Landmark Supreme Court Judgments November 2024: Major Rulings Explained
Table of Contents
What Changed in Law? Highlights from Landmark Supreme Court Judgments November 2024
1. Mahakali Sujatha V Future Generali India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Citation: Mahakali Sujatha V Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Limited, 2024 INSC 296, In the Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Justice Augustine George Masih, dated 10.04.2024.
The Supreme Court held that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the existence of a fact; in other words, whoever makes a claim in a legal proceeding must substantiate it with evidence, as codified in Section 104 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. In civil cases, the party who would fail if no further evidence were given bears the burden, and specific facts or exceptions relied upon must also be proved by the party asserting them.
This foundational principle ensures that courts do not act on mere allegations but require adequate proof, thereby maintaining fairness and balance in judicial proceedings. The burden of proof thus shapes the conduct of litigation and ensures that justice is determined on the strength of evidence rather than unsubstantiated claims.
2. Eicore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. V Eexpedise Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: Eicore Technologies Private Limited and Others V Eexpedise Technologies Private Limited and Others, 2022:DHC:4831, IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, Justice Jyoti Singh, dated 04.09.2023.
The Delhi High Court held that in commercial suits governed by the Commercial Courts Act and amended Order XI of the CPC, parties are required to file all documents in their power and possession along with the plaint or written statement, and any additional documents may only be brought on record at a later stage by showing sufficient cause for the earlier omission. The Court refused to permit the plaintiffs to place additional documents on record at the stage of evidence, finding that the plaintiffs failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not filing these documents earlier, especially when the documents were available at the time of filing the plaint and replication.
The Court emphasized that belated attempts to introduce documents without proper leave undermine the discipline of commercial litigation and the mandate for early and complete disclosure, and allowed such applications only in exceptional circumstances where genuine and unavoidable reasons are demonstrated.
3. Whitehat education technology Pvt. Ltd. Aniruddha Malpani
Citation: Whitehat Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. Aniruddha Malpani, CS(COMM) 518/2020, Delhi High Court, decided by Justice Mukta Gupta, interim order dated 25.11.2020.
The Delhi High Court held that while individuals have the right to criticize and express opinions about a company, this right does not extend to publishing or circulating defamatory, unsubstantiated, or malicious allegations that harm the company’s reputation. The Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from posting or sharing any further defamatory content against Whitehat Jr. or its management and directed the removal of specific social media posts that were found to be derogatory and damaging.
The Court emphasized that the protection of reputation is a legitimate restriction on free speech, and that interim relief is warranted when continued publication of such material risks causing irreparable harm to a business pending the outcome of the suit.
4.Tata Steel Ltd. V. Maharashtra Shramjivi General Kamgar Union & Anr
Citation: Tata Steel Ltd. v. Maharashtra Shramjivi General Kamgar Union & Anr., W.P.(C) No. 9664/2021, decided by Justice Sandeep V. Marne, High Court of Bombay, as dated 22.10.2024.
The Bombay High Court held that the Industrial Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain complaints of unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) when the existence of an employer-employee relationship itself is in dispute and the complaint does not specifically aver that the contract workers were directly engaged or paid by the principal employer. The Court found that, in the present case, the workers were engaged through a contractor and there were no pleadings or evidence to show direct employment by Tata Steel.
The Court clarified that, as per settled law, the Industrial Court can only assume jurisdiction where an undisputed employer-employee relationship exists, and any claim that the contract is sham or bogus must be first established before a competent authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, the High Court allowed Tata Steel’s petition and set aside the Industrial Court’s interim relief, holding that the Industrial Court had grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction without a clear foundation of direct employment.
5.Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.
Citation: Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr., Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 11376/2024, decided by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, as dated 14.10.2024.
