Supreme Court Updates of June 2024
Share on:
Overview of June Month
In June month, the Supreme Court (SC) of India was not fully functional because of the ongoing summer vacation which started on May 20, 2024, and will last till July 08, 2024. Before the initiation of summer vacations, the top Court provided a list of Supreme Court judges who will hear the matter during the summer break. This month, the vacation bench of the SC heard various matters relating to the Delhi Water Crisis, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s bail in the money laundering case linked with the liquor policy scam, the NEET-UG paper leak case, Rs. 200 Crore Extortion case related to conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar’s wife Leena Paulose, interim bail plea of Bhima Koregaon case accused Mahesh Raut, AAP leader Satyendra Jain’s bail plea, criminal proceedings against UP Congress President Ajai Rai, Cheque Dishonor case, bail plea of Manish Sisodia, demolition of Prachin Shiv Mandir located on the Yamuna floodplains, and various others. This month, on June 18, the Supreme Court announced to organize a Special Lok Adalat from July 29, 2024, to August 03, 2024, to facilitate amicable settlements of suitable pending cases. In its Press Release, the SC said, “Cases having elements of settlement including cases relating to matrimonial and property disputes, motor accident claims, land acquisition, compensation, service and labor which are pending before the Supreme Court would be taken up to facilitate speedy disposal.” The top Court delivered only 1 judgment, to date, in June, but multiple orders were passed regarding different matters including those mentioned earlier. The normal functioning of the SC will initiate after the completion of summer vacation that is from July 08, 2024 (Monday). Let us explore, the important verdict of the Supreme Court delivered in June 2024.
Supreme Court Verdict of June Month
Judgment Name: Anish M Rawther @ Anees Mohammed Rawther vs. Hafeez UR Rahman & Ors. (June 14, 2024)
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Articles and Acts Involved: {Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(b)} and {Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016- Section 14}
Judgment Brief and Decision: In this case, the respondents/plaintiffs preferred a suit against the appellants/defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,04,16,576 with interest. The appellants/defendants entered an appearance and filed an application seeking leave to defend which was allowed by the Trial Court on June 19, 2019, with a direction to the appellants/defendants to deposit 50% of the suit claim. The said order was challenged before the Karnataka High Court (HC) in Writ Petition which was dismissed on August 08, 2019, against which an SLP was preferred by the appellants/defendants which came to be dismissed on September 06, 2019, by the order stating “We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
The special leave petition, is accordingly, dismissed.
However, it is open for the petitioners to approach the High Court within four weeks from today for variation of the order satisfying the High Court that he can provide adequate security in terms of the orders of the High Court.” Despite the order, the appellants/defendants did not approach the HC for variation of the order. When the matter stood thus, the respondent/plaintiff filed a memo requesting the Trial Court to decree the suit in terms of Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(b) of the CPC. After considering the material on record, the Trial Court rejected the memo. This order was assailed by the respondent/plaintiff before the HC which has been allowed under the impugned order simultaneously directing the Trial Court to accept the memo and pass appropriate orders accordingly. Further, the appellants/defendants have argued that in view of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the moratorium has become operational, therefore, the suit cannot proceed. The matter was, therefore, mentioned before the top Court.
The Supreme Court held that “This argument was not accepted by the High Court and under the impugned order, the Trial Court was directed to accept the memo and pass appropriate orders. It is important to notice that this Court has passed an order on 01st December 2023 staying the impugned order, however, much prior to the interim order of this Court, the suit itself was decided finally by passing a decree on 20th April 2023.” The top Court bench added, “It is not brought to notice the said decree has been challenged any further by the defendants. Thus, for the present, the suit is not pending, therefore, the present appeal which arises out of an interim order passed by the Trial Court during pendency of the suit, has been rendered infructuous.” Therefore, the two-judge bench of the SC dismissed the civil appeal as infructuous.
