objections based on sovereign immunity and jurisdiction were rejected, affirming that diplomatic entities are subject to commercial obligations arising from arbitration in India.
11.Deepak Kumar v. Devina Tewari
Citation: Deepak Kumar v. Devina Tewari, 2024 INSC 925, Supreme Court of India, decided by Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, 26 November 2024.
The Supreme Court held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not maintainable against an order of a Single Judge dismissing a contempt application, as such an order-declining to initiate or punishing for contempt-does not fall within the appealable category under Section 19, as clarified in the Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. judgment. The Court rejected the argument that the Single Judge’s order involved adjudication on the merits of the original dispute, finding that the order merely concluded no contempt was made out and did not decide any substantive issue between the parties. The only remedy available against such an order is by way of a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court accordingly quashed the Division Bench’s order entertaining the intra-court appeal and clarified that the respondent, if pursuing a special leave petition, would be entitled to exclusion of the period spent in the appeal for limitation purposes under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
12.Apurva @ Apurvo Bhuvanbabu Mandal v. Dolly & Ors
Citation: Apurva @ Apurvo Bhuvanbabu Mandal v. Dolly & Ors., Criminal Appeal Nos. 5148-5149 of 2024 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 10093-10094 of 2022), Supreme Court of India, decided by Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, 10 December 2024.
The Supreme Court held that the right to maintenance for a wife and children is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution, ensuring dignity and sustenance, and therefore takes precedence over the claims of all creditors-including secured, financial, and operational creditors-under recovery laws such as the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the SARFAESI Act. The Court directed that arrears of maintenance have a preferential charge over the assets of the husband, superseding the rights of creditors, and mandated that any forum handling insolvency or recovery proceedings must ensure that maintenance dues are released to the wife and children forthwith, without entertaining objections from creditors.
The judgment further clarified that if the husband fails to pay the arrears, coercive measures such as auction of his immovable assets may be taken to secure the maintenance, reinforcing that the right to maintenance is not only statutory but also a paramount constitutional and moral duty that cannot be defeated by claims of bankruptcy or financial distress.
13. Akanksha Arora v. Tanay Maben
Citation: Akanksha Arora v. Tanay Maben, 2024 INSC 962, Supreme Court of India, decided by Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta, 4 December 2024.
The Supreme Court held that the nomenclature of a petition is immaterial, and the High Court can always convert a petition under Section 482 CrPC (inherent powers) into a revision under Section 397 CrPC (and vice versa) to ensure substantive justice, overriding hyper-technical objections about maintainability. The Court emphasized that the existence of an alternative remedy (e.g., revision) does not bar the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, and dismissing a petition solely on procedural grounds compels unnecessary appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Reiterating precedents like Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan (1977), the Court directed the High Court to convert the appellant’s Section 482 petition into a revision under Section 397 and decide the enhancement of interim maintenance on merits, underscoring that judicial focus must remain on resolving disputes rather than procedural formalities.
14.Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. Vivek V. Gawde & Ors.
Citation: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. Vivek V. Gawde & Ors., 2024 INSC 985, Supreme Court of India, decided by Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra, 4 December 2024.
The Supreme Court reiterated that orders passed by civil courts can only be challenged under Article 227 (supervisory jurisdiction) of the Constitution and not under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction), as civil courts are not “State authorities” amenable to writs under Article 226. The Court held that the Bombay High Court erred in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 to quash orders of the Principal Civil Judge (acting as an appellate authority under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act) and the Inquiry Officer in eviction proceedings, emphasizing that such orders merge into the appellate authority’s decision and are subject only to supervisory review under Article 227.
The Bench further ruled that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by framing specific points for determination in the pending eviction inquiry, as this usurped the statutory authority’s role, and directed the Inquiry Officer to proceed independently while allowing parties to present evidence and defenses in accordance with natural justice principles.
15.Apurva @ Apurvo Bhuvanbabu Mandal v. Dolly & Ors.
Citation: Apurva @ Apurvo Bhuvanbabu Mandal v. Dolly & Ors., Criminal Appeal Nos. 5148-5149 of 2024 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 10093-10094 of 2022), Supreme Court of India, decided by Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, 10 December 2024.
The Supreme Court held that the right to maintenance for a wife and children is a facet of the right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, takes precedence over the claims of all creditors, including secured and financial creditors under laws such as the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the SARFAESI Act. The Court modified the High Court’s order, granting the wife maintenance of ₹50,000 per month and each child ₹25,000 per month from the date of the High Court’s order, with arrears to be paid within three months and a preferential charge created over the appellant’s assets for recovery of maintenance, even above the rights of secured creditors.
The Court clarified that if arrears are not paid, the Family Court may take coercive action, including auctioning immovable assets, and emphasized that maintenance claims are superior to statutory claims of creditors, reaffirming the paramountcy of the right to sustenance and dignity for dependents.
16.Tarun Dhameja v. Sunil Dhameja & Anr.
Citation: Tarun Dhameja v. Sunil Dhameja & Anr., 2024 INSC 973, Supreme Court of India, decided by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, 17 December 2024.
