1). Supreme Court Rules High Courts Must Reconcile Inconsistent SC Decisions, Cannot Choose One Over the Other

Case Background

There are times when two Supreme Court judgments appear inconsistent with each other. This creates confusion for the High Courts about which decision to follow.

Recently, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan provided guidance on this issue. The bench suggested that instead of choosing one judgment over the other, the High Courts should:

1. Try to reconcile both judgments to see if they can be read together.
2. Follow the decision that matches the facts of the case before them.

This approach was recommended in a judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala, where he cited the wise words of Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathern (1901) and the Privy Council in Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore (1940).

Issue

1. What should High Courts do when there are conflicting Supreme Court judgments?
2. Should they always follow the earlier judgment or choose the one that fits their case better?

Court Observations

The Supreme Court provided two different views on this issue in different cases:

View 1: Follow the Judgment That Matches the Case Facts

• The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan stated that High Courts should not ignore one judgment in favor of another.
• Instead, they should respect both judgments and try to reconcile them.
• If reconciliation is not possible, they should follow the judgment whose facts are more similar to the case at hand.

The Court cited the judgment of Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathern (1901):

“Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts… Expressions in a judgment are not meant to be broad statements of law but are specific to the facts of the case.”

View 2: Follow the Earlier Judgment

• In UT of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (2024), the Supreme Court ruled differently.
• The Court held that when there are conflicting judgments by benches of equal strength, the High Courts must follow the earlier decision.
• This principle was previously established by a Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017).

Court Rulings and Decisions

1. Justice Pardiwala’s Bench: High Courts should try to reconcile both judgments and follow the one that matches the case facts.
2. Earlier Supreme Court Rulings: High Courts must follow the earlier judgment when faced with conflicting decisions from benches of equal strength.

Legal Provisions 

• Judicial Precedents: Importance of consistency in legal rulings.
• Doctrine of Stare Decisis: Following established precedents to ensure legal stability.

Significance of the Judgment

• This ruling provides clarity on handling conflicting Supreme Court judgments.
• It highlights two different approaches, allowing High Courts to exercise judicial discretion.
• It ensures that legal consistency is maintained while allowing for flexibility in cases with different factual backgrounds.

The Supreme Court has provided two different guidelines for High Courts when faced with conflicting judgments:

1. Justice Pardiwala’s Approach: Try to reconcile both judgments and follow the one that fits the case facts.
2. Earlier Supreme Court Rulings: If judgments conflict and are from benches of equal strength, follow the earlier one.

High Courts must carefully evaluate the facts, legal reasoning, and context before deciding which judgment to apply.

Case Name: M/S A.P. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION v. THE TAHSILDAR & ORS. ETC., CIVIL APPEAL NOS 4526-4527 OF 2024

2). Supreme Court Rules Courts Cannot Grant Compensation for Wrongful Confinement in Bail Applications Under S. 439 CrPC

Case Background

The case involved an accused who was wrongfully confined for four months in a drug-related case. The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) had seized 1,280 grams of brown powder from him in January 2023. However, forensic tests did not confirm the presence of any narcotic substance. Based on these test results, the NCB filed a closure report in April 2023 and released the accused.

Despite his release, the Allahabad High Court continued to hear his bail application to decide whether he should be granted compensation. In May 2024, the High Court directed the NCB to pay ₹5,00,000 as compensation for his wrongful confinement. The NCB challenged this decision in the Supreme Court.

Issues of the Case

1. Can a Court grant compensation for wrongful confinement while deciding a bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)?
2. Did the Allahabad High Court exceed its jurisdiction by awarding compensation in a bail matter?

Court Observations

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan ruled that the Allahabad High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by granting compensation in a bail case.

• Limited Scope of Bail Jurisdiction: The Court stated that under Section 439 of CrPC, a court's power is limited to granting or rejecting bail. It cannot pass orders related to compensation in a bail application.
• The High Court Should Have Closed the Bail Application: Since the accused was already released after the NCB’s closure report, the bail application had become meaningless (infructuous). The High Court should have closed the matter instead of awarding compensation.
• High Courts Should Not Exceed Their Authority: The Supreme Court criticized courts for exceeding their jurisdiction, stating that such actions are legally incorrect and unacceptable.

Court Rulings and Decisions

1. The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order that directed the NCB to pay ₹5,00,000 as compensation.
2. The Court held that compensation for wrongful confinement can only be granted through proper legal remedies, such as:
   • A writ petition under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution.
   • A civil suit for damages.
   • Filing a case for malicious prosecution.
3. The Court also clarified that the accused could still seek compensation through other legal remedies but not through a bail application.

