Facts of the case: Rakesh Kumar Verma's Case: His appointment was as an Executive in HDFC Bank located in Patna —Rakesh Kumar Verma. His letter of appointment contained a stipulation that any disputes would be subject to “Bombay Courts have exclusive jurisdiction”. He filed a suit in Patna after his termination. HDFC bank appealed the case to the Patna High Court,which later ruled in favour of HDFC Bank stating that Bombay Courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Deepti Bhatia's Case: Deepti Bhatia, who worked at HDFC Bank’s branch in Delhi, had such an exclusive jurisdiction clause in her employment contract as well. She filed a suit in Delhi after her termination. The case was allowed to proceed in Delhi by the Delhi High Court, in her favor. Court’s Decision: Rakesh Kumar Verma's Appeal: The Court rejected his appeal, upholding the Patna High Court’s decision that Mumbai courts had exclusive jurisdiction. However, the Court modified the procedural relief by providing that the plaint should be returned and presentation in Mumbai instead of rejecting the plaint. Appeal Of HDFC Bank Versus Deepti Bhatia: Daily Gazette It allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court and ordered return of the plaint for presentation in Mumbai.
Supreme Court Decision: a. Unconstitutionality of Hereditary Appointments: The Court upheld the High Court’s ruling, affirming that public employment cannot be based on heredity. The 2014 Rules were found to violate Articles 14 and 16 by granting a monopoly to the descendants of chaukidars, denying others equal opportunity. b. Judicial Authority to Strike Down Subordinate Legislation: The Court clarified that constitutional courts have the inherent power to strike down subordinate legislation that is manifestly unconstitutional, even if it is not directly challenged. c. Fair Recruitment Process: The Court stressed that public employment must follow transparent processes, including advertisements, merit-based selection, and legal reservations. It criticized Bihar’s attempt to revive outdated practices, emphasizing constitutional principles over tradition.
The Supreme Court dismissed appeals in cases where there were no Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) or proclamation proceedings, and where anticipatory bail had been granted by the Special Court and upheld by the High Court. In all other cases, the Court ruled that the High Courts had erred in granting anticipatory bail, emphasizing that the accused's deliberate evasion of the law undermines the administration of justice. The Court upheld the actions of the Special Court as justified.
The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, reversed the High Court's decision, and upheld the Trial Court's acquittal. The Court directed the immediate release of the accused, unless they were required in any other case.
The Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court’s remand order in a suit involving a 1965 maintenance decree and a 1970 auction of joint Hindu family property. Legal heirs of Dasappa Gowdar challenged the decree in 1982, 17 years later. Both the trial and first appellate courts held the suit time-barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The High Court remanded the case for not framing a specific limitation issue. The Supreme Court ruled this was improper, as evidence on limitation was fully considered. It upheld the dismissal, stressing finality in property rights and the limited scope of second appeals.
The Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court’s remand order in a suit involving a 1965 maintenance decree and a 1970 auction of joint Hindu family property. Legal heirs of Dasappa Gowdar challenged the decree in 1982, 17 years later. Both the trial and first appellate courts held the suit time-barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The High Court remanded the case for not framing a specific limitation issue. The Supreme Court ruled this was improper, as evidence on limitation was fully considered. It upheld the dismissal, stressing finality in property rights and the limited scope of second appeals.
In Vinay Aggarwal v. State, the Supreme Court set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order transferring an FIR investigation to the CBI. The appellant was accused of impersonation and extortion, with the complainant alleging police collusion. However, the Court found no exceptional circumstances justifying a CBI probe under State of W.B. v. CPDR (2010). The local police had formed a SIT, and the petition was filed merely three months into the investigation—rendering it premature. The Court emphasized that vague or unsubstantiated allegations cannot warrant CBI intervention and restored the investigation to the local police.
The Tamil Nadu government challenged the Governor's inaction on 10 state bills reserved for the President’s assent under Article 201. The Supreme Court addressed key issues, stating that the Governor must act promptly on bills and that the President must decide within 3 months, providing reasons for any delay. The Court ruled that the President's withholding of assent is justiciable, with judicial review allowed if based on arbitrariness or mala fides. States can seek judicial remedies, including writs of mandamus for executive inaction. The President may also seek an advisory opinion under Article 143 to ensure impartiality.
