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 It criticized Bihar’s attempt to revive outdated practices, emphasizing constitutional principles over tradition.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.