Landmark Supreme Court Judgments Of 2023

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO. 1: IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. VS SICGIL INDIA
In order to address violations of the SEBI Act's regulations, the Supreme Court ruled that the Securities and Exchange Board of India could not have parallel jurisdiction with the National Company Law Tribunal under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013. The court found that the NCLT has summary rectification authority under Section 59 of the 2013 Companies Act.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO. 2: VIVEK NARAYAN SHARMA VS UNION OF INDIA

The Central Government can exercise authority over bank notes under Section 26(2) of the RBI Act, even if it was achieved through plenary legislation. This does not allow for excessive delegation and the notification passes the proportionality test. The Reserve Bank of India lacks independent authority to accept demonetized notes after the time frame given in notifications. Justice B.V. Nagarathna argued that the Central Board cannot recommend any series of bank notes, and that demonetization can only be initiated through legislation.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO. 3: PRIYA INDORIA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA

According to the Supreme Court of India, police in India are permitted to pursue an accused person under Section 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. But when someone is taken into custody outside of their jurisdiction, the police have to obtain the accused's transit remand in order to transport them to another location. The purpose of this remand is to move the detained individual to a location where the case can be looked into. The accused's interest must be weighed against the beneficial idea of access to justice, which is a component of Article 21 of the Constitution, as well as a Directive Principle of State Policy, particularly Article 39(A).

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.4: GANESH PAWAR AND ORS VS. UNION OF INDIA

The Supreme Court's ruling regarding the postponement of NEET PG 2023 can be found in Ganesh Pawar and Ors v. Union of India, 2023. The Supreme Court rejected a request from physicians to postpone the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) postgraduate exam, which is scheduled for March 5, 2023, on Monday, February 27, 2023. The petition has been contested because of the arbitrary and unreasonable actions of the National Board of Examination (NBE). The petition clearly states that the petitioners are ready and eager to take the NEET-PG 2023–24 exam. The inadequate management of NBE causes hardship for the candidates. Without consulting the State Medical bodies, NBE announced the examination date; there was insufficient time to prepare given the hectic internship schedules; timely notification of eligibility was not provided; and the current examination schedule will not regularize the examination process because the 2023–24 session cannot be held.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO. 5: SHAILENDER MANI TRIPATHI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

In Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Ors., (2023), the PIL advocating for menstrual leave for women and female students is described. A law student made the argument during the hearing that permitting menstruation leave might deter employers from hiring women. CJI DY Chandrachud responded to this argument by stating that it was true that companies would be reluctant to hire women if they were required to provide menstrual leave. The petitioner may also take their case to the Union Ministry of Women & Child Development, the bench recommended.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.6: DR. JAYA THAKUR VS UNION OF INDIA

In the case of Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, (2023), the government explains why menstrual hygiene is a sensitive topic and why it should receive the proper attention. On April 10, 2023, the Supreme Court of India, sitting in panel with Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardi Wala, ordered the Central government to enact a menstrual hygiene policy that is uniform across the country and to provide free menstrual pads and cups to students.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.7: GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI VS. UNION OF INDIA

This case is significant because it addresses the preservation of legislative and executive authority over the Union Territories. The case focuses in particular on Delhi, the National Capital Territory, and the ongoing irregularity surrounding the delegation of legislative and executive authority to the legislature and the Legislative Assembly.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.8: SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA

The Supreme Court decided that, for the purposes of claiming a family pension under Rule 54(14)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, a son or daughter adopted by the widow of a deceased government employee after the employee's death cannot be considered a member of the family. The court defined "family" as defined by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and concluded that, as a narrow and specific term, it cannot be interpreted to mean all heirs, as allowed by Hindu law or other personal laws. Therefore, the concept of "family" as defined by Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules could not extend to a son or daughter adopted by the widow of a deceased government employee after the employee's death.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO. 9: SAYUNKTA SANGARSH SAMITI VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that private agreements cannot be enforced in Slum Rehabilitation Schemes, as they do not align with the statutory mandate of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). The scheme, implemented under DCR 33(10), regulates the rights of hutment dwellers, grant of building permission for a Slum Rehabilitation Project, rehabilitation and free sale components, construction of temporary transit camps, relaxation in building requirements, development plan reservations, and payments to the SRA. The Supreme court advises against withdrawing allotment letters and making decisions inconsistent with established policies, circulars, rules, and regulations. It also forbids the SRA from acting inconsistently with natural justice, fairness, and equity. The court rejects the appellant society's appeal and upholds the Bombay High Court's order, mandated that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority assign apartments in compliance with the law.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO. 10: X VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

