Major Legal Judgements (2024) | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

1. Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India

• Date of Judgment/Order - 30.07.2024 
• Bench Strength - Judges 
• Composition of Bench - Justice CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra 

Case In Brief:

• The Advocate Act 1961 (AA) was made to organize the rules for advocates and set up the Bar Council and State Bar Councils. 
• Section 6 of the AA explains what State Bar Councils do. 
• Section 7 talks about the duties of the Bar Council of India. 
• Section 17 requires State Bar Councils to keep a list of advocates. 
• Section 24 sets the qualifications for becoming an advocate. 
• State Bar Councils charge enrollment fees to admit law graduates, as per Section 24(1)(f) of the AA. 
• They also impose various other fees like library fund contributions, administration fees, and identity card fees, leading to significant variations in total fees charged. 
• These fees can range from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 42,000 at the time of enrollment. 
• The Petitioner challenged these fees under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing they violated Section 24 of the AA. 
• The Supreme Court took over similar cases from the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court noted that high enrollment fees burden newcomers due to limited resources. 
• It highlighted Section 24(1)(f), which specifies the SBCs' fees for enrollment. 
• The Court ruled that no extra fees should be charged by SBCs under miscellaneous fees. 
• SBCs cannot impose additional charges as part of the enrollment fee. 
• While Bar Councils can levy other charges, they must not be included in enrollment fees. 
• The Court also stated that exorbitant fees infringe on the rights to profession, dignity, and equality, disproportionately affecting marginalized lawyers. 
• The ruling is progressive, and no fees need to be refunded. 
• Enrollment fees were capped at Rs. 750 for the general category and Rs. 125 for SC/ST advocates. 

Relevant Provision:

Section 24 of The Advocate Act 1961 (AA) - Persons who may be admitted as advocates on a State roll

A person is qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll if he fulfills the following conditions: 

• (a) Citizenship: He is a citizen of India or a national of another country where Indian citizens are allowed to practice law. 
• (b) Age: He has completed 21 years of age. 
• (c) Law Degree: He has obtained a law degree from a recognized university in India or abroad, or is a barrister called to the Bar before December 31, 1976. 
• (d) Other Conditions: He fulfills any other conditions specified by the State Bar Council. 
• (e) Fees: He has paid the required enrolment fee and stamp duty, if applicable. 
• (f) Waiver for Vakils and Pleaders: Vakils or pleaders may be admitted as advocates on the State roll if they meet certain conditions. 
• (g) Special Cases: Individuals with specific qualifications or entitlements may be admitted as advocates on the State roll if they fulfill certain conditions. 

2. The State of Rajasthan & Ors v. Bhupendra Singh 

Date of Judgement/Order: 08.08.2024 

• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah 

Case In Brief:

• The respondent was initially an Inspector, later promoted to Assistant Registrar, and considered for promotion to Deputy Registrar. 
• He faced allegations of allowing the construction of a godown without proper technical approval, leading to his demotion back to Inspector. 
• A departmental inquiry was launched against him in 1979, and his appeal for promotion was rejected. 
• He was suspended pending the inquiry for various alleged irregularities. 
• The suspension order was contested before a single judge, resulting in a prospective stay. 
• In 1985, he was dismissed following a new inquiry. 
• In 1993, a High Court single judge annulled the dismissal, deeming him eligible for promotion with back benefits. 
• This decision was upheld by a Division Bench and later contested in the Supreme Court. 

Verdict:

• The Court referenced the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. S Sree Rama Rao (1963), emphasizing that the High Court's role under Article 226 is not equivalent to an appeal. 
• It clarified that the High Court should not re-evaluate evidence or make independent findings but should act when there is significant infirmity in a tribunal's order. 
• In this case, the Court determined that there was no basis for interference. 

Relevant Provision: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950

• Grants High Courts the authority to issue writs for the enforcement of rights and other purposes. 
• High Courts can exercise this power regardless of the location of the government or authority involved. 
• Ensures fair process in interim orders and upholds the Supreme Court's powers under Article 32. 

3. Mubarak Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh

• Date of Judgement/Order: 05.09.2024
• Bench Strength: 2 Judges
• Composition of Bench: Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

Case In Brief:

• The accused was charged under Section 304B of the IPC, which pertains to dowry death.
• He had been in custody since his arrest on December 1, 2017, totaling 7 years.
• The accused applied for bail due to this prolonged detention.

Verdict

• The Court ruled that such a long period of continuous detention violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Since the State did not ensure a timely conclusion of the trial, the Court found grounds for granting bail to the petitioner, who was accused in connection with his wife's death.
• Consequently, the Court granted bail to the accused.

Relevant Provision:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Ensures the right to life and personal liberty for all individuals.

4. Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh 

• Date of Judgement/Order. 08.06.2024 
• Bench Strength. 2 Judges 
• Composition of Bench. Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Viswanathan 

Case In Brief:

• The petitioner had been in custody for two years related to an FIR under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 
• The petition sought bail from the Court. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court stated that not finishing a trial in a reasonable time, leading to long imprisonment, violates the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• The Court noted that the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution's case and was not inclined to consider the Investigating Officer as a panch witness. 
• As a result, bail was granted in this case. 

Relevant Provision:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Right to Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty. 

5. Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India 

• Date of Judgement/Order: 13th August 2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih 

Case Overview:

• The appellant was accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). 
• The chargesheet referred to the appellant as respondent no. 2. 
• Witness statements in the chargesheet alleged that: 
• The appellant's wife owned Ahmad Palace, and the appellant secretly rented the first floor to Athar Parwez, accused no. 1. 
• The premises were used for objectionable activities related to the Popular Front of India (PFI). 
• Discussions involved PFI expansion, member training, Muslim empowerment, and targeting individuals critical of Islam. 
• Rs. 25,000 was transferred to the appellant's son's account from a co-accused. 
• The appellant was seen removing goods from the premises before a police raid. 
• The appellant and co-accused applied for bail, which was initially rejected. 
• The Patna High Court granted bail to the co-accused but denied it to the appellant when they appealed. 