Legal Provisions

• Section 439 of CrPC – Power of High Courts and Sessions Courts to grant bail.
• Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution – Allow filing of writ petitions for fundamental rights violations.

Significance of the Judgment

• Reinforces that bail jurisdiction is limited to granting or rejecting bail and cannot be used to award compensation.
• Ensures that courts do not exceed their powers while making decisions.
• Clarifies that compensation for wrongful confinement must be sought through proper legal channels like writ petitions or civil suits.

The Supreme Court ruled that High Courts cannot grant compensation while deciding bail applications under Section 439 CrPC. Since the accused was already released, the Allahabad High Court should have closed the bail application instead of ordering compensation. However, the Court clarified that the accused is free to seek compensation through other legal remedies. This decision upholds legal boundaries and ensures proper procedures are followed for granting compensation.

Case Name : Union of India Thr. I.O Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Man Singh Verma

3). Supreme Court Rules Arbitration Agreement Enforceable Against Legal Representatives of Deceased Party

Case Background

The case involved a partnership firm in which one of the partners passed away. The legal heirs of the deceased partner were asked to participate in arbitration proceedings, based on the arbitration clause in the partnership agreement.

However, the legal heirs opposed arbitration, arguing that they were not signatories to the agreement and, therefore, could not be bound by it. The matter was taken to the Gauhati High Court, which ruled that the arbitration clause was enforceable against the legal heirs. The legal heirs then challenged this ruling before the Supreme Court.

Issues of the Case

1. Does an arbitration agreement remain valid after the death of a partner in a partnership firm?
2. Can legal heirs of a deceased partner be bound by an arbitration agreement, even if they did not personally sign it?

Court Observations

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan ruled that:

1. Arbitration agreements do not become invalid upon the death of a party.
2. Legal heirs of a deceased partner are bound by the arbitration agreement, even if they did not sign it.
3. The right to seek arbitration or defend claims arising from a partnership agreement continues even after the death of a partner.

The Court referred to Ravi Prakash Goel v. Chandra Prakash Goel (2008) 13 SCC 667, which held that an arbitration agreement does not cease to exist on the death of a party and can be enforced by or against legal heirs.

The Court also cited Jyoti Gupta v. Kewalsons & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7942, where the Delhi High Courtruled that an arbitration agreement in a partnership firm remains binding even after a partner’s death.

Court Rulings and Decisions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Gauhati High Court’s decision, stating:

1. The term "partners" includes their legal heirs, representatives, and assigns.
2. As per Section 40 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the death of a party does not affect the validity of an arbitration agreement.
3. Legal heirs of a deceased partner have the right to enforce or be bound by arbitration proceedings.
4. The right to sue for rendition of accounts survives, allowing legal heirs to assert or defend claims arising from the partnership agreement.

Legal Provisions

• Section 40 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – States that arbitration agreements do not become void upon the death of a party.
• Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Recognizes that legal representatives can enforce contractual rights and obligations unless the contract is personal in nature.

Significance of the Judgment

• Clarifies that arbitration agreements continue even after a partner’s death.
• Ensures that legal heirs are bound by the arbitration clause in a partnership agreement.
• Prevents attempts to escape arbitration by claiming non-signatory status.
• Strengthens the enforceability of arbitration agreements under Indian law.

The Supreme Court ruled that legal heirs of a deceased partner are bound by the arbitration agreement of a partnership firm. The Court emphasized that arbitration agreements do not become void upon the death of a party, and the legal heirs can enforce or be bound by arbitration proceedings. This ruling reinforces the importance of arbitration clauses in business agreements and partnership disputes.

Case Name : Rahul Verma and others vs Rampat Lal Verma and others

4). Supreme Court Rules Contributory Negligence in Motor Accident Claims Can’t Be Presumed Without Direct or Corroborative Evidence 

Case Background

This case involved a motor accident claim following the death of a 38-year-old man in a collision between his motorcycle and a BMTC bus in Karnataka. His family filed a compensation claim, and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded them ₹75,97,060 as compensation.

The Karnataka High Court, however, reduced the compensation by attributing 25% contributory negligence to the deceased, meaning he was partly responsible for the accident. The court also reduced his monthly income from ₹62,725 (as per his salary slip) to ₹50,000 while calculating compensation.

The deceased’s family challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that there was no evidence to prove contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

Issues of the Case

1. Can contributory negligence be assumed in motor accident cases without evidence?
2. Did the High Court err in reducing the deceased's monthly income while calculating compensation?

Court Observations

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra ruled that the High Court erred in assuming contributory negligence without evidence and also made a mistake in reducing the deceased’s income while calculating compensation.