On October 16, the Supreme Court refused to grant a woman's request to end her over 26-week pregnancy due to her mental illness, post-partum psychosis. The highest court went on to say that the state could raise the child after birth.

The married woman filed a petition asking for permission to have her ongoing pregnancy medically terminated. The Supreme Court bench, which was made up of Justice Manoj Misra, Justice JB Pardiwala, and CJI DY Chandrachud, considered the request.

Due to her postpartum depression, incapacity to raise a third child (she already has two), and the fact that her spouse is the only source of income, the same was requested.

The plea was denied by the SC bench because it violated the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act's Sections 3 and 5. It also made clear that no fatal abnormality was found, meaning the bench did not accept the request to end the pregnancy.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.11: SUPRIYO @ SUPRIYA CHAKRABORTY & ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA

The Supreme Court rendered a decision on October 17, 2023, approving same-sex marriage legally. The bench agreed that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Indian Constitution, refused to allow civil unions for non-heterosexual couples, and denied queer couples the opportunity to adopt. A 3:2 majority made the decision, and the Center was directed to form a cabinet committee to investigate the rights that non-heterosexual couples may be granted.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.12: DELHI LG VS AAP GOVERNMEMT

The conflict between the Delhi government and the Centre was settled by a five-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice Iyer's unanimous ruling that the Delhi government has legislative and executive authority over service management, with the exception of issues pertaining to land administration, public order, and law enforcement.

The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023, was introduced by the Modi administration in response to the ruling, and it was successfully approved by both Houses. The bill that overturned the ruling of the highest court was approved by the President of India.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.12: SHIV SENA VS SHIV SENA AND MAHARASHTRA POLITICS

When party leader Eknath Shinde and more than 35 MLAs rebelled against then-CM Uddhav Thackeray and set up camp in Guwahati, the Maharashtra Governor's decision to subject him to a floor test in the wake of the crisis in his party was deemed "unjustified" by a five-judge Supreme Court bench. The court further distinguished between a political party's and a legislative party's powers, ruling that a political party alone has the authority to designate the Whip and the Leader of the party in the House.

LANDMARK JUDEGMENT NO.13: RAZIA KHAN VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

In 1992, activist social worker Rajia Khan was assaulted by a police officer at the Directorate of Women and Child Development's office in Bhopal. The court sentenced her to one year in jail for assault and trespass and two years for inflicting great bodily harm. However, she appealed to the high court, which reduced her sentence to six months. The court deemed the circumstances to be lenient, reducing her sentence to simple imprisonment for one month. The court argued that a 10-year jail sentence would be an ultimatum for assaulting a public servant.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.14: WAZIR KHAN VS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

The requirements for using Section 106 of the Evidence Act were made clear by the Supreme Court, which permits the prosecution to transfer the burden of proof to the accused in situations where the accused is aware of specific unique facts.

The evidence act's Section 106, which addresses the burden of proof, is the key legal clause in the ruling.