The Supreme Court held that, notwithstanding the stringent twin conditions for bail under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the proviso to this section specifically empowers courts to grant bail to an accused who is “sick or infirm” without requiring satisfaction of those twin conditions. The Court emphasized that the law mandates humane relief for such individuals and that hospitalization or the prospect of treatment at a government hospital is not a substitute for the statutory entitlement to bail on health grounds. In granting interim bail to the 67-year-old petitioner, who suffered from multiple serious ailments and had spent over a year in custody, the Court reaffirmed that the rights of the sick and infirm must be protected even under strict statutes like the PMLA, and that the Special Court is empowered to release such persons on bail based on medical evidence and the statutory proviso, irrespective of the underlying allegations or the rigour of the bail regime.
6.Vidyasagar Prasad v. UCO Bank & Anr.
Citation: Vidyasagar Prasad v. UCO Bank & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 1031/2022, Supreme Court of India, decided by Justices P.S. Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta, dated 23.10.2024.
The Supreme Court held that there is no requirement under the Companies Act, 2013, or the IBC to specify the names of individual creditors in a balance sheet for acknowledging debt, and a general entry indicating long-term borrowings or defaults, coupled with an auditor’s note confirming defaults in loan repayments, constitutes a valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The Court affirmed that such entries in the balance sheet, even without naming specific creditors, are sufficient to initiate CIRP under Section 7 of the IBC 2016, as they unequivocally demonstrate the corporate debtor’s liability and reset the limitation period.
7.Nilesh Sharma (RP) v. Morshwaj Singh & Ors.
Citation: Nilesh Sharma RP v. Mordhwaj Singh & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 1691/2023, 331/2024, 336/2024, 337/2024 & I.A. No. 1127/2024, NCLAT New Delhi, decided by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), dated 25.10.2024.
The NCLAT held that development rights constitute “property” under Section 3(27) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as they represent a bundle of rights arising from development agreements and assignments, even without ownership of the underlying land. The Tribunal affirmed that such rights, including those transferred to the Corporate Debtor via agreements, fall within the ambit of “assets” under Sections 18(1)(f) and 25(2)(a) of the IBC, entitling the RP to take custody and control during CIRP. Overruling the NCLT’s findings, the NCLAT clarified that disputes over development rights must be adjudicated within the IBC framework and not relegated to civil courts, as resolving such issues is critical to the insolvency process. The Tribunal concluded that the Corporate Debtor’s possession of the project land (Canary Greens) was substantiated by agreements and operational control, directing the RP to regain possession and proceed with the resolution process, thereby allowing the appeals and setting aside the NCLT’s order.
8.Dharmesh Sharma v. Tanisha Sharma
Citation: Dharmesh Sharma v. Tanisha, CMPMO no. 665 of 2022, High court of Himachal Pradesh, decided by Justice Bipin Chander Negi, dated 17.10.2024.
https://www.barandbench.com/news/telephone-conversation-evidence-privacy-himachal-pradesh-high-court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the recording of a private telephone conversation, when obtained without consent or legal sanction, is inadmissible as evidence in court because it constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that a telephone conversation is an important facet of an individual’s private life, and the right to hold such conversations in the privacy of one’s home or office is protected as a fundamental right. Court reiterated that telephone tapping or any illegal means of collecting evidence is impermissible unless authorized by law. Consequently, the Court dismissed the plea to admit the recording as evidence in a matrimonial dispute, holding that the recording was illegally obtained and its admission would infringe the respondent’s right to privacy.
9. Razak H v. Additional Tahsildar
Citation: Razak H v. Additional Tahsildar, W.P.(C) No. 36930 of 2024, Kerala High Court, decided by Justice Kauser Edappagath, as dated 07.11.2024.
The Kerala High Court held that under Muslim law, the mere fact that a gift (hiba) is reduced to writing by a Muslim, instead of being made orally, does not convert such writing into a formal document or instrument of gift requiring registration under the Registration Act. The Court clarified that the essential requisites for a valid Muslim gift are declaration by the donor, acceptance by the donee, and delivery of possession; the form-whether oral or written-is immaterial. If these three conditions are fulfilled, the gift is valid even if the deed is unregistered and written on plain paper. The Court set aside the Village Officer’s refusal to mutate the property on the ground of non-registration, reiterating that a Muslim gift may be valid without a registered deed and may be invalid even with one if the substantive requirements of hiba are not met.