Supreme Court's Observations:

• There were discrepancies between the witness statements in the chargesheet and those before the magistrate. 
• The witness did not implicate the appellant in the alleged offence. 
• There was no evidence linking the appellant to the directed attacks in the chargesheet. 
• The Rs. 25,000 transferred to the appellant's son was rent advance, not suspicious. 
• The goods removed before the police raid were not specified in the chargesheet and had no connection to the alleged attacks. 
• The Supreme Court found no evidence of the appellant's involvement in the alleged crime. 

Legal Principles:

• Bail is generally the rule, and imprisonment is the exception. 
• Even in cases with stringent bail conditions, the principle that bail is the default should apply. 
• Denying bail in deserving cases would violate rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects life and personal liberty. 

Supreme Court's Decision:

• The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant based on the lack of evidence and discrepancies in the witness statements. 

6. Mineral Area Development v. M/S Steel Authority of India & Ors

Supreme Court Ruling on Taxation of Mineral Rights (25.07.2024)

• A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, addressed the constitutional distribution of legislative powers between the Union and States regarding the taxation of mineral rights. 
• The core issue involved Entry 50 of List II in the Seventh Schedule, which pertains to taxes on mineral rights. 
• The Court clarified that royalty is not a tax but a contractual payment under a mining lease, overruling the earlier judgment in India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1990). 
• The bench reaffirmed that taxing entries in the Constitution should be interpreted strictly and separately, rejecting the idea that Parliament's residual powers could confer taxation authority over mineral rights. 
• States have the authority to tax mineral-bearing lands under Entry 49 of List II, which covers taxes on lands and buildings, including those with mineral resources. 
• The Court's decision emphasized that this power is not limited by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 
• The ruling aimed to resolve the conflict between previous judgments and clarify the scope of legislative powers concerning mineral taxation. 

7. Chabi Karmakar & Ors. v. State of West Bengal  

• Date of Judgement/Order: 29.08.2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and JB Pardiwala 

Case In Brief:

• Sonali Karmakar and Samir Karmarkar (appellant No. 2) were married in March 2003 and had a son born on 4th September, 2004. 
• On 2nd May, 2006, Sonali committed suicide by hanging herself in her matrimonial house. 
• An FIR was lodged by Sonali's brother on 7th May, 2006, alleging harassment by her in-laws related to dowry demands. 
• The Trial Court convicted the sister-in-law (appellant No. 1), husband (appellant No. 2), and mother-in-law under Sections 498A, 304B, and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The High Court upheld both the conviction and sentence of the appellants. 
• During the pendency of the appeal, the mother-in-law (appellant No. 3) passed away, and the case against her stands abated. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 304B (dowry death) for all appellants due to insufficient evidence connecting the cruelty and harassment to dowry demands. 
• The Court acquitted appellant No. 1 (sister-in-law) of all charges, finding no credible evidence of her involvement in the crime. 
• The Court upheld the conviction of appellant No. 2 (husband) under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 498A (cruelty) of the IPC. 
• The Court held that the unnatural death of the deceased within seven years of marriage, occurring in the matrimonial home, is insufficient to secure a conviction under Section 304B and 498A of the IPC. The prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty related to dowry demands shortly before her death. 
• The court said that the trial court and High Court committed an error while raising a presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1982. 
• Appellant No. 2 was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000 for each count, with sentences to run concurrently. 

Relevant Provision: Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with Dowry death. 

(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. 

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 

8. Rajendra S/O Ramdas Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra

• Date of Judgement/Order: 15.05.2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Abhay S. Oka 

Case Overview:

• Rekha, a police constable in Ambajogai, was allegedly mistreated by her husband, Rajendra (the Appellant), and his family. Rajendra, an army man, was visiting home when the incident occurred. 
• On the day of the incident, Rekha was reportedly beaten by her husband and brother-in-law, tied up, and then set on fire by Rajendra. Neighbors took her to the hospital, where her dying declaration was recorded, leading to an FIR against Rajendra and others under various sections of the IPC. 
• Initially charged with attempted murder and other offenses, Section 302 (murder) was added after Rekha's death. Rajendra, his father, mother, and sister were accused, while the juvenile brother-in-law was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board. 
• The Trial Court found Rajendra guilty of murder, and his appeal to the High Court was dismissed. He then appealed to the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court Ruling:

• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the dying declaration's evidentiary value, reiterating principles from past cases. 
• The Court stated that a dying declaration could be the basis for conviction if deemed true and voluntary, without needing further corroboration. 
• Regarding multiple dying declarations, the Court highlighted that inconsistencies should be assessed for their materiality and each declaration should be evaluated on its own merits. 
• Despite inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' accounts, the Court found alignment with the core of Rekha's dying declaration and medical records, leading to the conclusion that she was fit to make the declaration. 
• Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. 

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Dying declarations are relevant statements made by a deceased person regarding the cause of their death or circumstances leading to it, regardless of their expectation of death at the time of making the statement. 
• Section 26(a) of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhniyam, 2023: This provision mirrors the dying declaration principle in the Indian Evidence Act.

9. CN Shantha Kumar v. MS Srinivas 

• Date of Judgement/Order – 05.09.2024
• Bench Strength – Judges
• Composition of Bench – Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhati

Case In Brief:

• The case involved proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NIA), where the trial court convicted the appellant.
• However, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment, acquitting the accused.
• The High Court, upon receiving a revision petition, overturned the Appellate Court's acquittal and ordered the appellant's conviction.
• This decision by the High Court is what is being challenged in the Supreme Court.

