LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


The Supreme Court and different High Courts have issued several significant decisions in the last year. In January this year, decisions dealing with demonetization, guidelines discriminating between married and unmarried daughters in violation of Article 14, and cancellation of default bail based on the merits of the filed chargesheet were issued. This article explains the landmark January 2023 judgments.

Jammu Municipal Corporation th. Joint Commissioner (A) Municipal Corporation, Town Hall Jammu vs Mohd. Nadeem and anr.

After taking serious notice of the growing encroachment on public roads and streets in Jammu and Kashmir, the High Court directed the J&K Government and the Jammu Municipal Corporation to ensure that no structure of any kind is allowed or permitted to be raised on a public road, street, pathway, or lane.

If such a structure was built or renovated during the last five years, it must be immediately dismantled, and the Deputy Commissioners and Superintendents of Police in that region must be held liable for any new encroachments.

To comply, the court ordered that the Deputy Commissioners of the Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh, as well as all Senior Superintendents of Police involved, receive copies of the judgment. It went on to say that any infringement or disobedience by its directors would be viewed as an intentional and purposeful attempt to undermine this Court's authority, and would constitute criminal contempt.

Gulshan Nazir Vs. Union of India & Ors.

According to the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, the passport officer cannot "serve as a mouthpiece" for the CID. The court also chastised the government for denying PDP leader Mehbooba Mufti's mother a passport. Justice M. A. Chowdhary stated at the hearing of Mehbooba Mufti's mother, Gulshan Nazir's appeal, that there appears to be no basis to deny her request for the issuance or renewal of a passport.

Vivek Narayan Sharma vs Union of India

Six years ago, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench backed the Union Government's move to demonetize currency notes in denominations of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 by a 4:1 majority.

The majority found that the Centre's November 8, 2016, announcement is lawful and fulfills the proportionality requirement. Justice BV Nagarathna remarked in her dissenting opinion that unless the fortune was well-intentioned and well-thought-out, it must be considered unconstitutional on legal grounds (and not based on objects).

Rajesh Pawaiya vs State of Madhya Pradesh

In this case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while granting the writ petition, stated that the respondents must produce a charge sheet before the suspension period can be extended. Furthermore, the respondents must decide on the petitioner's representation within a reasonable time frame.

Priyanka R Patil Vs Kendriya Sainik Board

In this case, the High Court decided whether or not the state's standards distinguishing between married and unmarried daughters violated Article 14.

The Court ruled that because marriage did not modify the son's status under the programme, it might influence the daughter's status as well. As a result, the Court ruled that the rules were discriminatory and consequently violated Articles 14, 15, and 16. The Court further stated that the government should modify the term 'ex-servicemen' to 'ex-service personnel'.

IFB Agro Industries Ltd. vs SICGIL India

According to the Supreme Court, the Securities and Exchange Board of India cannot exercise parallel jurisdiction with the National Company Law Tribunal under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013, to resolve violations of the SEBI Act's Regulations.

The NCLT's rectification authority under Section 59 of the 2013 Companies Act, according to the court, is of a summary character.

Late Shri R.M. Sojatia Foundation Trust Vs. Anand Sojatia

In this case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that the petitioner must be given a reasonable time to respond to the show cause notice that was issued on him. The respondents cannot take coercive action against the accused unless he is given adequate time to prepare his response.

The Court accordingly asked the respondents to submit the appropriate papers to the petitioners and to give the petitioners a fair time to respond. The Court gave the petitioners 10 days to file their response. Furthermore, the respondents were forbidden from taking any coercive action during this time.

B. Venkateswaran & Ors. vs. P.Bakthavatchalam.

The Court is currently hearing a case involving Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which was initiated by the private respondent. The petitioners were charged with crimes under Sections 3 (1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Parties must not present their personal quarrel in court as a phoney case. This will cause a commotion in the legal world, wasting the time of both the judge and the parties contracting the litigation.

M/s. Diamond Entertainment Technologies Limited v. Religare Finvest Limited Through Its Authorized Officer.

The Court is currently hearing a case in which the appellant filed a petition in the wrong jurisdiction. According to Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, a review petition cannot be filed if an award has already been made.

Mst Haleema & Ors Vs Mst Dilshada & Ors.

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court have ruled that when a husband gives a gift to his wife, he does not need to leave the matrimonial home they share or any other property to carry out the present.

Justice Sanjay Dhar made the statements while deciding on a case in which the appellant had challenged an oral gift made by the dead Mohammad Ashraf Dar to his wife (Defendant No. 1) because she had not been given sole control of the property as required under Muslim personal law.