The Supreme Court held that an arbitration clause in a partnership deed stating that arbitration “shall be optional” and that the arbitrator will be appointed by mutual consent of the partners is not to be read as rendering the arbitration agreement inoperative or contingent on unanimous consent for reference to arbitration. Instead, such a clause must be interpreted pragmatically and in context, meaning that any aggrieved party may invoke arbitration, and while mutual consent is required for appointing the arbitrator, failure to agree on a common name enables the court to step in and appoint an arbitral tribunal under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court clarified that the existence of the arbitration clause is not negated by the “optional” language, and the parties’ intention to arbitrate disputes is preserved, with the appointment mechanism defaulting to judicial intervention if consensus fails. The impugned High Court judgment was set aside, and the petition for appointment of an arbitrator was allowed.
17.Jami Venkata Suryaprabha & Anr. v. Tarini Prasad Nayak & Ors.
Citation: Jami Venkata Suryaprabha & Anr. v. Tarini Prasad Nayak & Ors., 2024 INSC 1001 (2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1015), Supreme Court of India, decided by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, 19 December 2024.
The Supreme Court clarified that while Order XVIII Rule 1 of the CPC grants the plaintiff the right to begin evidence, this is not an absolute obligation, and courts retain discretion to direct the defendant to lead evidence first if their plea strikes at the root of the case (e.g., admitting facts but contesting relief on legal or additional factual grounds). The Court emphasized that procedural rules must serve the ends of justice, and where the defendant’s defense-such as alleging a transaction is a sham despite admitting its existence-could resolve the dispute conclusively, the court may require the defendant to prove their case first.
This approach ensures efficiency and avoids unnecessary litigation, affirming that neither party can insist on the order of evidence, and courts must balance substantive rights with procedural flexibility under the CPC.
18.Mansoor Saheb (Dead) & Ors. v. Salima (D) By LRs. & Ors.
Citation: Mansoor Saheb (Dead) & Ors. v. Salima (D) By LRs. & Ors., 2024 INSC 1006, Supreme Court of India, decided by Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, 19 December 2024.
The Supreme Court reiterated that a valid gift (Hiba) under Mohammedan Law does not require registration but must fulfill three sequential and indispensable conditions: (1) a clear and unequivocal declaration by the donor, (2) acceptance (express or implied) by the donee, and (3) delivery of possession (actual or constructive). While oral gifts are permissible, the Court held that the appellants failed to establish a clear declaration of intent by Sultan Saheb to gift the property, as evidenced by the mutation entry describing the transaction as a “partition”-a concept foreign to Mohammedan Law during the owner’s lifetime-rather than a gift. The Court emphasized that non-compliance with any of the three conditions invalidates the gift, even if made through a registered instrument, and dismissed the appeal, affirming that partition of property during the owner’s lifetime is impermissible under Mohammedan Law, thereby upholding the dismissal of the appellants’ claim to ownership rights.
19.Bijoy Kumar Moni v. Paresh Manna & Anr.
Citation: Bijoy Kumar Moni v. Paresh Manna & Anr., 2024 INSC 1024 (2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1035), Supreme Court of India, decided by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, 20 December 2024.
The Supreme Court held that an authorized signatory of a company cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for a dishonored cheque drawn on the company’s account unless the company itself is arraigned as the principal accused. The Court clarified that the “drawer” under Section 138 is the entity maintaining the bank account (the company), not the individual signatory, and vicarious liability under Section 141 applies only if the company is prosecuted first. Since the cheque was issued on the company’s account and the company was not impleaded as an accused, the accused (a director/signatory) could not be held liable, even if the debt was personal.
The judgment reaffirmed strict adherence to statutory requirements, emphasizing that penal provisions must be construed narrowly to prevent misuse, and dismissed the appeal while preserving the complainant’s right to pursue civil or criminal remedies for cheating.
20. Mukesh & Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: Mukesh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12354/2024), Supreme Court of India, decided by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih, 29 November 2024.
The Supreme Court held that the mere filing of a charge-sheet does not render a petition for quashing criminal proceedings infructuous, and the High Court erred in dismissing such a petition solely on this ground without considering the merits. The Court clarified that the scope of a discharge application is narrower than that of a petition for quashing under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution, as discharge is confined to the charge-sheet and accompanying materials, while quashing can be sought on broader grounds, including abuse of process and on the basis of documents outside the charge-sheet. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the writ petition for quashing to the High Court’s docket for consideration on merits, and directed that trial proceedings be stayed until further orders, reaffirming that accused persons retain the right to seek quashing even after a charge-sheet is filed.
21. Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Citation: Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 343, Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble justice Manoj Misra, 3 May 2024.