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court ruled that Section 401 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly prohibits the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction during revision.
• Therefore, the Court deemed the High Court's decision as unsustainable.
• If the High Court believed there was a wrongful acquittal, it could not order a conviction in revision.

Relevant Provision:

• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Section 401 (3). This section prevents the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into a conviction.

10. XYZ v. State of Karnataka 

• Date of Judgement/Order. 10.06.2023 
• Bench Strength. 2 Judges 
• Composition of Bench. Justice PV Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih. 

Case In Brief:

• Respondent no. 2 is accused of sexually assaulting a minor. 
• The Karnataka High Court had previously stayed a notice for a medical examination of the accused. 
• A medical report and the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, implicate the accused. 
• The court vacated the stay by the Karnataka High Court. 
• Respondent no. 2 is ordered to undergo a medical examination as part of the ongoing investigation. 
• The Investigating Officer must conduct the examination following established procedures and respecting the accused's rights. 
• This order overrides any conflicting directives from lower courts. 

Verdict:

• The bench noted that the accused's refusal to cooperate with the medical examination indicates a lack of willingness to assist the investigation. 
• The court emphasized that the accused must comply with Section 41-A of the CrPC and undergo the medical examination as directed by the Investigating Officer. 
• The accused cannot raise concerns about the medical facility without valid reasons. 

Relevant Provision:

• Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, outlines the procedure for issuing a notice of appearance to a person suspected of committing a cognizable offence. 
• The notice directs the person to appear before the police officer or at a specified location. 
• The person must comply with the notice, and failure to do so may result in arrest.  

11. Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel & Ors. Versus M/s. S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited & Ors.

Case Details

• Date of Judgment: July 22, 2024 
• Bench: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar 

Case Background:

• The case involves a dispute between flat buyers (complainants) and a builder (respondent) regarding the delay in handing over possession of flats. 
• The complainants filed a consumer complaint against the builder for deficiency in service and delay in possession. 
• The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) initially heard the case. 
• The Supreme Court had previously ruled that the builder had forfeited its right to file a written statement but allowed the builder to decide whether to participate in the proceedings. 

Supreme Court Verdict:

• The Court ruled that when a party's right to file a written statement is forfeited, they cannot indirectly introduce their case through evidence or written submissions. 
• Parties can participate in proceedings and cross-examine witnesses but cannot bring in new pleadings or evidence. 
• The Court found that the NCDRC improperly allowed the defendant to file written submissions, but this did not materially impact the outcome. 
• The Court modified the NCDRC's method for calculating compensation for delayed possession of flats, setting the due date for possession based on the terms of the construction agreement. 
• The Court upheld the NCDRC's decision to award compensation at 6% interest from the due date of possession until the date possession was offered. 

Relevant Provision:

• Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) deals with written statements and outlines the timeline and conditions for filing them. 

12. Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors. 

• Date of Judgement/Order. 17.05.2024 
• Bench Strength. 3 Judges 
• Composition of Bench. Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan 

Case In Brief:

• The case involves the land acquisition process initiated by the Delhi Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
• Between 1957 and 2006, various notifications were issued for acquiring lands, and awards were passed to fix compensation. 
• In some instances, compensation amounts were deposited in the treasury, while in others, possession could not be taken by government entities because landowners challenged the proceedings and obtained a stay. 
• Later, the 1894 Act was replaced by the 2013 Act, which introduced Section 24. This section stated that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the earlier regime would be considered lapsed in certain cases, such as when compensation had not been paid or possession had not been taken. 
• Section 24 was interpreted in several judgments, including Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harak Chand Mistrimal Solanki (2014), Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015), Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018), and Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020). 
• In Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020), a 5-judge bench overruled Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harak Chand Mistrimal Solanki (2014). 
• Following this decision, Delhi Government entities (DDC, DMRC) filed appeals against Delhi High Court orders that declared acquisition proceedings as lapsed based on Pune Municipal Corporation and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association. 
• Since most cases were filed after the limitation period expired, the court needed to determine whether the delay could be condoned due to a subsequent change in law. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court noted that the law of limitation is based on the principle that the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights. 
• Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, gives the court the discretion to extend the limitation period if the applicant can demonstrate a sufficient cause for not filing within the prescribed period. 
• The court emphasized two aspects of Section 5: (a) whether a sufficient cause has been established, and (b) whether this cause was shown for not filing within the prescribed period. 
• The court rejected the condonation of delay for several reasons: 
• First, the appellants had to prove diligence during the prescribed period and that a sufficient cause arose within that period. 
• Instead of demonstrating a cause within the limitation period, they were using an event after the period to justify the delay. 
• Second, a party should not benefit from its deliberate inaction during the limitation period. 
• Third, allowing a subsequent change of law as a ground for condonation would lead to a situation where petitioners could approach the court whenever a judgment they relied on was overruled, creating a lack of finality in proceedings. 
• Fourth, when a case is overruled, it only affects the binding nature of the precedent, and the dispute between the parties is still considered settled by the overruled case. 
• However, the court ultimately allowed the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the grounds of public interest, while not accepting other arguments. 

13. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr

• Date of Judgement/Order. 17.05.2024 
• Bench Strength. 3 Judges 
• Composition of Bench. Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan 

Case In Brief:

• The case involves the land acquisition process initiated by the Delhi Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the planned development of Delhi. 
• The 1894 Act was later replaced by the 2013 Act, which introduced reforms and amended Section 24. 
• Section 24 has been interpreted in various Supreme Court judgments. The Delhi High Court allowed writ petitions from certain affected landowners, declaring the land acquisition proceedings as lapsed. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court observed that res judicata is a technical principle preventing the same parties from relitigating issues already determined. 
• However, the Court held that res judicata does not apply rigidly when larger public interest is at stake. 
• The doctrine of merger was also discussed, with the Court stating it is not of universal application. 
• The exception to the doctrine of merger is the exercise of extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. 
• The Court invoked Article 142, considering public interest and avoiding irreversible consequences. 