Apollo Tyres Limited Vs Pioneer Trading Corporation & Ors 

The Delhi High Court ruled in a case involving alleged tyre tread pattern duplication that registering a tread pattern that is almost identical to the suit pattern as a design would not preclude it from being considered a "trademark" under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. "At worst, the case would be one of the trials to decide whether the tread pattern recognized as a design was identical or nearly comparable to the suit pattern," the attorney general argues.

Pawan Kumar And Ors

The Delhi High Court ruled that under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, all members of the Central Armed Police Forces should be eligible for the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) benefit, and directed the Center to furnish the necessary instructions within eight weeks. The division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna stated in its ruling on a group of 82 petitions asking for the revocation of orders depriving CRPF, BSF, CISF, and ITBP personnel of the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme that both the notification dated 22.12.2003 and the OM dated 17.02.2020 "shall be applicable in rem."

State of Himachal Pradesh vs Goel Bus Service Kullu

The Supreme Court confirmed Section 3A(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1972, which provides for the levy of an additional special road charge, as constitutionally acceptable.

The three-judge Apex Court panel reversed the verdict of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, noting that the tax imposed under Section 3A(3) is more of a regulatory instrument than a fine. The implementation of this additional special road tax, according to the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka, and Vikram Nath, was done simply to keep a check or to discipline transport vehicle operators to operate their vehicles under the law.

Jaswant Singh & Ors. v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

The Supreme Court Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi held that when giving an opinion on granting remission under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C., the Presiding Judge must give reasons for the factors to be considered, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India.

Emta Coal Limited & Ors. V. The Deputy Director Of Enforcement

In the current case, the Delhi High Court restated the Apex Court's position that the existence of a charge under a listed offense is a requirement for beginning or continuing proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It was determined that an attachment under Section 5 of the PMLA Act cannot survive the acquittal of the individual charged with the planned offense.

Guddan @ Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan

In this decision, the Supreme Court reiterated the well-established notion that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The Court ruled that the High Court and Sessions Court should exercise their discretion under the Code of Criminal Procedure in a reasonable manner.

Mr. Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala 

In the current case, the Kerala High Court ruled that the embargo in Dheeraj Mor's case applies only to the selection of persons appointed as Judicial Officers as District and Sessions Judges in the quota set out for direct appointment from the Bar.

The State through Central Bureau vs T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy

The Hon'ble Supreme Court (hereafter referred to as "the Court") determined that when the charge sheet was provided, there was no impediment canceling default bail on merits. The Telangana High Court was directed to determine the merits of the CBI's appeal to revoke Erra Gangi Reddy's bail in connection with the murder of YS Vivekananda Reddy.

The Chief Engineer, Water vs RattanIndia Power Ltd. 

The Hon'ble Supreme Court (hereafter referred to as the 'Supreme Court' or 'the Court') stated that if the parties sign a contract and provide an undertaking by its terms, they cannot question the amount of consideration established in the contract. In this Civil Appeal, Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and PS. Narasimha of the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a party to a contract has the right to contest the amount of payment after the contract has been signed.

M/s Alpine Housing Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. V. Ashok S. Dhariwal and Others

In the present case, the Apex Court held that if an exceptional case is made out and it is brought to the court's attention that certain things are relevant for determining the issues arising under section 34(2)(a), then the party who has assailed the award on the grounds set out in section 34(2)(a) can be permitted to file an affidavit in the form of evidence. However, the Court also stated that it will not be permitted "unless required."

Jabir & Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand.

In this case, the appellants were charged with the murder of a woman and her son. They were found guilty of the accusations and sentenced to life in jail as well as seven years in prison under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and five years in prison under Section 201 of the same code. The Uttarakhand High Court upheld the conviction and sentence.

Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Jain.

In this case, the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is appealing the High Court of Delhi's judgment and order, which allowed the private respondents' writ petition and declared the acquisition of the land in question to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Government feels that the High Court's decision is incorrect and is requesting that it be reversed.

Baharul Islam & Ors. V. The Indian Medical Association & Ors.

The Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, of 2004, was struck down by the Supreme Court because the state legislature lacked the authority to legislate on the subject. After all, it is solely within the purview of parliament's legislative jurisdiction.

Girish Kumar v. Rajni K.V.

The Kerala High Court decided that unless she suffers from any physical or mental defect, a major unmarried daughter of a Hindu is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. However, the Court remarked that another remedy is available for the same under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

"Loved reading this piece by sahithi reddy?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

Category Others, Other Articles by - sahithi reddy 


Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query