The prosecution can take advantage of the presumption in the absence of direct evidence if the accused fails to offer a plausible explanation in situations where the accused's presence at the scene is established and their defence is fabricated. This effectively helps to establish the accused's guilt.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.15: SHIV KUMAR SHARMA VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

The appellant's plea was dismissed by the High Court erroneously, and the court neglected to thoroughly review the supporting evidence. Section 173 of the CrPC was broken when the High Court ordered the investigating officer to assist the appellant in clarifying the evidence gathered against them during the investigation prior to the submission of the conclusive report. The High Court's contested decision was overturned by the Supreme Court.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.16: STATE OF HP VS SHEELA DEVI

According to the Learned Advocate General's accurate interpretation, contractual employees are not covered by pension laws under Rule 2(g). But the rule itself says, "Save as otherwise provided in these rules," which spares the application of other provisions. Because Rule 17 is engrafted to allow for future contract regularization and only takes into account prior service as a contractual employee for pension purposes, this interpretation makes Rule 17 unnecessary. Because such terms were in effect for the duration of the employee's contract, this Court is not persuaded by the submission regarding the other grounds regarding the voluntariness when the employee joins into contractual services. But after regularization, that person's job was eliminated. The court orders the state to notify workers of option exercising within eight weeks of 2003 or later, regardless of engagement dates, but finds no merit in the appeal. When an employee exercises their options, they must be processed within eight weeks and informed of the necessary contribution amounts. There should be clear payment deadlines and a four-month completion window for the entire process. The notice governs how all pension orders and appeals are handled.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.17: STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS GOEL BUS SERVICE KULLU

The Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1972's Section 3A(3), which permits the imposition of an extra special road charge, was upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutionally permissible. The Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision was overturned by a three-judge panel of the Apex Court, which noted that the tax levied under Section 3A(3) is more of a regulatory tool than a fine. The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka, and Vikram Nath stated that the purpose of this additional special road tax was to keep a check on or punish transport vehicle operators for operating their vehicles in accordance with the law.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.18: JASWANT SINGH & ORS. VS STATE OF CHATTISGARH & ANR.
The Presiding Judge, as instructed by the Supreme Court in the Laxman Naskar v. Union of India case, must provide justification for the factors to be taken into account when expressing an opinion on granting remission under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C., according to the ruling of the Supreme Court Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.19: GUDDAN @ ROOP VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN

The Supreme Court upheld the long-standing principle that bail is the norm and jail is the exception in this ruling. The Court decided that reasonable discretion under the Code of Criminal Procedure should be used by the Sessions Court and the High Court.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.20: THE STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU VS T. GANGI REDDY @ YERRA GANGI REDDY

The Honourable Supreme Court (henceforth referred to as "the Court") found that there was no obstacle to the cancellation of default bail on the grounds of merits once the charge sheet was presented. In relation to the murder of YS Vivekananda Reddy, the CBI filed an appeal to revoke Erra Gangi Reddy's bail, and the Telangana High Court was given the task of evaluating the merits of this motion.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.21: THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER VS RATTANINDIA POWER LTD.

The parties cannot contest the amount of consideration specified in a contract if they sign it and agree to abide by its terms, according to the Hon'ble Supreme Court (henceforth referred to as the "Supreme Court" or "the Court"). S. Ravindra Bhat and PS. Narasimha, two Supreme Court justices, were asked to rule in this Civil Appeal on whether a party to a contract has the right to dispute the payment amount after the contract is signed.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.22: M/S ALPINE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PVT. LTD. V. ASHOK S. DHARIWAL AND OTHERS

In the current case, the Apex Court ruled that the party challenging the award on the grounds outlined in section 34(2)(a) may submit an affidavit as evidence 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). The Court did, however, add that it will not be allowed "unless required."

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.23: THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS V DR. MAHINDRA BHASKAR LIMAYE & ORS.

The Bombay High Court has upheld the unconstitutionality of the Central Government's regulations under section 101 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019. The court accepted the decision, removing the requirement for a written exam and establishing a minimum professional experience of 15 years for District forums and 20 years for State consumer commission members. The Supreme Court mandates qualified individuals with a Bachelor's degree and ten years of experience for appointment to State and District Commissions and presidents.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.24: ELUMALAI @ VENKATESAN & ANR. V. M. KAMALA AND ORS. & ETC.