14. Bhikchand S/O Dhondiram Mutha (Deceased) Through Lrs. v. Shamabai Dhanraj Gugale (Deceased) Through Ors.

• Date of Judgement/Order - 14.05.2024 
• Bench Strength -. Judges 
• Composition of Bench - Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra 

Case In Brief:

Dhanraj, husband of the original plaintiff Shamabai Dhanraj Gugale, lent Rs. 8,000 to the original defendant in 1969. 

• When the defendant failed to repay, the plaintiff sued for Rs. 10,880 (Rs. 8,000 principal + Rs. 2,880 interest) plus 12% interest per annum. 
• On 15.02.1982, the court partly ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding the principal, pre-suit interest, and 12% interest until repayment. 
• The plaintiff appealed for more, and the defendant cross-appealed. 
• During this, the plaintiff sought execution in a different court due to jurisdiction issues. 
• The appeal was dismissed, reducing the total amount. 
• The plaintiff executed the decree, buying the defendant's property in auction. 
• In 1990, the defendant sought restitution, claiming the sale should be reversed due to decree changes. 
• Courts denied this, stating the defendant hadn't deposited any amount during the original decree execution. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court ruled that if the decree holder is the auction purchaser, the sale is invalid if the decree is later set aside. 
• A third party buying property in court auction with knowledge of pending appeal against the decree cannot resist restitution. 
• The Executing Court failed to determine sufficient property for attachment, causing injustice to the judgment debtor. 
• The Court emphasized that a decree for debt recovery should not lead to exploitation by selling all the debtor's property. 
• The Supreme Court annulled the High Court's 2017 order and the appellant’s application under Section 144 of CPC. 

Relevant Provision:

Section 144 of CPC - Application for Restitution - 

• When a decree is changed or canceled in an appeal or revision, the court that issued it will restore the parties to their original position as much as possible. 
• This may involve refunding costs, paying interest, damages, compensation, and other related payments. 
• The court that issued the decree is considered the court of first instance if the decree is changed in an appeal or revision. 

15. Prem Lal Anand & Ors v. Narendra Kumar & Ors. 

• Date of Judgement/Order – 07.08.2024
• Bench Strength – Judges
• Composition of Bench – Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol

Case In Brief:

• The claimant-appellant No.1 and his wife were riding a motorcycle through the village Meharauli when they encountered two tractors being driven recklessly.
• This led to an accident causing the claimant severe injuries, including a broken jaw and leg fractures.
• Tragically, the claimant's wife died instantly due to the crash.
• The couple operated a business together, earning Rs. 5,000/- monthly from M/s Sonali Fabrics.
• Following his wife's death, the claimant lost the entire business, which had previously made profits of Rs. 60,000 in 1994 and Rs. 50,000 in 1993.
• Seeking Rs. 12,00,000 in compensation, the claimant initially approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
• After the Tribunal's decision, the claimant appealed to the High Court for a higher compensation amount.
• The claimants then escalated the case to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's ruling.

Verdict:

• The court examined the ideas of composite and contributory compensation.
• The evidence showed that the tractor was moving slowly, which led the first appellant to attempt an overtaking maneuver.
• However, the second tractor's driver was found to be speeding and driving from the wrong side, causing the collision.
• The court clarified that overtaking does not automatically imply rashness or negligence.
• Therefore, if the offending vehicle was proven to be driven recklessly, the appellant's act of overtaking would not make him partially at fault.
• As a result, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal in this case.

Relevant Provision:

• Law of Tort – Tort of Negligence
• Negligence involves failing to fulfill a duty, either by not doing something a reasonable person would do or by doing something a reasonable person would avoid.

16. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

• Date of Judgement/Order: February 15, 2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra 

Case Background:

• Petitioners challenged the Electoral Bond Scheme and amendments in the Finance Act 2017 under Article 32 of the Constitution. 
• Amendments affected laws like the Reserve Bank of India Act, Representation of the People Act, Income Tax Act, and Companies Act. 

Amendments Overview:

• Reserve Bank of India Act: Finance Act 2017 allowed scheduled banks to issue electoral bonds. 
• Corporate Contributions: Companies Act 2013 enabled unlimited contributions to political parties, with changes in the Finance Act 2017. 
• Tax Exemption: Section 13A of the Income Tax Act exempted political parties' income from contributions, with auditing requirements. 

Incentives and Transparency:

• Tax Deductions: Sections 80GGB and 80GGC encouraged contributions through tax deductions. 
• Disclosure Changes: Finance Act 2017 allowed contributions via electoral bonds with reduced disclosure requirements. 

Concerns and Implementation:

• RBI Concerns: Risks of currency misuse and money laundering with electoral bonds. 
• ECI Criticism: Lack of transparency and need for corporate funding caps. 
• Implementation: Electoral Bond Scheme started in 2018 amid ongoing challenges. 

Court Verdict Highlights:

• Unconstitutionality: Electoral Bond Scheme and related amendments violate Article 19(1)(a) and are unconstitutional. 
• Article 14 Breach: Removal of corporate contribution caps is arbitrary and breaches Article 14. 
• Disclosure Mandate: Political parties must disclose donor details and bond amounts. 

Directive Issuance:

• Cessation of Electoral Bonds: Court ordered halt on issuance. 
• Disclosure Requirements: SBI to submit purchase details, political party recipients to be disclosed. 
• Publication by ECI: ECI to publish details of political party recipients. 
• Return of Unencashed Bonds: Unencashed bonds to be returned or refunded. 