On Contributory Negligence

• The High Court wrongly assumed that the deceased was partially responsible for the accident just because both vehicles were at high speed.
• The Supreme Court applied the principle laid down in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 166, which states that:
  • Contributory negligence cannot be presumed unless there is direct or corroborative evidence proving that both parties were at fault.
  • A mere allegation of high speed does not automatically mean negligence.
• Since there was no evidence proving that the deceased was also negligent, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s 25% contributory negligence ruling.

On Reduction of Monthly Income

• The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for reducing the deceased’s monthly income from ₹62,725 to ₹50,000 without justification.
• It reaffirmed that in motor accident cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, strict rules of evidence (as used in criminal trials) do not apply.
• The Court referred to the case Rajwati alias Rajjo & Ors. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2022) to emphasize that compensation claims should be based on available evidence and not arbitrary reductions.

Court Rulings and Decisions

1. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s finding of contributory negligence because there was no evidence to support it.
2. The Court restored the deceased’s actual monthly income of ₹62,725, as per his salary slip, for compensation calculations.
3. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that strict evidence rules do not apply in motor accident compensation cases.

Legal Provisions 

• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Governs compensation claims for road accidents.
• Principle of Contributory Negligence – Requires proof before blaming the victim for an accident.
• Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 166 – Established that contributory negligence cannot be presumed without direct evidence.
• Rajwati alias Rajjo & Ors. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2022) – Reaffirmed that strict rules of evidence do not apply in accident claims.

Significance of the Judgment

• Protects accident victims and their families from unfair reductions in compensation.
• Ensures that contributory negligence is not assumed without proper proof.
• Prevents arbitrary income reductions in compensation cases.
• Clarifies that courts must follow fair compensation principles under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Supreme Court ruled that contributory negligence cannot be assumed in motor vehicle accidents without direct or corroborative evidence. The High Court wrongly reduced the compensation by arbitrarily blaming the deceased and lowering his monthly income. The Supreme Court restored the full compensation and reaffirmed that motor accident claims must be decided fairly, without strict evidence rules.

Case : Prabhavathi and others vs The Managing Director Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation

5). Patna High Court: S. 133 CrPC Not for Resolving Private Disputes Over Drainage

Case Background

This case involved a dispute between two neighbors over the drainage of dirty water. The petitioner (landowner) blocked the drainage of wastewater from his neighbor's house onto his private courtyard. The neighbour (complainant) then filed a case before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), claiming that the blockage was causing water stagnation and a health hazard.

The SDM, under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), ordered the petitioner to remove the obstruction and allow the flow of water. This order was challenged before the Sessions Court, which upheld the SDM’s decision. The petitioner then approached the Patna High Court seeking relief under Section 482 CrPC.

Issues of the Case

1. Can an individual be forced to allow their neighbor’s wastewater to flow onto their private property?
2. Did the SDM follow the correct legal procedure under Section 133 CrPC?
3. Was the Sessions Court correct in dismissing the petitioner’s challenge?

Court Observations

A bench comprising Justice Jitendra Kumar ruled in favor of the petitioner (landowner), holding that:

On Property Rights

• The petitioner’s land was private property and constitutionally protected under Article 300A of the Indian Constitution.
• The neighbor had no legal right to drain dirty water onto the petitioner’s land.
• The petitioner had the right to block the drainage to prevent a nuisance on his property.
• The neighbor should have ensured proper drainage within his own property instead of forcing it onto someone else’s land.

On the Use of Section 133 CrPC

• Section 133 CrPC allows an Executive Magistrate to remove public nuisances, such as obstructions affecting public spaces.
• Private disputes between two individuals cannot be settled using Section 133 CrPC.
• The Supreme Court’s ruling in Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal v. State of Maharashtra established that Section 133 is meant to protect the public as a whole, not resolve personal disputes.

On Procedural Violations by the SDM

• The SDM failed to follow the correct procedure under Section 133 CrPC.
• Before making a final order, the SDM was required to first issue a conditional order and give the petitioner a chance to respond.
• The SDM directly passed an absolute order, violating legal requirements.
• The Sessions Court wrongly held that the SDM’s order was interim and dismissed the petitioner’s revision.

On Incorrect Land Classification

• The government records wrongly classified the petitioner’s land as "Anabad Bihar Sarkar" (government land).
• However, the Circle Officer confirmed that it was private land, strengthening the petitioner’s claim.

Court Rulings and Decisions

1. The Patna High Court quashed both the SDM’s order and the Sessions Court’s order, declaring them illegal and an abuse of process.
2. It ruled that no one can be compelled to allow a neighbor’s dirty water onto their private land.
3. The neighbor should have made arrangements to prevent wastewater from flowing onto the petitioner’s land.
4. The SDM’s use of Section 133 CrPC was incorrect, as it applies only to public nuisances and not private disputes.
5. The SDM failed to follow due process, making the order legally unsustainable.