10.State of Karnataka v. TR Manjunath
Citation: State of Karnataka v. T.R. Manjunath, W.P. No. 7628 of 2024, High Court of Karnataka, decided by Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice C.M. Joshi, as dated on 30.10.2024.
The Karnataka High Court held that denying an employee salary arrears for a period during which he was entitled to promotion and performed the duties of a higher post offends Article 300A of the Constitution, as wages constitute the property of the employee. The Court reasoned that withholding such arrears amounts to unconstitutional deprivation of property, since the employee’s right to receive the legitimate price for his labour is protected, and any acquisition of this right without compensation is prohibited. The Court dismissed the State’s challenge to the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order directing payment of arrears, but set aside the tribunal’s direction to pay 8% interest and costs, clarifying that the employee is entitled to arrears but not to additional interest or costs in this case.
11.International sea port Dredging Pvt. Ltd. v. Kamarajar Port Limited
Citation: International Seaport Dredging Pvt. Ltd. v. Kamarajar Port Limited, Civil Appeal No. 10385 of 2024, supreme court of India, decided by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, as dated 04.11.2024.
The Supreme Court held that courts must not distinguish between government entities and private parties in arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, except where specifically indicated by law.
The Court clarified that the Act is a self-contained code that does not permit special treatment for governmental bodies, and judicial decisions-including the grant of stay on arbitral awards and the form of security required-cannot be influenced by the status of a party as a government or statutory authority.The assessment of whether a party is reliable or trustworthy is subjective and irrelevant to the application of the Act, and the same standards must apply to all parties to ensure equality and fairness in arbitration. Accordingly, the Court modified the High Court’s order, directing the government entity to deposit 75% of the decretal amount (inclusive of interest) as a condition for stay, reaffirming that no differential treatment is warranted for government entities in arbitration-related court proceedings.
12.Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV)
Citation: Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV), 2024 INSC 857, Supreme Court of India, decided by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, dated 08.11.2024.
The Supreme Court, by a majority, held that unilateral arbitrator appointment clauses in public-private contracts violate Article 14 of the Constitution as they undermine equality, impartiality, and procedural fairness in arbitration. The Court ruled that clauses allowing one party (typically a government entity) to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator or mandate the other party to select from a curated panel are invalid, as they create justifiable doubts about arbitrators’ independence and exclude equal participation. While public entities may maintain panels for administrative convenience, private parties cannot be compelled to choose from such panels unless they expressly waive concerns of bias after disputes arise under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment applies prospectively to three-member tribunals, affirming that constitutional principles of equality and non-arbitrariness govern public-private arbitrations, and courts must ensure fairness at all stages, including arbitrator appointments.
Dissenting opinions by Justices Roy and Narasimha argued that not all unilateral appointments are invalid if arbitrators meet statutory eligibility criteria, emphasizing party autonomy and existing safeguards under the Arbitration Act. However, the majority decision prevails as the binding ratio.
13. Dr. Shobha Fakkirappa Sungar v. Balaji Neurocare health services Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: Dr. Shobha Fakkirappa Sungar v. Balaji Neurocare Health Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 70 of 2024, NCLAT Chennai Bench, decided by Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member) and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member), dated 04.11.2024
The NCLAT Chennai held that a litigant should not suffer due to mistakes or negligence by their counsel, particularly in insolvency proceedings where procedural lapses are attributable to the advocate. The Tribunal emphasized that denying a litigant the right to be heard solely because of their counsel’s errors violates principles of natural justice and fairness, especially when the litigant demonstrates bona fide efforts to pursue their case. The judgment reinforces that courts and tribunals must adopt a compassionate approach in such scenarios, ensuring litigants are not penalized for procedural oversights beyond their control, and underscores the duty to prioritize substantive justice over technicalities in insolvency matters.