Legal Provisions Invoked:

• Article 14: Equality before law and equal protection of laws. 
• Article 19: Protection of rights regarding freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, and profession.

17. Sita Soren v. Union of India

• Date of Judgment: 04.03.2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, Justices A S Bopanna, M M Sundresh, Pamidighantam Sri Narsimha, J B Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Justice Manoj Misra. 

Case in Brief: An election was held on 30th March 2012 to elect two members of the Rajya Sabha representing the State of Jharkhand which led to initiation this case. 

• The allegation against the appellant (voter) was that she accepted a bribe from an independent candidate for casting her vote in his favor. And she did not cast her vote in favor of the alleged bribe giver and instead cast her vote in favor of a candidate belonging to her own party. 

• The appellant moved the High Court to quash the charge sheet and the criminal proceedings instituted against her. 

• The appellant claimed protection under Article 194(2) of Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) and relying on the judgment given in the case of P V Narasimha Rao v. State (1998). 

• The High Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the appellant had not cast her vote in favor of the alleged bribe giver and thus, is not entitled to the protection under Article 194(2) of the COI> 

• An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court (SC). 

Verdict: On 20th September 2023, a 5 judge bench recorded prima facie reasons doubting the correctness of the decision in P V Narasimha case and referred the matter to a larger bench of 7 judges. 

• A 7 judge bench overruled the judgment of majority (P V Narasimha case) on the aspect that by virtue of Articles 105 and 194 of the COI a member of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly can claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery for casting a vote or speech in the house. 

• SC said that the judgment of the majority in P V Narasimha which grants immunity from prosecution to a member of the legislature who was allegedly engaged in bribery for casting vote or speaking has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life and parliamentary democracy. There is a grave danger of this court allowing an error to be perpetuated if the decision were not reconsidered. 

Relevant Provisions:

Article 105 of the COI: Powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof - 

• Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament. 

• No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings. 

• In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and, until so defined, shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act 1978. 

• The provisions of clauses (1), (2) and (3) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, a House of Parliament or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to members of Parliament. 

Article 194 (2) of COI: Powers, privileges, etc., of the House of Legislatures and of the members and committees thereof- 

• No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings. 

18. Naeem v. State of Uttar Pradesh

• Date of Judgment: 05. 03. 2024 
• Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta 

Case Overview:

• Incident Date: 01st December 2016 
• Victim: Shahin Parveen (deceased), a widow living with her children, brother-in-law (accused), and his wife. 
• Accused pressured the victim into immoral trafficking and prostitution. 
• When she refused, her brother-in-law poured kerosene on her and set her on fire, assisted by his wife and her brother. 

Initial Police Report:

• Victim admitted to Katghar Police Station, Moradabad with severe burns (80% deep thermal and facial). 
• Written report based on victim's complaint led to FIR under Section 307 IPC. 
• Victim's dying declaration recorded on the same day. 
• Victim later transferred to Safdarjung Hospital, where she died, and the case was upgraded to Section 302 IPC. 

Trial Court and High Court:

• Trial court convicted the accused under sections 302 and 34 IPC. 
• Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction. 

Supreme Court Appeal:

• Supreme Court reviewed the dying declaration, finding it reliable. 
• Victim's statement implicated her brother-in-law as the main perpetrator. 
• Other two accused were only said to have assisted. 
• Court upheld conviction of the main accused but granted benefit of doubt to the other two. 

Legal Provisions:

• Section 32 (1) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Statements about cause of death by a deceased person are relevant. 
• Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder includes death or life imprisonment and fines.

19. Ravishankar Tandon v. State of Chhatisgarh

• Date of Judgment: 10th April 2024 
• Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta 

Case Background:

• On December 2, 2011, Ramavtar (PW-1) filed a missing person report for his son Dharmendra Satnami (the deceased) at Police Station Kunda. 
• During the investigation, the accused confessed to strangling the deceased and disposing of his body in a pond. 
• The police recovered the body based on their statements. 

Allegations:

• Dinesh Chandrakar (Accused No. 3) allegedly hired Ravishankar Tandon (Accused No. 1) and Satyendra Kumar Patre (Accused No. 4) to murder the deceased for Rs. 90,000. 
• They conspired with Umend Prasad Dhritalhare (Accused No. 2) to kill the deceased and dispose of his body. 

Trial Court Verdict:

• Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were convicted under Sections 302 read with 34, 120B, and 201 of the IPC. 
• Accused No. 4 was convicted under Sections 302 read with 34 and 120B of the IPC. 

High Court Decision:

• The High Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions. 

Supreme Court Verdict:

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and acquitted all the appellants. 
• The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the body was discovered solely based on the accused's statements. 
• Witnesses had prior knowledge of the death and location before the statements were made. 
• The prosecution did not establish any incriminating circumstances against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 
• The chain of circumstances did not support the guilt of the appellants. 

Relevant Provision:

• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Allows proof of information received from an accused regarding a discovered fact, even if it amounts to a confession. 