The Supreme Court upheld the eviction order against the appellant's son and daughter-in-law from his self-acquired property, Preeti Rest House. The appellant, a 75-year-old retired Junior Engineer, had filed for eviction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, after his son and daughter-in-law occupied the property without consent and harassed him. The Patna High Court’s Division Bench had overturned the order, citing lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court restored the eviction order, emphasizing the Tribunal's authority to protect senior citizens’ welfare and the respondents' misconduct. They were directed to vacate the property by May 31, 2025.
The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against six Asianet News employees accused of violating child protection laws in a drug abuse awareness program. The Court found no prima facie case, noting that the child victim’s identity was protected, the voice was doctored, and the broadcast aimed at public interest. Allegations of forgery and illegal use of a child under POCSO and JJ Act lacked merit. The Court emphasized the need for media to verify facts and avoid one-sided stories, urging ethical journalism that respects privacy while promoting informed public discourse. The case reinforces protections for press freedom balanced with child rights.
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of jurisdiction to extend an arbitrator's mandate, originally appointed by the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. The Commercial Court had extended the mandate for six months, but the High Court ruled that only the High Court, not a subordinate court, has jurisdiction to extend the mandate. The Court reasoned that permitting different courts to intervene would disrupt the arbitration framework. Since the mandate had already expired by the time the petition was heard, the Court deemed the issue academic and made no order on substituting the arbitrator.
The Allahabad High Court threw out a plea lodged by Chanchal Sonkar, seeking a compassionate appointment after her husband died on November 17, 2022, as the State Bank of India denied the same. Further the Court stressed that “compassionate appointments” being humanitarian exceptions were in the nature of stop gap arrangement to sustain the dependent family in the poignant interim. To qualify under SBI’s 2022 Scheme, dependent’s monthly income has to be less than half of the deceased’s last gross salary if he has a spouse and/or one child; 60% otherwise. Total family income calculated by Sonkar i.e. terminal benefits, the investments, the notional interest and the pension was ₹99,555.71 which was over 75% of the last gross pay of ₹1,18,800.14 of her deceased husband as also the minimum prescribed. The Court ruled that compassionate appointment is not a fundamental right and it should follow statutory parameters and expressed apprehension that liberal construction of the same can be violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court (Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. Haryana and Pushpendra Kumar v. Director of Education ) it upheld the decision of the Bank.
The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against six Asianet News employees accused of violating child protection laws in a drug abuse awareness program. The Court found no prima facie case, noting that the child victim’s identity was protected, the voice was doctored, and the broadcast aimed at public interest. Allegations of forgery and illegal use of a child under POCSO and JJ Act lacked merit. The Court emphasized the need for media to verify facts and avoid one-sided stories, urging ethical journalism that respects privacy while promoting informed public discourse. The case reinforces protections for press freedom balanced with child rights.
In criminal appeals against Allahabad HC’s bail grants to 13 accused in an interstate child trafficking racket arising from FIRs under Sections 363, 311 and 370(5) IPC, the Supreme Court highlighted kidnapping, miscarriages and sale of minors. Noting trafficking as a heinous violation of Articles 21 and 23, it faulted the HC’s mechanical bail orders for ignoring accuseds’ kingpin roles, recovered victims and witness-tampering risks. The Court cancelled bail, directed their surrender, ordered expedited trials, victim protection, special prosecutors, compensation, and mandated functional Anti-Human Trafficking Units. It underscored that bail requires balancing personal liberty with societal interests in serious crimes.
In Inox India vs Cryogas & LNG Express, Inox sued for copying proprietary engineering drawings and manufacturing descriptions. The Commercial Court dismissed under O VII R11 CPC, ruling drawings fell under the Designs Act, not the Copyright Act. Gujarat HC reversed, reinstating suit. SC examined whether drawings qualify as “artistic work” (Copyright Act s2(c)) or “design” (Designs Act s2(d)), noting s15(2) limits copyright for registrable designs after industrial reproduction. SC held mixed legal-factual issues require trial; O VII R11 improper. It directed Commercial Court to decide interim injunction within two months and complete trial within one year using a two-pronged nature-and-functionality test.