(621) DWARIKA PRASAD (D) THR. LRs. Vs. PRITHVI RAJ SINGH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-12-2024 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 9 Rule 13 — An application under Order 9 Rule 13 can also serve as an application for condonation of delay — The court cites Bhagmal and Ors Vs. Kunwar Lal and Others, to support its finding that where the delay in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC is explained within the application itself, there is no need for a separate application for condonation of delay — The court emphasizes that the procedure is a handmaid of justice, and hype India Law Library Docid # 2421056
(622) CHINA DEVELOPMENT BANK Vs. DOHA BANK Q.P.S.C. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-12-2024 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Sections 5(7), 5(8), 7, 14 and 15 —Contract Act, 1872 — Section 126 — Several appeals challenged the NCLAT's classification of certain appellants as 'Financial Creditors' under the IBC, based on Deeds of Hypothecation (DoH) executed by RCom entities — The key issue was whether the DoH constituted a guarantee entitling the appellants to cover any debt recovery shortfall, qualifying them as financial creditors under Section 5(8) of the IBC — The appellants ar India Law Library Docid # 2421057
(623) KAMLA DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-12-2024 Land Acquisition and Compensation — The case concerns the assessment of compensation for land acquired by the State of Haryana — The court notes that the issue is covered by a previous judgment in Horrmal v. The State of Haryana, which was decided on 21.10.2024 —In Horrmal, the Supreme Court had already determined that the High Court had incorrectly reduced the land valuation — The Reference Court's evaluation was deemed to be more accurate and aligned with the evidence of the sale deeds — The c India Law Library Docid # 2421058
(624) NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY LTD. Vs. FEDERATION OF NOIDA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-12-2024 Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 — Sections 6A read 19 — Collection and levying of toll — Delegation of Power to Levy Fees — The court clarified that the power to levy taxes or fees remains with the authority and cannot be delegated — While the authority can delegate the power to collect fees to a person with whom an agreement for infrastructure maintenance has been made, it cannot delegate the power to levy such fees — In this case, the court held that NOIDA overstepped its a India Law Library Docid # 2421059
(625) MUKESH Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-12-2024 Stamp Act, 1899 — Section 33 — Registration Act, 1908 — Section 17(2)(vi) — Registration of Compromise Decrees —According to Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, certain documents require mandatory registration — However, subsection (2) provides exceptions, including decrees or orders of a court — Specifically, Section 17(2)(vi) exempts decrees or orders of a court from registration, except for those made on a compromise that involve immovable property not part of the original suit — The co India Law Library Docid # 2421060
(626) SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST AND OTHERS Vs. SHRIMANT CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSLE AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-12-2024 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of Plaint Based on Limitation —The court reiterated that a plaint can be rejected at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11(d), if it is evident from the statements in the plaint that the suit is barred by any law, including limitation — The court emphasized that this power is a drastic but necessary one to prevent the wastage of judicial time on meaningless or time-barred litigation — The court stated that if a suit is clearly barre India Law Library Docid # 2421061
(627) BIJOY KUMAR MONI Vs. PARESH MANNA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-12-2024 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Liability of the Drawer — The court reiterated that only the drawer of a cheque can be held liable under Section 138 of the NI Act — The drawer is defined as the person who issues the cheque — This liability arises when a cheque drawn on an account maintained by that person is dishonored due to insufficient funds. India Law Library Docid # 2421062
(628) ABDUL REJAK LASKAR Vs. MAFIZUR RAHMAN AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-12-2024 Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 — Section 97 — Imperfect Partition and Section 97 of the Regulation — The court held that for an imperfect partition suit to be maintainable under Section 97, the person seeking partition must be in actual possession of the property — Additionally, the court noted that if the person seeking partition is not in actual possession and co-sharers do not consent, then the person has no other remedy but to approach the civil court. India Law Library Docid # 2421063
(629) PARSWANATH SAHA Vs. BANDHANA MODAK (DAS) AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-12-2024 Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 20 — Discretionary Power of Courts in Specific Performance — The court reiterated that the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary and not mandatory — Courts are not bound to grant specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so — However, this discretion is not arbitrary but should be exercised in a sound and reasonable manner, guided by judicial principles. The court's discretion is subject to review by a court of appeal. India Law Library Docid # 2421064
(630) MALLAVVA AND ANOTHER Vs. KALSAMMANAVARA KALAMMA (SINCE DEAD) BY LEGAL HEIRS AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-12-2024 Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 65 — Limitation in Suits for Possession Based on Title — The court clarified that a suit for possession of immovable property based on title is governed by Article 65, which prescribes a limitation period of 12 years — This period begins when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff — This is in contrast to Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which required the plaintiff to prove both title and possession within 12 years of the suit — T India Law Library Docid # 2421065