20. Haalesh v. State of Karnataka

• Date of Judgment/Order: 02.02.2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mittal 

Case Overview:

• The case involves a property dispute between Shivanna (deceased) and his brother Ramanna (Accused No.9). 
• On September 25, 1999, the accused allegedly conspired to kill Shivanna and his family, resulting in Shivanna's death and injuries to his wife and daughter. 
• Eyewitness testimonies, primarily from Shivanna's wife and daughter, were crucial to the prosecution's case. 
• The prosecution presented evidence of unlawful assembly and shared intent to commit murder, leading to convictions under Section 302 in conjunction with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 
• The High Court upheld these convictions, prompting the appellants to approach the Supreme Court. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court found sufficient evidence to implicate all appellants under Section 302 IPC in conjunction with Section 149 IPC. 
• Despite challenges to the medical evidence by the defense, the court prioritized eyewitness accounts, confirming that a chopper was the only weapon used in the crime. 
• The court exercised appellate restraint, choosing not to intervene as the lower court findings were not deemed perverse. 
• Consequently, all three appeals were dismissed as lacking substance. 
• Bail for the appellants was revoked, and they were ordered to surrender immediately to serve their remaining sentences. 
• The court upheld the lower courts' judgments, finding no legal errors and basing decisions on available evidence and legal principles. 

Legal Provisions:

• Section 149 of IPC: Every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed in furtherance of the common object. 
• Section 302 of IPC: Punishment for murder, which may include death, life imprisonment, and fines. 

21. Sanjay Upadhya v. Anand Dubey

Date of Judgement/Order: January 29, 2024

Bench Strength: Judges

Composition of Bench: Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta

Case Overview: The appellant, accused under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the complainant, filed an appeal against the prosecution. The appellant, owner of the 'Sunday Blast' newspaper, was alleged to have published a defamatory article without fact-checking. Although a complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate in 2017, a revision in 2018 overturned this decision. The appellant's subsequent plea to the High Court was rejected in 2020.

Supreme Court's Decision:

• The Supreme Court (SC) quashed all proceedings against the appellant under Section 500 of the IPC, based on the principle of freedom of speech.
• The Court found the initial dismissal of the complaint to be justified, emphasizing that the publication was made in good faith and within constitutional rights.
• The lower court's decision was upheld, indicating no need for further intervention.

Legal Context:

Section 499 of IPC:

• Defines defamation as making or publishing any imputation intending to harm or knowing it will harm a person's reputation.
• Includes provisions for defaming deceased persons, companies, or associations.
• Clarifies that an imputation harms reputation if it lowers moral, intellectual character, caste, calling, or credit, or depicts the body in a disgraceful state.

Section 500 of IPC:

• Specifies punishment for defamation as simple imprisonment up to two years, fine, or both.

22. Rita Dwivedi v. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.,

• Date of Judgement/Order. 12.02.2024 
• Bench Strength. 2 Judges 
• Composition of Bench. Justices Aniruddha Bose, Sanjay Kumar 

Case In Brief:

• The petitioner, one of three sisters, filed a Habeas Corpus petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. 
• The petitioner sought the production of respondent No. 9, 'Vibha Dwivedi', alleging that she had been illegally detained by the fourth respondent, 'Smt. Archana Sharma', and her husband, 'Sh. Sachinder Sharma', who had taken her to Canada. 
• The petitioner contended that the detention of respondent No. 9 was illegal and sought intervention from the court to secure her release. 
• The high court denied the petition, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court noted that there is no inherent legal right for an elder sister to exercise guardianship over her sister without a specific court order. 
• The court concluded that a Habeas Corpus petition was not the suitable legal remedy for the petitioner's issue. 
• The petitioner was advised to approach the appropriate court for guardianship over respondent No. 9 if the circumstances justified such action. 
• The court found no reason to overturn the High Court's judgment and dismissed the petition. 

Legal Provision:

Article 226 of the Constitution of India: 

• Empowers High Courts to issue writs, including Habeas Corpus, for enforcing rights and other purposes. 
• High Courts can exercise this power regardless of the location of the government or authority involved. 
• Ensures procedural fairness in interim orders and maintains the Supreme Court's power under Article 32. 

23. Yash Raj Films Pvt Ltd v. Afreen Fatima Zaidi and Anr.

• Date of Judgment: 22.04.2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar 

Case Summary:

• The appellant, a famous film producer, made a movie called 'Fan' in 2016. 
• Before the movie's release, the appellant shared a promotional trailer that included a song video, both on TV and online. 
• The complainant, a teacher from Aurangabad, saw this trailer and decided to watch the movie with her family because of the song. 
• However, when she watched the film, the song was missing, even though it was widely used in the promotion. 
• Feeling misled, she filed a consumer complaint seeking Rs. 60,550 in damages. 
• The District Consumer Redressal Forum rejected her complaint, stating there was no consumer-service provider relationship. 
• The complainant appealed to the State Commission, which awarded her Rs. 10,000 for mental distress and Rs. 5,000 in costs. 
• The case escalated to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which ruled that including the song in the promo when it wasn't in the movie was deceptive and constituted unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 
• The appellant challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, which ultimately sided with the appellant and overturned the NCDRC's ruling. 

Supreme Court's Findings:

• A promotional trailer is a one-sided invitation meant to persuade viewers to buy a ticket for the movie, which is a separate transaction and contract. 
• The trailer itself does not constitute an offer and does not aim to create a contractual relationship. 
• Since the trailer is not an offer, it cannot become a promise. 
• Services involving the presentation of art allow the service provider freedom and discretion, and there was no unfair trade practice or breach of an enforceable contractual promise. 

Relevant Legal Provision:

• Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 pertains to unfair trade practices. 
• After the 2019 amendment, unfair trade practices are covered under Section 2(47). 

24. Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors.

• Date of Judgement/Order. 12.01.2024 
• Bench Strength. 3 Judges 
• Composition of Bench. Justices BR Gavai, Dipankar Datta and Aravind Kumar 

Case In Brief:

• The suit was related to a property gifted to the appellants by their great-grandmother. 
• In response to their suit, two of the three defendants did not file a written statement resulting to which the trial court pronounced judgment against them. 
• SC was dealing with the scenario where defendant fails to submit written statement. 