The property in question is the separate property of Sengalani Chettiar, who had two marriages and was married twice. Shri Chandran, who predeceased his father in 1978, was born from his first marriage. The Release Deed was executed to secure the interest of the son from the second marriage. However, the transfer of the property by an heir apparent was ineffective as the father of the appellants did not have any right to transfer or relinquish. The principle of estoppel prevented the father and his children from asserting any claim to the property. The court dismissed the appeals, stating that the father had received valuable consideration from another party and allowed them to proceed without fear of any claim.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.25: SURESH LATARUJI RAMTEKE V. SAU SUMANBAI PANDURANG PETKAR & ORS

The appellant argued that the High Court's second appeal on a property dispute was improperly framed without giving parties enough time to respond. The Supreme Court ruled that important legal issues should be raised at the time of admission and parties should have enough time to respond. The case was returned to the High Court for review, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the sequential procedure in second appeals and ensuring procedural fairness.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.26: MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS. V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 

The case in question involved more of the petitioner's subjective claims and less in-depth legal analysis. The Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2003 case established that certain Act provisions could only be contested on the grounds of their constitutional validity if they satisfied certain requirements. The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating infringement of fundamental rights, which they sadly failed to fulfill. The Court declared that there was no violation of constitutional principles and dismissed the Writ petition without issuing a cost order. 

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.27: YUSUF ASIF VS STATE

The Court noted that the relevant authorities had disregarded the NDPS's requirements regarding the seizure and sampling procedures. Since the samples were not taken in front of a magistrate, the confiscated contraband was not admissible as proof. The appellant's conviction was overturned because the relevant authorities neglected to present supporting documentation.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.28: M/S TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED REP V. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P.

The Supreme court decided that there would be no need for intervention with the contested decisions, so the appeals are denied. When the Department's Special Investigation Branch examined the appellant's business location, it became apparent that "tinted glass sheet" was produced using an alternative method. There is no doubt about the notification dated September 7, 1981, and entry No. 4. It covers "all goods and wares made of glass" that are taxable, but it does not cover "plain glass panes." The exemption must be strictly interpreted because the statute itself created it, and any ambiguity in the exemption clause must be interpreted in the revenue's favor. The Supreme Court of India has provided clarification on the tax laws that apply to glass products.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.29: INITIATIVES FOR INCLUSION FOUNDATION & ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The court instructed State/UT governments to provide a comprehensive report to the Union government on compliance with the Sexual Harassment Act. Within four weeks, a district officer will be appointed in each district, and training for District Officers and Local Authorities (LCs) on sexual harassment and gendered workplace interactions is mandatory. The Act also requires financial resources for educational materials and training programs.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.30: UCO BANK AND ORS. V. M.B. MOTWANI (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.

The court ruled that the 1979 Regulations could only be applied when disciplinary action began before an employee's service ended. The departmental proceeding must have started, and the appellant-Bank must pay all service benefits and interest to the employee's heirs within three months of the punishment order's annulment.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.31: UNION OF INDIA VS UZAIR IMRAN & ORS.

The judge ordered the appellant to appoint a third respondent to a post of postal assistant on probation within a month, create a supernumerary post if no open positions are available, confirm the respondent after completing the probationary period, and exempt respondents from these instructions.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.32: BICHITRANANDA BEHERA VS STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

The Court emphasized the importance of delay and laches in service-related disputes, stating that lack of formal complaint or objection from parties does not guarantee legitimacy of claims. The Court found the evidence credible and ruled in the appellant's favor, allowing him to continue serving as a school employee with benefits starting on May 14, 1994. The Court ordered the State of Odisha to pay a lump sum of INR 3 lakhs and not recoup any prior payments.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.33: STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS GAUTAM S/O MOHANLAL

The court decided that the accused would receive a rigorous fourteen-year prison sentence for the offenses specified in clauses (i) and (m) of subsection (2) of Section 376 of the IPC. The accused will not be eligible for remission of the additional sentence while they serve it.   It won't affect the pardon that was previously granted. The Trial Court's order was upheld with regard to the sentence that will be served in the event that a fine is not paid. If the accused has already paid the fine mandated by the Trial Court's decision, the remaining amount must be given to the victim as compensation, with the State keeping Rs. 5,000/­.