(631) PRAKASH AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-12-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 306, 34 and 107 — Ingredients of Abetment of Suicide — The court reiterated that Section 306 of the IPC requires two basic ingredients: an act of suicide by one person and the abetment of that act by another person(s) — To sustain a charge under Section 306, it must be proven that the accused person contributed to the suicide through a direct or indirect act — This contribution or involvement must satisfy one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of th India Law Library Docid # 2421066
(632) DIGAMBAR AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-12-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 498A — Vague and Omnibus Allegations — The court reiterated that vague and general allegations of cruelty without specific instances of harassment are not sufficient to sustain charges under Section 498-A of the IPC — The court emphasized the need for specific details of harassment, including time, date, place, and manner of occurrence, to be included in the FIR — A mere omnibus statement of physical and mental cruelty is not enough. India Law Library Docid # 2421067
(633) GIRIYAPPA AND ANOTHER Vs. KAMALAMMA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-12-2024 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 53A — Section 53A is not available to a party who cannot prove the existence of a valid written contract for the transfer of property — The court emphasized that the party claiming such protection must demonstrate all the necessary preconditions, including the existence of a contract, their possession of the property in part performance of that contract, and actions taken in furtherance of that contract — The failure to establish the foundational element India Law Library Docid # 2421087
(634) NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU Vs. KASHIF [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-12-2024 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 37 — Section 37 of the NDPS Act and Bail — The court highlights that in NDPS cases involving offenses punishable with a minimum of ten years, the grant of bail is an exception, not the rule — It notes that Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates specific conditions for granting bail, including that the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit another offense India Law Library Docid # 2421088
(635) HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. LTD. Vs. AWAZ AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-12-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(b), 2(d)), 12(c) and 13(6) — Banking Regulation Act, 1949 — Section 21A and 35A — Interest Rate — Jurisdiction of Consumer Forums — The court established that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) does not have the jurisdiction to interfere with banking operations that are within the exclusive statutory domain of the Reserve Bank of India — The NCDRC cannot fix a maximum ceiling rate of interest for credit card holders in the absen India Law Library Docid # 2421089
(636) M/S BHAGWATI MEDICAL HALL AND ANOTHER Vs. CENTRAL DRUGS STANDARD CONTROL ORGANIZATION AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024 Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Section 26A — “prohibited article” — Only the Central Government has the power to regulate, restrict, or prohibit the manufacture, sale, and distribution of drugs through a notification in the Official Gazette under Section 26A — The High Court and the Respondent authorities erred in treating aromatic tincture of cardamom as a "prohibited article" because no such prohibition existed under the D&C Act, 1940 or any notification issued by the Central Government — The India Law Library Docid # 2421485
(637) RAVI DHINGRA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 138 and 142 — Averment Requirement under Section 138 — For a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act to be maintainable, it must contain a specific averment that the accused was in-charge of and responsible for the company's business conduct regarding the dishonored cheque. India Law Library Docid # 2421007
(638) KARAN TALWAR Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024 Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 25 — Admissibility of Confessional Statement — The confessional statement of a co-accused, upon which the prosecution primarily relies, is inadmissible under Section 25 — This statement cannot be used as evidence against the appellant. India Law Library Docid # 2421008
(639) ASHOK VERMA Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 201 and 498A — Concurrent Conviction — The case involves an appeal against the concurrent conviction of the appellant by the trial court and the High Court for offences under Sections 302, 201, and 498A — The Supreme Court notes that there is little scope for interference in an appeal against such concurrent findings unless there is a vital piece of evidence overlooked, or if the finding is based on inadmissible evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2421009
(640) THE STATE OF ORISSA Vs. PRATIMA BEHERA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 239 — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) — Scope of Section 239, Cr.P.C — The court reiterates that under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., a magistrate is obligated to discharge an accused only when the charge against them is considered to be groundless — At the stage of framing charges, the court is not required to examine the materials in detail or consider the sufficiency of evidence, but rather to assess whether a prima India Law Library Docid # 2421010