Verdict:

• Recording of Prima Facie Satisfaction: Interim relief in a civil suit should be preceded by a prima facie satisfaction regarding the suit's maintainability. 
• Grant of Interim Relief on Assumption: Courts should not grant interim relief based on assumptions without addressing the issue of maintainability. 
• Appropriate Order in Extraordinary Situations: Courts may issue interim orders in extraordinary situations to prevent irreparable harm or ensure proceedings are not rendered infructuous. 
• Failure to File Written Statement: Merely failing to file a written statement does not automatically entitle a defendant to a favorable judgment. 

Legal Provision:

• Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure: Deals with the procedure when a party fails to present a written statement as required by the court. 

25. Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan v. Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki

• Date of Judgment: 09.04.2024 
• Bench Strength:. Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justice Anuradha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia 

Case Background:

• Thiyyer Kunnath Meethal Chandu (Chandu) filed a partition suit in 1985 claiming 8/20 shares in a property against defendants who were successors of Sankaran. 
• Chandu and Sankaran were uterine brothers, with Chandu being the son of Chiruthey and Neelakandan, and Sankaran being the son of Chiruthey and Madhavan. 
• The suit property originally belonged to Madhavan and his mother Nangeli, who mortgaged it in 1900. 
• In 1910, three deeds were executed regarding the property, leading to disputes over ownership. 

Trial Court Decision:

• The Trial Court ruled in favor of Chandu, supporting his claim for partition. 
• It determined that Chiruthey had acquired title over the property through various transactions, which subsequently devolved to Chandu. 

First Appellate Court Decision:

• The First Appellate Court overturned the Trial Court's decision. 
• It argued that Chiruthey lost her rights to Madhavan's property upon her remarriage, citing the Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act, 1856. 

High Court Decision:

• The High Court reinstated the Trial Court's ruling, agreeing with Chandu's claims. 
• It validated the 1910 deeds and Chiruthey's rights to execute them. 

Supreme Court Verdict:

• The Supreme Court ruled that Chiruthey forfeited her rights to the suit property upon her second marriage to Neelakandan, according to the Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act, 1856. 
• It acknowledged the legitimacy of the lease deed (Exhibit A-20) but emphasized that Chiruthey could not convey rights she did not possess. 
• The Court clarified that if a person lacks right, title, or interest in a property, any conveyance by them is invalid, regardless of existing deeds. 
• Chiruthey's status post-1910 was established as a lessee under Exhibit A-1, with no evidence of the lease extending beyond twelve years. 
• The Court determined that the suit property did not devolve to Chandu, who was born to Chiruthey and Neelakandan. 
• The Supreme Court annulled the High Court's decision, upholding the First Appellate Court's ruling and dismissing Chandu's partition suit. 

Relevant Legal Provision:

• Section 2 of the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856, states that a widow's rights in her deceased husband's property cease upon her remarriage, as if she had died. 
• This includes rights by maintenance, inheritance, or limited interest conferred by will, without the power to alienate. 
• The deceased husband's next heirs or other entitled persons succeed to the property on the widow's death.

26. Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya v. State of Gujarat, Narcotics Control Bureau

• Date of Judgment: 09.04.2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justice Anuradha Bose and Justice Augustine George Masih 

Case Background:

• Mrs. Krishna Chaube, an Intelligence Officer, received secret information about Abdul Hamid Chandmiya (Accused No. 04) suspected of carrying narcotic substances in an auto rickshaw. 
• The information was recorded and reported to her superior. When Accused No. 04 appeared in the auto rickshaw, the raiding party attempted to stop it, but it sped away. 
• The abandoned auto rickshaw was later found, and a search revealed charas weighing 1.450 Kilograms and a driving license. 
• The investigation led to the house of Accused No. 04, where Smt. Najmunisha (Accused No. 01) was present. 
• Accused No. 01 had been convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000. 
• The High Court of Gujarat modified her sentence, enhancing the fine to Rs. 1,00,000 and changing the default sentence from one year to three months. 
• Accused No. 04, the husband of Accused No. 01, was also convicted under the NDPS Act and sentenced to thirteen years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. 
• His appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Gujarat. 
• The Supreme Court heard criminal appeals from both Accused No. 01 and Accused No. 04, challenging the High Court's judgment. 
• The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court and Trial Court judgments. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court emphasized the jurisprudence of the NDPS Act, which empowers the state for search and seizure to protect social security, but is limited by fundamental rights and statutory provisions. 
• It clarified that Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects individuals from self-incrimination, is not violated by search and seizure powers under the NDPS Act. 
• The Court ruled that such powers do not infringe on fundamental rights, ensuring a balance between state authority and individual rights. 

Relevant Provision:

Article 20 of the Constitution of India: Protection in respect of conviction for offences— 

• No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. 
• No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. 
• No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 

27. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association

• Date of Judgement/Order: 24th January 2024
• Bench Strength: Judges
• Composition of Bench: Justices B R Gavai and B V Nagarathna

Case Overview:

• The appeals and transferred cases originated from the Assam Act, enacted by the Assam Legislature on 18th September 2004.
• The Act aimed to establish a regulatory authority in Assam for registering Diploma holders in Medicine and Rural Health Care (DMRHC), regulating their practice in rural areas, and overseeing the establishment of medical institutions offering the Diploma course.
• In 2005, the Director of Medical Education, Assam, announced admissions for the Diploma in Medicine and Rural Health Care at the Jorhat Medical Institute.
• The Indian Medical Association, Assam State Branch, challenged the Assam Act and the advertisement in a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court.
• Despite the challenge, admissions continued.
• The High Court later declared the Assam Act unconstitutional, citing conflicts with the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (IMC Act).
• Diploma holders appealed against this judgment.
• In response, the Assam Legislature passed the Assam Community Professional (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015, attempting to address the issues raised in the judgment.
• This new Act also faced legal challenges.