The court ordered the secretary of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority to immediately compensate the victim in accordance with her rights under the applicable victim compensation system, if she hasn't already done so.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.34: YUVRAJ VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

The petitioner contended that multiple High Court rulings on the same issue currently exist, and the Court acknowledged this point. While five High Courts had determined that the provisions of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be enforced in situations where a juvenile was in legal trouble, four other High Courts had come to a different decision, the petitioner informed the court.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.35: THYSSEN KRUPP INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. V. SURESH MARUTI CHOUGULE & ORS.

The court ruled that its position in the Paradip Port Trust case was appropriate. It was emphasized that the employer and employees, who are the primary parties in an industrial dispute as per the aforementioned judgment, should be the ones examining the case rather than the attorney. The legal doctrine has been in effect for almost fifty years, and the court did not see any reason to reevaluate it.

If a lawyer is appointed as an officer, receives compensation from the company or corporation, is under its control, and is not a practicing advocate, then neither his prior legal practice nor his law degree will bar him from representing a company or corporation. Once more, a trade union official or executive member may address the tribunal on behalf of the workers even if he practices law. In the two cases mentioned above, the lawyer will represent the workers as an office-bearer of the union in the case of the workers, and as an officer of the association in the case of the employer.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.36: Aditya Khaitan & Ors. V. IL and FS Financial Services Limited

Despite the fact that the summons was issued on July 2, 2020, the 30-day and 120-day windows ended on March 8 and June 6, 2020, respectively, the court found. A request for an extension of time and to record written remarks was made on January 20, 2021. When considering the orders dated 08.03.2021 and the orders placed 18 days later, as well as excluding the time period mentioned therein, the applications submitted by the applicants on January 19, 2021, are well within the allotted time. The High Court's ruling should be reversed for few reasons.

The fundamental legal precept that "Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt"—that is, the law supports vigilantes rather than those who ignore their rights—lays the foundation for statute of limitations. The Limitation Act, 1963 is an Indian statute that specifies the statute of limitations for filing lawsuits, appeals, and applications in India. The statute establishes the deadline for bringing a lawsuit in order to guarantee that disagreements are settled amicably and that the victim of abuse receives justice.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.37: SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS

The Madhya Pradesh Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Municipal Council of Madhya Pradesh, stating that the right to impose terminal taxes on goods and animals exported from specific municipal limits was constitutionally valid. The court found that the appellant failed to present any notification stating that municipal laws should not apply to Scheduled Areas or with exceptions and modifications. The court also found that the Municipality's right to levy the tax within its borders was supported by constitutional provisions and legislative competence. The appeals were denied, and the Municipal Council's imposition of the terminal tax within Scheduled Areas was deemed constitutionally valid.

The Supreme Court of India upheld the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Council's constitutional validity of terminal taxes within Scheduled Areas, citing the Governor's failure to provide any modifications or exceptions. The court denied appeals, confirming the council's right to impose the tax.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.38:PANKAJ BANSAL VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The court accepted appeals, quashing remand orders and revocation of contested orders. The decision emphasizes the value of liberty and due process, ordering immediate release of appellants unless they are legally required in connection with another case. The court did not order costs against either party, indicating that it did not believe either party was solely responsible for the predicament or the appeal. The ruling places a higher priority on safeguarding fundamental rights.

The court emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law, safeguarding fundamental rights, and ensuring due process. It vacated orders and ordered the appellants' immediate release, reaffirming the judiciary's commitment to justice and fairness. The decision reflects the court's recognition of shortcomings in authorities' actions.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.39: M/S PAUL RUBBER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED v AMIT CHAND MITRA & ANR

The case revolved around an unregistered lease agreement in India, which the appellant argued should be considered for determining the lease's purpose. The High Court ruled against the appellant, emphasizing the importance of registration in real estate transactions. The Supreme Court, considering earlier rulings, concluded that an unregistered document could be used for collateral but not for ascertaining the lease's primary purpose. The appeal was denied, and no costs were assessed.