Legal Provisions 

• Article 300A of the Indian Constitution – Protects an individual’s right to property.
• Section 133 CrPC – Allows magistrates to remove public nuisances, but cannot be used to settle private disputes.
• Section 397(2) CrPC – Governs revisional jurisdiction, which was wrongly applied by the Sessions Court.
• Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal v. State of Maharashtra – Supreme Court precedent stating that Section 133 is meant for public welfare, not private disputes.

Significance of the Judgment

• Strengthens property rights, ensuring no one can be forced to tolerate a nuisance on their land.
• Clarifies the correct use of Section 133 CrPC, preventing its misuse in personal disputes.
• Reinforces the importance of following due process in legal proceedings.
• Prevents courts from making individuals endure encroachments under the pretext of preventing a public nuisance.

The Patna High Court ruled that an individual cannot be compelled to allow drainage from a neighbor’s house onto their private property. The SDM misused Section 133 CrPC, and the Sessions Court wrongly upheld the order. The ruling protects property rights and prevents misuse of legal provisions in private disputes.

Case Title: Kashi Kant Jha vs State Of Bihar and anr

6). MP High Court: Anticipatory Bail Plea Can Be Filed Even if Chargesheet Declares Accused an Absconder

Case Background

In this case, the petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, banker, merchant, or agent), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC.

During the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet in court, showing the petitioner as absconding. Subsequently, the trial court initiated proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC, declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender and issuing a perpetual warrant of arrest.

The petitioner then applied for anticipatory bail before the trial court, which was rejected. He subsequently approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

During the hearing before a Single Judge, the State questioned whether an anticipatory bail plea was maintainable in such a case. The Single Judge noted that different benches of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had given conflicting decisions on this issue. Therefore, the matter was referred to a Division Bench for clarity.

Issues of the Case

1. Is an anticipatory bail plea maintainable if proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 or Section 299 of CrPC have been initiated against the accused?
2. Can anticipatory bail be granted when the charge sheet shows the accused as a proclaimed offender or absconder?

Court Observations

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain ruled that:

On Maintainability of Anticipatory Bail

• Anticipatory bail is maintainable even if the accused has been declared an absconder or proclaimed offenderunder Sections 82/83 and 299 CrPC.
• The power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is extraordinary and cannot be curtailed.
• However, granting bail depends on the gravity of the offence and whether the accused is cooperating with the investigation.

On Previous Contradictory Decisions

• The court overruled earlier judgments by Single Judges, which held that anticipatory bail is not maintainable after the charge-sheet is filed showing the accused as absconding.
• The Division Bench clarified that these rulings were incorrect interpretations of the law.

On Supreme Court Judgments Considered

1. Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2003) – The Supreme Court held that filing of a charge-sheet does not automatically prevent the court from granting anticipatory bail.
2. Pradeep Sharma v. State of M.P. – The Supreme Court denied anticipatory bail due to the serious nature of the offence and the accused’s non-cooperation.
3. Other SC cases – The Court noted that anticipatory bail can be granted even when an accused is declared an absconder, provided they cooperate with the investigation.

Court Rulings and Decisions

1. Anticipatory bail is maintainable even if proceedings under Sections 82, 83, or 299 of CrPC have been initiated against the accused.
2. The accused being declared an absconder or proclaimed offender does not automatically bar them from seeking anticipatory bail.
3. However, anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional cases, depending on the seriousness of the offence and the need for custodial interrogation.
4. The earlier decisions of the MP High Court that denied anticipatory bail based on absconder status were overruled.
5. The power under Section 438 CrPC is extraordinary and should not be curtailed, but should be exercised with caution.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 82 CrPC – Proclamation for person absconding.
• Section 83 CrPC – Attachment of property of person absconding.
• Section 299 CrPC – Recording of evidence in the absence of an accused.
• Section 438 CrPC – Anticipatory bail provision, which allows an individual to seek bail in anticipation of arrest.

Significance of the Judgment

• Clarifies that anticipatory bail is maintainable even if an accused is declared absconder/proclaimed offender.
• Overrules conflicting judgments, bringing clarity to the legal position in Madhya Pradesh.
• Ensures that the extraordinary power of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is not restricted.
• Emphasizes that courts should consider factors like the seriousness of the offence and the need for custodial interrogation before granting bail.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that anticipatory bail is maintainable even if the accused is declared an absconder or proclaimed offender. The earlier decisions restricting anticipatory bail in such cases were overruled. However, the court emphasized that bail should be granted only in exceptional cases and with great caution.

Case Title: Deepankar Vishwas Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh Through P.S. Omti, District Jabalpur,