Supreme Court Verdict:

• Entry 25 of List III in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, 1950, pertains to education and falls under the Concurrent List. Both Parliament and State Legislatures have legislative competence over this subject.
• Entry 25 is subordinate to Entry 66 of List I, the Union List, which deals with coordinating standards in higher education and research institutions.
• Laws under Entry 25 must comply with those under Entry 66.
• The Indian Medical Council (IMC) Act, 1956, enacted by Parliament, standardizes medical education nationwide. State laws concerning allopathic medicine must align with the IMC Act and its regulations.
• Any conflicting state law is invalid.
• The Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004, was declared void due to legislative overreach.
• The Assam Community Professionals (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015, was upheld as it complements the IMC Act without conflicting. This Act allows community health professionals to practice in rural areas, falling within the State Legislature's jurisdiction.
• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that while the Legislature cannot directly overrule a judicial decision, it can retrospectively remove the foundation of a judgment to make the decision ineffective, provided it does not violate other constitutional limitations.

28. Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited & Ors. v. ZEE Entertainment Enterprises Limited

• Date of Judgment: 14th March 2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra 

Case Overview:

• On 21st February 2024, Bloomberg published an article titled "India Regulator Uncovers $241 Million Accounting Issue at Zee," discussing the Zee-Sony merger and an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). 
• Zee filed a defamation suit against Bloomberg and its journalist, claiming the article falsely presented speculations as facts regarding illegal fund diversion. 
• Zee sought a declaration and mandatory injunction, pressing for an ex-parte ad interim injunction against Bloomberg on the first day of the hearing. 
• On 1st March 2024, the Additional District Judge (ADJ) issued an ex-parte ad interim order directing the journalist and editor to take down the article within a week. 
• The ADJ's order was upheld by a single judge of the Delhi High Court on 14th March 2024, leading to the present appeal in the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court Verdict:

• The Supreme Court explained the three-fold test (prima-facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss) for granting interim relief, applicable to defamation suits. 
• The bench criticized the trial court's application of this test, emphasizing that it should not be applied mechanically. Detailed reasons and analysis are necessary when granting interim relief. 
• The Supreme Court overruled the trial judge's order, highlighting the need for considering additional factors in pre-trial injunctions. 
• The trial judge's order was deemed flawed due to mechanical application, lacking proper reasoning. 

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) outlines appealable orders, including those related to injunctions and temporary relief. 
• Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC detail circumstances under which temporary injunctions may be granted, including cases of property disputes and breaches of contract. 

29. Rajesh Viren Shah v. Redington (India) Limited

• Date of Judgement/Order: 14th February 2024 
• Bench Strength:. Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol 

Case Overview:

• The appellants were Directors in the Respondent Company and resigned from their positions on December 9, 2013, and March 12, 2014, respectively. 
• They were accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) concerning three cheques: 
• Cheque No. 002535 for Rs. 7,10,085/- 
• Cheque No. 002777 for Rs. 1,85,09,054/- 
• Cheque No. 002791 for Rs. 10,00,000/- 
• All cheques were dated March 22, 2014. 
• The cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The respondent served a statutory notice on April 11, 2014, and subsequently filed a complaint. 
• The appellants sought to quash the complaint in the High Court of Madras, but their request was denied. 
• The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's decision. 

Supreme Court's Decision:

• The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's judgment and allowed the appellants' appeal. 
• The Court clarified that a director could only be held liable for a cheque dishonour after their retirement if it is proven that the company’s act was done with their consent, connivance, or attribution. 
• The Court referred to the proviso in Section 141 of the NI Act, which states that a person responsible for the company's affairs at the time of the offence is liable under Section 138, unless they can prove lack of knowledge or due diligence. 

Legal Provisions:

Section 138 of the NI Act:

• Deals with the dishonour of cheques due to insufficient funds. 
• Specifies the conditions under which a person is deemed to have committed an offence, including the presentation of the cheque, notice to the drawer, and failure to make payment. 

Section 141 of the NI Act:

• Addresses offences by companies under Section 138. 
• Holds individuals in charge of and responsible for the company’s conduct at the time of the offence liable, along with the company. 
• Provides defences for individuals proving lack of knowledge or due diligence. 
• Establishes liability for directors, managers, or officers of the company if the offence is committed with their consent, connivance, or neglect. 

30. Abduction for Ransom and Attempt to Murder: Supreme Court Verdict

• Date of Judgement/Order – 03.01.2024
• Bench Strength –2 Judges
• Composition of Bench –Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Satish Chandra Sharma

Case In Brief:

• In this case, the appellants had abducted a Class 12th student.
• The abduction, as per the prosecution, was for ransom, and a dastardly attempt was also made by the accused to kill the victim, although the victim miraculously escaped, but not before sustaining grievous injuries, which eventually led to the amputation of his right leg.
• During the night, when the complainant was trying to ease himself, the two appellants attempted to kill him by throttling his neck by the clutch wire of the motorcycle. As a result, the complainant fell on the ground unconscious, and the appellants thinking that the complainant had died, poured petrol on his body and set him on fire.
• The complainant managed to escape and was taken to hospital.
• The Trial Court convicted the appellants for an offence under section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) which has also been upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court observed that the necessary ingredients which the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, before the Court are not only an act of kidnapping or abduction but thereafter the demand of ransom, coupled with the threat to life of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted, must be there.
• Therefore, the Court converted the findings of conviction under Section 364A to that of Section 364 IPC.

Legal Provisions:

Section 364 of IPC - Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.

• Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 364A of IPC - Kidnapping for ransom, etc.

• Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or 4 [any foreign State or international intergovernmental organisation or any other person] to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.