14.M/S Crystal Transport Service v. A Fathima Fareedunisa & ors.
Citation: M/S Crystal Transport Service v. A. Fathima Fareedunisa & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 7709–7710 of 2023, decided by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, as dated 8.11.2024.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 37 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, if a partner or another entity continues to carry on business with the assets of a dissolved firm without a final settlement of accounts, an outgoing partner is entitled to seek accounts and a share in the profits attributable to their share in the firm’s assets until such settlement is made. The Court clarified that this right persists even if the firm’s assets are taken over by another entity without the outgoing partner’s consent. The Bench upheld the High Court’s remand of the matter for proper opportunity to challenge the final decree reports, emphasizing that the quantum of profits attributable to the outgoing partner’s share is a matter of evidence to be determined in the final decree proceedings, and refrained from expressing any binding opinion on the merits of either party’s claims at this stage.
15. Ganpat Bhagoji Kshirsagar & Ors. V. Anjana Krushna Jamdade & ors.
Citation: Ganpat Bhagoji Kshirsagar & Ors. v. Anjana Krushna Jamdade & Ors., Writ Petition No. 10831 of 2023, Bombay High Court, decided by Justice S.M. Modak, as dated 10.11.2024.
The Bombay High Court held that amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC post-commencement of trial are permissible only if the applicant demonstrates due diligence, and the test shifts from “resolving the real controversy” (applicable pre-trial) to strict scrutiny of whether the delay in seeking amendments was justified.
The Court emphasized that allowing amendments after the trial has begun-particularly when the plaintiff had seven years to gather evidence and only sought amendments post-cross-examination-would prejudice the defendant and violate procedural fairness. The Bench ruled that the plaintiff’s belated plea, citing illiteracy and recent access to documents, failed to meet the due diligence standard, and the trial court erred in permitting the amendment, which introduced new claims after a prolonged delay. The judgment reinforces that post-commencement amendments must be stringently evaluated to prevent abuse and ensure litigation discipline.
16. Central Bank of India v. Deepen Arun Parekh
Citation: Central Bank of India v. Deepen Arun Parekh, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 697 of 2024, NCLAT, decided by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Arun Baroka (Technical Member), as dated on 11.11.2024.
https://ibclaw.in/central-bank-of-india-vs-deepen-arun-parekh-nclat-new-delhi/
The NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority i.e NCLT cannot enter into the merits of a Section 95 IBC application against a personal guarantor before appointing a Resolution Professional under Section 97 and receiving the Resolution Professional’s report under Section 99. The Tribunal clarified that, as per the statutory scheme and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India, the Adjudicating Authority’s role at the initial stage is limited to appointing the Resolution Professional; any adjudication on jurisdictional or substantive objections must await the report and the subsequent hearing under Section 100. The NCLAT set aside the NCLT’s order dismissing the Section 95 petition at the pre-adjudicatory stage, reaffirming that statutory procedure must be strictly followed and that there can be no waiver or estoppel against the law in such matters.
17. Garima Gairola Nanda v. VLCC Health care Ltd.
Citation: Garima Gairola Nanda v. VLCC Health Care Ltd., Complaint Case No. CC/23/232, decided by President Vandana Mishra and Member Sanjay S. Jagdale, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai, as dated 5.11.2024.
https://www.barandbench.com/news/consumer-forum-vlcc-40k-compensation-laser-treatment-burns
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai, held VLCC Health Care Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after the complainant suffered burn injuries during a laser hair removal treatment that was not performed under the supervision of a qualified doctor. The Commission found VLCC’s non-refundable policy and insistence on issuing a credit note instead of a refund to be unilateral and detrimental to consumer interests. It directed VLCC to refund the advance payment of ₹47,200 with 9% interest, pay ₹30,000 as compensation for physical and mental agony, and ₹10,000 as litigation costs.