The Supreme Court's ruling underscores the importance of following Indian law's registration requirements in real estate transactions, defining when unregistered documents can be used for collateral purposes and ensuring proper application of registration laws.

LANDMARK JUDEMENT NO.40: KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE AND ANR

The appellant was granted immunity from prosecution and penalty under Section 245H (1) of the Income Tax Act due to adherence to RBI guidelines for lease income accounting. The Settlement Commission acknowledged this as the primary cause of nondisclosure, calling for a special standard of disclosure. The Commission used its discretionary powers wisely, allowing immunity to be revoked under certain circumstances. The order ultimately nullified the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer for failure to disclose lease rental income. The analysis supported the Commission's order, leading to the restoration of the Commission's order and appeal approval.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.41: RAJESH & ANR. VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

The court concluded that both the Trial Court and the High Court were willing to accept the prosecution's case at face value despite its many weaknesses and gaps, and that they even went so far as to sentence Rajesh and Raja Yadav to death and uphold that sentence. No plausible explanation was provided for why this was the "rarest of rare cases" and warranted such a harsh penalty. Rather, we think that the appellants should be cleared and given the benefit of the doubt due to the case's obvious flaws and gaps in the chain of circumstantial evidence. Evidently, the evidence is insufficient to convict them beyond a reasonable doubt based only on circumstantial evidence.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.42: MEENA PRADHAN & ORS. VS KAMLA PRADHAN & ANR.

The court has confirmed the legality of Bahadur Pradhan's Will, citing its compliance with the Indian Succession Act, 1925's Section 63 requirements, and the absence of suspicious circumstances during its execution. Suraj Bahadur Limboo's testimony, which confirmed the will's proper execution, was crucial to the decision. The verdict upheld the rule that a will is presumed valid if it complies with legal requirements and is not subject to suspicious circumstances. The judgement ensures that Bahadur Pradhan's estate will be divided according to his wishes, providing legal closure for the distribution of assets and property. This decision ensures an equitable distribution of the testator's estate among the beneficiaries.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.43: JOSEPH VS THE STATE OF KERELA & ORS.

The court ruled that a life sentence is equivalent to 20 years in prison, making the petitioner eligible for early release. The petitioner has served over 26 years in prison and 35 years with remission, and his remission has been over 8 years. The court believes it would be reasonable to order the petitioner's immediate release in the interests of justice, as he has demonstrated good behaviour and is described as diligent, disciplined, and reformer inmates. The writ petition is granted accordingly.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.44: NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION INDIA LTD. & ORS.

The main issue in this case concerned determining when the statute of limitations began for filing a written statement in a lawsuit before the Delhi High Court's Commercial Division. The primary dispute pertained to the proper protocol and timeframe for delivering a copy of the plaintiff's claim along with the summons. According to the petitioner, the summons could not be properly served unless it was served with a copy of the plaint, as stipulated by Order V Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They contended that incomplete service had an effect on the factor that determined the length of the limitation period.

The court agreed with the petitioner's legal interpretation of Order V Rule 2 and the need to serve the summons with a copy of the plaint. The petitioner's claim of incomplete service had been dismissed by the High Court earlier, the court noted, and this matter was considered a matter of fact. Ultimately, the petitioner's case was dismissed by the court, which maintained the High Court's decision. The verdict underscored the importance of correctly serving the summons and a copy of the plaint, adhering to all relevant legal requirements.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.45: PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10 v. M/S KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD.

