Supreme Court : Ten (10) Important Decisions of May 2024 : Part 1
In Bar of Indian Lawyers v. DK Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases [2024] GCtR 1344 (SC), it has been held that services provided by Advocates are not covered under Consumer Protection Act, 2019. "Services hired or availed of an Advocate would be that of a contract ‘of personal service’ and would therefore stand excluded from the definition of “service” contained in the section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As a necessary corollary, a complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising Legal Profession would not be maintainable under the CP Act, 2019."
In the case of Child in Conflict with Law v. State of Karnataka [2024] GCtR 1352 (SC), it has been held that the provision of Section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, providing for the period of 3 months for completion of a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act, is not mandatory. The same is held to be directory.
In Bhikchand v. Shamabai Dhanaraj Gugale [2024] GCtR 1350 (SC) it was reiterated that "if at a court auction sale in execution of a decree, the properties are purchased by a bona fide purchaser who is a stranger to the court proceedings, the sale in his favour is protected and he cannot be asked to restitute the property to the judgment debtor if the decree is set aside. The policy which prompts the extension of protection to the strangers who purchase at court auctions is based on a need to ensure that proper price is fetched at a court auction. The special protection afforded to a stranger who purchases at an execution sale is not extended to an assignee of the decree-holder auction purchaser. Persons who purchase at a court auction who are strangers to the decree are afforded protection by the court because they are not in any way connected with the decree. The reasons which prompt the courts to protect strangers who purchase at court auction sales also do not apply to assignees or purchasers from a decree-holder auction purchaser." It was also explained that "the execution of a decree by sale of the entire immovable property of the judgment debtor is not to penalise him but the same is provided to grant relief to the decree holder and to confer him the fruits of litigation."
In M/s Embio Ltd v. DGFT [2024] GCtR 1336 (SC) it was held that Section 11 (2) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 is a penal provision. It must be strictly construed.
In Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen [2024] GCtR 1335 (SC) issue arose was what is the implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate as provided under Section 102(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? [page 2, para 2] or does delayed reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate vitiate the seizure order altogether? [page 2, para 2]. It has been concluded that the "line of precedents which have taken the position that ‘seizure orders’ are vitiated for delay in compliance with the reporting obligation are declared to be manifestly erroneous and are accordingly, overruled." [page 12, para 17]
In Tapas Guha v. Union of India [2024] GCtR 1329 (SC) it was held that "while acknowledging the importance of infrastructure development, it is paramount that such projects proceed in harmony with environmental laws to prevent irreparable damage to ecosystems and biodiversity. The requirement for Environmental Clearance serves as a crucial safeguard against unchecked exploitation of natural resources and helps uphold the principles of sustainable development- which safeguards the interests of both present and future generations."
In Amanatullah Khan v. Commissioner of Police [2024] GCtR 1284 (SC) on the issue of Minor Relatives and Inclusion in History Sheet, it has been commented while dealing with Standing Order No.L&O/54/2022 issued by Delhi Police Commissioner that "amended Standing Order that in the column “relations and connections”, it has been decided that identities of only those persons shall be reflected who can afford the history sheeter/bad character shelter, when the offender is running/wanted by the police and it shall also include names of his associates in crime, abettors and receivers. The amended Standing Order emphatically says that no details of any minor relatives, i.e., son, daughter, siblings shall be recorded anywhere in the History Sheet unless there is evidence that such minor, has or earlier had, afforded shelter to the offender." Ultimately, the criminal appeal filed by Amanatuallah Khan was disposed of modifying the decision of Hon'ble Delhi HC.
In the case of Chander Bhan v. Mukhtiar Singh [2024] GCtR 1273 (SC) while dealing with issue of Lis Pendens and equity, it was held that "the object underlying the doctrine of lis pendens is for maintaining status quo that cannot be affected by an act of any party in a pending litigation. The objective is also to prevent multiple proceedings by parties in different forums. The principle is based on equity and good conscience." There can be no doubt that even if Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not applicable in its strict sense in certain cases, then too the principles of lis-pendens, which are based on justice, equity and good conscience, would certainly be applicable.
In the case of Shankar v. State of UP [2024] GCtR 1267 (SC) on the issue of S.319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 it was explained that "the degree of satisfaction required to exercise power under Section 319 is well settled. The evidence before the trial court should be such that if it goes unrebutted, then it should result in the conviction of the person who is sought to be summoned. The degree of satisfaction that is required to exercise power under Section 319 is much stricter, considering that it is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. Only when the evidence is strong and reliable, can the power be exercised. It requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity."
In the case of Sharif Ahmed v. State of UP [2024] GCtR 1232 (SC), the important issue of non bailable warrants and completion of chargesheet was clarified. It was held that while there are no comprehensive set of guidelines for the issuance of nonbailable warrants, it can be observed that non bailable warrants should not be issued, unless the accused is charged with a heinous crime, and is likely to evade the process of law or tamper/destroy evidence. The chargesheet is complete when it refers to material and evidence sufficient to take cognizance and for the trial. The nature and standard of evidence to be elucidated in a chargesheet should prima facie show that an offence is established if the material and evidence is proven. The chargesheet is complete where a case is not exclusively dependent on further evidence.
You can download full text (PDF) Copies of all these judgments free of cost from Linkedin Page of GCtR Legal Updates.
Written by
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.