The Commission also noted that the clinic’s failure to warn about side effects and conduct the procedure as per medical protocols amounted to negligence, and advised the complainant to approach the appropriate authority regarding allegations of unregistered clinic operations under the Clinical Establishments Act.
18Ambuja Cement Ltd. v Collector of Stamps, Delhi
Citation: Ambuja Cement Ltd. v. Collector of Stamps, Delhi, W.P.(C) No. 5638 of 2024, Delhi High Court, decided by Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, Delhi High Court, as dated 06.11.2024.
https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-quashes-218-crore-stamp-duty-demand-ambuja-cement
The Delhi High Court quashed the ₹218 crore stamp duty demand and associated penalty imposed on Ambuja Cement following its 2011 merger with Ambuja Cements India Private Limited (ACIPL). The Court held that both companies were wholly owned subsidiaries of the same parent, Holderind Investments Ltd., Mauritius, and therefore the merger was covered by the Central Government’s 1937 Notification No. 13, which exempts such transactions between subsidiaries of a common parent from stamp duty. Additionally, the Court found that the Collector’s show cause notice and order were barred by limitation under Section 47A(3) of the Registration Act, 1908, since they were issued more than two years after the registration of the merger instrument. Accordingly, the Court set aside the Collector’s show cause notice, the August 2014 order, and all consequential proceedings against Ambuja Cement.
19. Jamiat Ulama-Hind v. Union of India
Citation: Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 556 of 2022, Supreme court of India, decided by Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, as dated 13.11.2024.
The Supreme Court held that the executive cannot assume judicial powers to punish citizens by demolishing their properties on the mere ground that they are accused or convicted of a crime, as such actions violate the principles of separation of powers, natural justice, and the rule of law.
The Court declared that “bulldozer justice”-demolitions carried out without due process-amounts to high-handed and arbitrary state action, which is unconstitutional. It issued pan-India guidelines mandating that no demolition should be carried out without a prior show cause notice, returnable either within the period specified by local law or at least 15 days from the date of service, whichever is later. The notice must be served by registered post and affixed to the property, contain specific details of the alleged illegality, and provide the affected party an opportunity for a personal hearing. The final demolition order must record the contentions of the noticee, state reasons for rejecting them, and explain why demolition is necessary. All demolition proceedings must be videographed. Any violation of these directions will result in contempt proceedings and personal liability-including restitution and damages-against the officials involved. The Court clarified that these guidelines do not apply to unauthorized constructions on public land or demolitions ordered by a court of law.
20. In Re: XXX V. State of Arunachal Pradesh
Citation: In Re: XXX v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh, case no. Crl.Ref/1/2024, 2024: GAU-AS:10973-DB, Gauhati High Court, decided by Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Devashis Baruah, dated 01.07.2024
The Gauhati High Court held that criminal petitions, bail applications (pre-arrest or regular), and quashing petitions filed after July 1, 2024-even if related to FIRs registered before this date-must be governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (Sections 482, 483, and 528), not the repealed CrPC, 1973. The Court clarified that procedural rights (e.g., bail, quashing) are governed by the law in force at the time of filing the application, not the date of the FIR. It emphasized that Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS only “saves” pending proceedings (investigations, trials, appeals) initiated under the CrPC before July 1, 2024, and does not extend to new applications filed thereafter. The Bench directed the Registry to treat all post-July 1, 2024 filings under the BNSS, reaffirming that procedural laws apply prospectively to new actions, irrespective of when the alleged offense occurred.
21. Radhabai Balasaheb Shirke & ors v. Keshav Ramchandra Jadhav & ors.
Citation: Radhabai Balasaheb Shirke & Ors. v. Keshav Ramchandra Jadhav & Ors., Second Appeal No. 593 of 1987 with Second Appeal No. 403 of 1990 with Second Appeal No. 733 of 2004, Bombay High Court, decided by Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain, Bombay High Court, dated 12.11.2024.
The Bombay High Court held that a daughter does not have any inheritance rights-either limited or absolute-in her father’s property if he died before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, leaving behind a widow and a daughter.