The Supreme Court reiterated its serious concern over the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, observing that criminal proceedings under this provision are sometimes initiated by wives with an oblique motive to harass husbands and their families, amounting to an abuse of process and a travesty of justice. The Court held that High Courts should exercise their inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC more liberally to quash such proceedings when it is evident from the FIR or complaint that the case was instituted with mala fide intent or as a tool for vengeance, even if the allegations technically disclose a cognizable offence. The Court further requested Parliament to reconsider and amend the corresponding provisions in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, to address the rising trend of misuse, emphasizing that police and courts must not apply Section 498A mechanically in all matrimonial disputes and should distinguish between genuine cases of cruelty and mere trivial irritations or routine marital discord.
22. Cigma Events Pvt. Ltd. v. Deepak Gupta & ors.
Citation: Cigma Events Private Limited v. Deepak Gupta & Ors., C.S. (OS) 1011/2024, Delhi High Court, judgment dated 24.12.2024.
The Delhi High Court held that a client or customer list, by itself, is not automatically protected as confidential information or a trade secret simply by virtue of its existence; for such a list to merit legal protection, the employer must demonstrate that it possesses specific economic or business value and is not publicly known or easily ascertainable by competitors. The Court clarified that unless the client list is compiled through proprietary methods or contains information whose disclosure would cause commercial harm, it cannot be the basis for an injunction against former employees. General business knowledge, including client identities and operational insights acquired during employment, does not become confidential merely because it is organized in a database, and employees are free to use such knowledge after leaving employment, provided they do not misuse genuine trade secrets or breach explicit confidentiality agreements. The judgment reaffirms that restrictive covenants or claims of confidentiality must be reasonable and justified, and that the freedom of employees to pursue their profession and solicit business cannot be curtailed solely on the basis of access to client lists.
23.Giriyappa & Anr. v. Kamalamma & Ors
Citation: Giriyappa & Anr. v. Kamalamma & Ors., 2024 INSC 1043 (2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1038), Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble justice R. Mahadevan, 20.12.2024
The Supreme Court held that to invoke the protection of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (the doctrine of part performance), the transferee must strictly satisfy three conditions: (1) there must be a written contract for transfer, duly proved and signed by the transferor; (2) the transferee must have taken or continued in possession of the property in part performance of the contract; and (3) the transferee must have performed or be willing to perform their part of the contract. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the petitioners failed to prove the existence and execution of the alleged sale agreement and could not establish lawful possession in part performance, rendering their claim under Section 53A untenable. The Court emphasized that Section 53A is an exception to the usual requirements of property law and must be strictly construed to prevent misuse, protecting only genuine transferees who fulfill all statutory prerequisites; as the petitioners failed on these counts, their claim was rightly dismissed and the respondents’ title and recovery of possession were upheld.
24. Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin & Ors.
Citation: Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin & Ors., 2025 INSC 610, Supreme Court of India, decided by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, 1 May 2025.
The Supreme Court held that unauthorized constructions must be demolished and cannot be regularized by courts, emphasizing that the judiciary must adopt a strict approach in cases of illegal construction and refrain from judicial regularization of buildings erected without requisite permissions from competent authorities. The Court observed that the law should not come to the rescue of those who flout its rigours, as allowing regularization of unauthorized constructions undermines the deterrent effect of laws and erodes the rule of law, which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly society. The Bench affirmed the High Court’s directions for demolition and inspection of unauthorized structures, lauding the lower court’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and public interest, and dismissed the plea for regularization, reiterating that justice must be rendered in accordance with statutory mandates and not guided by expediency or sympathy for violators.
25.M/s Konnecting India & Ors. v. The Kalupur Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Anr
Citation:M/s Konnecting India & Ors. v. The Kalupur Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Anr., Gujarat High Court, First Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, judgment dated 16 October 2024.
The Gujarat High Court held that the argument of unilateral appointment of an arbitrator, as laid down in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd., does not apply to statutory arbitrations, since such arbitrations are governed by specific statutory provisions rather than consensual agreements between parties. The Court clarified that the requirements of Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-including serving notice on the other party before appointment-are dispensed with in statutory arbitrations, and the appointment procedure prescribed by the relevant statute prevails over general principles of consensual arbitration. The Court rejected the appellant’s contention that the arbitration award was vitiated due to unilateral appointment, finding that the proceedings were conducted under a statutory framework, and dismissed the challenge to the award, thereby upholding the validity of the statutory arbitration process even in the absence of mutual appointment of the arbitrator.
26. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. V. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 13770/2021, judgment dated 3 May 2024.
The Delhi High Court held that a bank conducting an auction of mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act is under a duty to exercise reasonable care and due diligence to ensure that the auction purchaser receives clear, marketable, and encumbrance-free title. The Court found the bank negligent for failing to disclose material encumbrances affecting the property to the auction purchaser, thereby rendering the sale vitiated by suppression of material facts. The Court ruled that when a secured creditor fails in its statutory obligations and the purchaser suffers loss due to undisclosed encumbrances, the bank is liable to compensate the auction purchaser. The judgment underscores that banks cannot escape liability for negligence in statutory auctions and must act transparently and in good faith, as the sanctity of public auctions and the rights of bona fide purchasers must be protected against the consequences of the bank’s lapses.
