Judiciary | PCS-J 2024 | CLAT 2024

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and quashed an FIR against appellants in a case involving allegations of fraud and forgery. The court found that the complainant had provided misleading addresses and concealed crucial information. It noted that the complainant waited for an opportune moment to initiate false litigation, causing substantial delays. The court imposed a cost of ₹25 lakhs on the complainant, emphasizing the misuse of the legal system and abuse of judicial remedies. Additionally, it highlighted the complainant's forum shopping and directed the amount to be used for the development of legal associations.

In the judgment of Civil Appeal No. 3798 of 2019, the Supreme Court of India addressed a case related to pollution caused by an Inland Container Depot (ICD) in Tughlakabad. The former Executive Director of Central Warehousing Corporation filed an application, leading to interim orders by the National Green Tribunal. The court upheld the recommendations of the Environment Pollution Authority, directing a shift to cleaner vehicles, optimal ICD utilization, and improved parking facilities. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways was given six months to formulate a policy on replacing heavy-duty diesel vehicles. The court will monitor implementation, with a compliance report due by July 31, 2024.

The judgment discusses the authority of Tribunals, stating that they are supplementary to High Courts, subject to their scrutiny. It emphasizes the High Courts' power of judicial review over Tribunals. The court underscores the importance of obedience to its orders and warns against disrespect to constitutional ethos. The case addresses the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) proceedings during High Court's jurisdiction, finding it improper.

The Supreme Court has ruled that dissenting financial creditors in insolvency proceedings are entitled to receive a minimum value equivalent to the amount of their security interest, rejecting the argument that Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is unworkable. The court emphasized the need to protect the rights of operational and dissenting financial creditors while maximizing the value of distressed assets. The decision contradicts a previous judgment and has prompted a referral of the matter to a larger bench for further consideration.

The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal by the State of NCT of Delhi, setting aside the High Court's order granting default bail to the respondent under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent faced charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and the High Court's reliance on a TADA case precedent was deemed misplaced. The Court emphasized the provisions of UAPA section 43D(2)(b) allowing an extension for investigation up to 180 days, considering progress and specific reasons for detention. The High Court's errors in assessing the sanction and reasons for detention were highlighted, and the respondent was ordered to be taken into custody. The judgment emphasized the seriousness of the terrorist activities involved in the case.

The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal in Civil Appeal No. 7502 of 2012, overturning the judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The case involved a dispute over a 3500 sq. ft. plot in Uttar Pradesh. The plaintiff claimed ownership through a 1966 sale deed. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the High Court dismissed the suit, citing limitation based on adverse possession since 1944. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred, emphasizing that the 1944 suit was for rent, not possession, and the plaintiff's ownership was established in 1966. The appeal was allowed, and the suit for possession was maintained.

The case involves a dispute over a property sale agreement. The appellant argues that the respondents failed to mention a previous lawsuit and judgment in their later suit, rendering it invalid. The appellant also claims that the respondents should have obtained the property through court proceedings as per the agreement's default clause. The respondents argue that the appellant did not execute the sale deed despite a court decree in their favor, justifying their legal notice and subsequent suit. The court ultimately sets aside the high court's judgment, reviving the trial court's decision in favor of the appellant.

In Criminal Appeal No.1348 of 2011, the Supreme Court acquitted Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu, one of the appellants, in a case involving the killing of Pappu Yadav. The court noted inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in the evidence, including a questionable eyewitness with a criminal background. The dying declaration, the primary evidence, was deemed unreliable as the deceased's severe injuries raised doubts about his ability to make a statement. The court emphasized the prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, granting the benefit of doubt to the appellant and setting aside the conviction and sentence. The judgment was delivered on January 5, 2024, by Justice Pankaj Mithal.

In this legal judgment, the court considers the applicability of Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a case involving kidnapping. The court emphasizes that for an offense under Section 364A to be established, three conditions must be met: kidnapping or abduction, a threat to cause death or hurt, and a demand for ransom to compel a specific action. The court reviews the evidence presented by the prosecution and concludes that the demand for ransom was not adequately proven. Consequently, the court sets aside the convictions under Section 364A but affirms convictions under Section 364 IPC, which deals with kidnapping or abduction in order to murder.

The Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal, addressed the common issue of the effective date of an insurance policy in two cases involving Reliance Life Insurance. The court held that the 12-month suicide exclusion period starts either from the policy issuance date or the reinstatement date, rejecting the lower forums' reliance on the issuance date alone. The court referred to relevant clauses and cited precedents, emphasizing strict adherence to policy terms. Consequently, the court set aside the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's orders, rejecting the claims and allowing the appeals. No costs were awarded.