The Court reasoned that under the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937, only the widow was entitled to inherit, as the Act explicitly referred to “sons” and did not extend inheritance rights to daughters. The Court further clarified that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which first recognized daughters as Class I heirs, cannot be applied retrospectively to succession cases where the father died prior to its enactment. Accordingly, the daughter’s claim for inheritance was dismissed, and the estate devolved according to the law in force at the time of the father’s death, which did not recognize daughters as heirs when a widow survived.
22.M/S Construction & Design Services v. Delhi Development Authority
Citation: M/S Construction & Design Services v. Delhi Development Authority, civil Appeal Nos. 1644-1645 / 2024, Supreme Court of India, decided by Justice B.R Gavai, Jusitce Sudhanshu Dhulia, justice Sandeep Mehta, dated 05.02.2024
The Supreme Court held that in public utility projects, loss due to contractor delay can be presumed even without the employer proving actual damages, as such delays inherently harm public interest (e.g., environmental impact, blocked capital). The Court affirmed that liquidated damages (LD) clauses are enforceable under such circumstances, but reduced the LD to half the stipulated amount (10% of the contract value) as “reasonable compensation,” balancing the presumption of loss with proportionality. The judgment clarified that while the burden shifts to the contractor to prove no loss or penalty, courts retain discretion to adjust LD amounts to avoid excessive penalties, even in public projects.
23.Indian Medical Association v. V.P Shantha & ors.
Citation: Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha & Ors., 2024 INSC 410, Supreme Court of India, Decided by Justices B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, dated 7.11.2024.
The Supreme Court refused to reconsider its landmark 1995 judgment in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, which held that medical professionals and services rendered by doctors fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019). The bench held that the reference made to a larger bench for reconsideration was unnecessary and affirmed that medical services provided for a fee are “services” under the Act, making doctors liable for deficiency in service claims by patients.
The Court distinguished this position from its recent finding that legal professionals are not covered by the Act, emphasizing that the exclusion for advocates does not warrant a similar exemption for doctors. Thus, patients can continue to seek remedies against doctors and hospitals under consumer law for alleged negligence or deficiency in service.
24. Charuvilla Philippose Sundaran Pillai & Anr. V. P.N. Sivadasan & ors.
Citation: Charuvilla Philippose Sundaran Pillai & Anr. v. P.N. Sivadasan & Ors., R.F.A. No. 210 of 2019 & 73 of 2021, decided by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Justice C. Jayachandran, and Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, Kerala High Court, dated 18.11.2024
The Kerala High Court held that for service of summons on defendants residing outside India, both the procedure under Order V Rule 25 of the CPC (service by post or e-mail) and the Hague Service Convention are permissible, provided the destination country does not object to postal service under Article 10 of the Convention. The Court clarified that the Hague Service Convention is enforceable in India even in the absence of enabling domestic legislation, but it does not foreclose the use of postal channels as recognized by the Convention itself. The Court harmonized the two procedures, holding that courts may attempt service by post or e-mail first; if service is effected or the defendant appears, it is valid. If not, or if confirmation is not received within a reasonable time, the parties must resort to the Hague Service Convention process. The Registry was directed to issue guidelines accordingly, and the Central Government was recommended to establish a dedicated portal for monitoring and facilitating international service of process.
25. Parvati & Anr. V. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Citation: Parvati & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., Criminal Petition no. 200120 of 2024 , Karnataka High Court, decided by Justice Mohammad Nawaz, dated 09.032024.
The Karnataka High Court held that a complainant must file a sworn affidavit along with an application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), reiterating the Supreme Court’s mandate in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015). The Court quashed the Magistrate’s order referring the matter for police investigation and the subsequent FIR, since the complainant had not submitted a sworn affidavit in support of the complaint.
The judgment emphasized that the affidavit requirement is essential to ensure accountability and deter frivolous or false complaints, as filing a false affidavit would expose the complainant to prosecution. Consequently, the failure to comply with this procedural safeguard rendered the referral and FIR unsustainable in law.