The court ruled that a multi-State Co-operative Society in Oman, which had been regarded as a Permanent Establishment (PE) for tax purposes, should still be considered a PE. The court also ruled that the Sultanate of Oman's Secretary General for Taxation's letter dated December 11, 2000, was not used to support a tax exemption claim, but rather served as a clarificatory communication that interpreted existing Omani Tax Laws. The court found that the society was entitled to the same tax treatment in India as in Oman under Article 25 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.46: JAVED SHAUKAT ALI QURESHI v. STATE OF GUJRAT

The primary matter under consideration in this case concerned the identification of the appellant, accused no. 6, who was charged in relation to a chain-snatching incident. PW-2 The primary witness in the case was Gitaben, the lone eyewitness who identified the appellant as the perpetrator. But there were doubts about this identification's validity. Gitaben's identification was questioned for accuracy because it took place in court, many months after the incident. Gitaben's testimony was called into question for several reasons. First of all, it was less certain that she was who she claimed to be because she had never before met the appellant. Second, there was a large crowd and chaos surrounding the incident, making it challenging to identify the offender. The lack of a test identification parade further undermined the case. In light of these circumstances, the court had to carefully assess if Gitaben's testimony was reliable and provided sufficient evidence to find the appellant guilty.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.47: VASANT NATURE CURE HOSPITAL & PRATIBHA MATERNITY HOSPITAL TRUST & ORS. V. UKAJI RAMAJI-SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS & ANR.

Even though the court had not expressly given permission to file an application seeking review of the judgment and decree after a period of more than three years, the court found that it was obvious that the respondents had selected the MCA in the Second Appeal, seeking review of the said judgment. It further held that the High Court granted the aforementioned application, referred to as MCA of 2019, in a very casual manner and without providing any explanation at all. It is unacceptable for any litigant to act in such a lethargic and indifferent way, much less to attempt to take advantage of the legal system as respondents have done. The High Court committed a grave error when it accepted these vexatious applications without considering them. The challenged ruling is overturned to the extent that it allowed MCA, but the respondents are still required to reimburse the High Court for Rs. 15,000 in costs.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.48: RATHISH BABU UNNIKRISHNAN VS STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

The court ruled that there can be grave and irreversible consequences if the criminal procedure is abandoned during the pretrial stage. Preliminary procedures that are quashed will become final before the parties have a chance to present evidence, which means that the trial court—the appropriate venue—is not permitted to consider the pertinent evidence. The accused may gain an unfair advantage in the legal system if this is allowed. Due to the legal presumption and the fact that, should the appellant choose not to contest the check and the signature, the accused will have an opportunity to present defense evidence during the trial to refute the presumption, the complainant currently has the advantage of convenience. The High Court properly denied the accused relief in the quashing case, the Supreme Court ruled, and the contested judgment was rendered in accordance with the law. In order to refute the legal presumption against him, the appellant must also be granted a fair opportunity to present his evidence in an open courtroom before an unbiased judge who can assess the evidence objectively and ascertain the truth of the case.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.49: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT 1881

The Court held in Meters and Instruments that the Magistrate has the implied authority under Section 143 of the Act to release the accused if the complainant receives just compensation that satisfies the court. In addition, under Section 143, the Trial Court is empowered by Section 258 of the Code to make appropriate orders. The Trial Court lacks the authority to review or recall process orders, hence the decisions made by the Court in Adalat Prasad and Subramanium Sethuraman do not merit reconsideration. Although an amendment allowing the Trial Court to reevaluate summonses could be taken into consideration, the Court used Section 258 to shorten the time it took to handle complaints. High Courts are asked to resolve disagreements before judgment appeals by identifying outstanding revisions from Section 138 complaints and referring them to mediation.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT NO.50: BESCO LIMITED VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

The plan on file shows the location and closeness to development in and around the acquired site. The subject lands are acquired under a single notification. Determining the area for valuation would therefore be incorrect. There is potential for industrial use in the area, which is already developed with neighboring industries. Because the CLU certificate guarantees that the land is not used for agriculture, the exemplar value can be reduced by a standard 1/3. The appeals call for the proper application of precedents and exemplars using the same method and mode, but they do not establish a compensation principle for subject acquisition.

Although the High Court correctly disapproved of the Reference Court's methodology, it neglected to account for a deduction, and Ex-P-2 and P-4/3 are inappropriate examples for determining market value