26. In Re: Update terms of service & privacy policy for whatsapp users, CCI
Citation: In Re: Updated Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for WhatsApp users (Meta Platforms, Inc.), Competition Commission of India, suo moto case no. 01 of 2021 Order dated 18.11.2024.
The Competition Commission of India held that Meta, through WhatsApp’s 2021 Privacy Policy update, abused its dominant position in the market for OTT messaging apps by imposing a “take-it-or-leave-it” policy that compelled users to accept expanded data collection and mandatory data sharing with other Meta companies, without any opt-out option. This was found to be an unfair condition under Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act, 2002. The CCI also found that sharing WhatsApp user data between Meta companies for purposes beyond WhatsApp services created entry barriers for rivals in the online display advertising market (contravening Section 4(2)(c)), and that Meta leveraged its dominance in messaging to protect its position in online advertising (contravening Section 4(2)(e)). Accordingly, the CCI imposed a penalty of ₹213.14 crore on Meta, directed a five-year ban on sharing WhatsApp data with other Meta companies for advertising purposes, mandated that data sharing for other purposes cannot be a condition for WhatsApp access, and required WhatsApp to provide users with a clear opt-out option for any non-core data sharing, along with enhanced transparency and user control over their data.
27.State of Haryana v. Amin Lal & Ors.
Citation: State of Haryana v. Amin Lal & Ors., SLP (Civil) No. 25213 of 2024, decided by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Supreme Court of India, dated 19.11.2024.
The Supreme Court held that revenue entries do not by themselves confer title but are admissible as evidence of possession and can support a claim of ownership when corroborated by other evidence such as registered sale deeds and mutation records.
The Court reaffirmed that revenue records are public documents carrying a presumption of correctness under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but do not create or extinguish ownership rights. The Court further ruled that the State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of private citizens, as such a claim is fundamentally opposed to constitutional principles and the welfare state doctrine. In this case, the State’s possession was found to be permissive, not hostile, and the plaintiffs’ ownership was established through a chain of title documents and continuous revenue entries. The appeal by the State was dismissed, affirming the plaintiffs’ title and restoring their possession.
28. Bihar E-Governance Services & Technologies Limited
Citation: Bihar E-Governance Services & Technologies Limited, Company Petition (IB) No. 236/KB/2023, NCLT Kolkata Bench, decided by Smt. Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Shri D. Arvind (Technical Member), as dated on 24.04.2024.
The NCLT Kolkata admitted the Corporate Debtor’s application under Section 10 of the IBC, initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process after finding that the Corporate Debtor (a 50-50 joint venture between IL&FS and Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation) demonstrated a clear default in debt repayment and met procedural requirements under the Code. The Tribunal appointed Kanchan Dutta as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), noting his compliance with eligibility criteria under IBBI regulations, and imposed a moratorium under Section 14 to protect the Corporate Debtor’s assets. The order emphasized that the Corporate Debtor’s inability to sustain operations due to unpaid dues (₹2.63 crore by Beltron) and deteriorating financial health justified insolvency proceedings. The IRP was directed to issue public announcements, invite claims, and manage the CIRP in accordance with statutory obligations under Sections 15–21 of the IBC.
29.M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise
Citation: M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, 2024 INSC 880 , Supreme Court of India, decided by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, judgment dated 20.11.2024.
The Supreme Court held that mobile towers and prefabricated buildings (PFBs) are movable property (goods) eligible for CENVAT credit under the 2004 Rules, as their attachment to the earth is not permanent but intended to enhance operational stability and functionality. Applying six key tests (nature/object of annexation, intendment of parties, functionality, permanency, and marketability), the Court ruled that these structures can be dismantled without damage, retain their identity, and are marketable, thus qualifying as “capital goods” or “inputs” under Rule 2(a)(A)(iii) and Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Rules.
The judgment overruled the Bombay High Court’s contrary view, upheld the Delhi High Court’s stance, and clarified that such infrastructure supports telecom services, entitling providers to credit. The decision resolves conflicting precedents and affirms that temporary annexation for functional efficacy does not render goods immovable.
30 Jai Agrawal & Anr. V. state of Karnataka & Anr.
Citation: Jai Agarwal & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., Writ Petition No. of 2024, decided by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court, dated 21.11.2024.
The Karnataka High Court held that retired partners cannot be made liable in cheque bounce cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act unless there are specific allegations in the complaint showing their involvement and continued liability after retirement.
The Court quashed proceedings against former partners of RR Infocom, noting that the petitioners had retired more than a year before the issuance of the dishonoured cheques and there was no averment in the complaint regarding their participation in the firm’s affairs at the relevant time. The Court emphasized that allowing proceedings against such retired partners, in the absence of any specific claim of their involvement, would amount to abuse of process and result in miscarriage of justice.
31. Rajneesh Kumar & Another v. Ved Prakash
Citation: Rajneesh Kumar and Another v. Ved Prakash, SLP (Civil) Nos. 935-936 of 2021, decided by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, dated 21.11.2024.
The Supreme Court held that litigants cannot be permitted to throw the entire blame for delay in legal proceedings on their advocates and seek relief on that basis. The Court emphasized that even if a lawyer was careless or negligent, this alone is not sufficient to condone a long and inordinate delay, as litigants have a duty to be vigilant about their own rights and the judicial proceedings they initiate. The Court noted a growing tendency among litigants to attribute delays to their lawyers, and made clear that such conduct does not justify condonation of delay, reaffirming that responsibility for prosecuting a case rests jointly with the litigant and their counsel.
32. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. V. Upender Kumar
Citation: State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Upender Kumar, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 49057/2024, Supreme Court of India, decided by Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, dated 22.11.2024.
The Supreme Court held that the right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, but still a constitutional right under Article 300A, and the State cannot acquire or take possession of a citizen’s land without paying appropriate compensation.
The Court reaffirmed that oral consent claimed by the State for land acquisition is legally unsustainable, and due process under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, must be followed. While the Court refrained from imposing exemplary costs, it emphasized that the State’s actions in acquiring land for public purposes (e.g., road construction) without initiating formal acquisition proceedings or compensating landowners violate constitutional safeguards.
33.Varri Jayalakshmi & Anr. V. Badiga Eswara Rao & Ors.
Citation: Varri Jayalakshmi & Anr. v. Badiga Eswara Rao & Ors., Civil Revision Petition No. 1306 of 2024, decided by Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated May 2024.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the principles of res judicata apply even at different stages of the same suit, preventing parties from repeatedly raising issues that have already been decided by the court in earlier proceedings within the same litigation. The Court dismissed the civil revision petition, finding that the petitioners’ repeated attempts to agitate the same allegations of forgery in the sale agreement-after those issues had already been adjudicated-were barred by res judicata.
The judgment reinforces that once a court has determined a matter in the course of a suit, the same issue cannot be reopened at subsequent stages by the same parties, thereby upholding finality and judicial discipline in civil proceedings.
34. Royal Orchid Associated Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Hotel Grand Centre Point & ors.
Citation: Royal Orchid Associated Hotels Private Limited v. M/s. Hotel Grand Centre Point & Ors., Miscellaneous First Appeal no. 7168 of 2024, decided by Justice H.P. Sandesh, Karnataka High Court, dated 07.05.2024.
The Karnataka High Court held that the mere issuance of a notice does not amount to the commencement of arbitration proceedings; it is only a preparatory step towards initiation. The Court clarified that, under Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arbitral proceedings must actually be initiated within 90 days of the interim application, and simply issuing a notice within this period does not fulfill the statutory requirement for commencement. The date of commencement is when a request for reference to arbitration is received by the respondent, unless the agreement between parties specifies otherwise. The Court rejected the appellant’s contention that issuing the notice was sufficient and dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court’s reasoning and the requirement for strict compliance with the statutory timeline for commencing arbitration.
