Important Cases for CLAT PG 2024
The list of important cases for CLAT PG 2024
Balram Singh v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1386
Supreme Court: In a writ petition seeking directions to Union of India and all the States and Union Territories to implement provisions, inter alia, of the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 (‘Act, 1993’) and Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (‘Act, 2013’), the division bench of S. Ravindra Bhat* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.
Assessing Officer Circle (International Taxation) 2(2)(2) New Delhi v. Nestle SA,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1372
Supreme Court: In a bunch of appeals against the decision of Delhi High Court regarding interpretation of the Most Favoured Nation (‘MFN’) clause contained in various Indian treaties with countries that are members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (‘OECD’), the Division Bench of S. Ravindra Bhat* and Dipankar Datta held that for benefit of same treatment clause in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’) with OECD members, the date of entering into treaty is the relevant date and not a later date when such country becomes an OECD member.
Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1348
Supreme Court: The 5-judge Constitution Bench of Dr DY Chandrachud, CJI and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, PS Narasimha, JJ wrote 4 opinions on the Same Sex Marriage/Marriage Equality matter where they agreed on some points and disagreed on others. In a 366 pages long verdict, heavy on words, all judges said in one voice that there was no fundamental right to marry and that the Supreme Court could not enter judicial legislation to read words into the Special Marriage Act and make it a gender-neutral legislation. The Court left it to Parliament to undertake this process. There were however some disagreements on certain points where Bhat, Kohli and Narasimha, JJ formed the majority and Chandrachud, CJI and Kaul, J were in dissent.
Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Paramjit Kaur Panesar,
Supreme Court: While considering the question of “Should the irretrievable breakdown of marriage necessarily result in the dissolution of marriage in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, when such is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955?”, the Division Bench of Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi*, JJ. refused to grant divorce due to irretrievable breakdown of marriage to do complete justice to the aged couple.
Rajesh Jain v Ajay Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1275
The Court said that the legal burden is the burden of proof which remains constant throughout a trial. On the other hand, the evidential burden may shift from one party to another as the trial progresses, according to the balance of evidence given at any particular stage.
After taking note of Section 130 of the NI Act, 1881, the Court said that in all trials concerning dishonour of cheque, the courts are called upon to consider whether the ingredients of the offence enumerated in Section 138 of the Act have been met and if so, whether the accused was able to rebut the statutory presumption contemplated by Section 139 of the Act. Further, it said that Section 139 is a reverse onus clause and requires the accused to prove the non-existence of the presumed fact, i.e., that cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt/liability.
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244
The very purpose of the constitutional and statutory protection would be rendered nugatory if the authorities concerned are permitted to merely read out or permit reading of the grounds of arrest, irrespective of their length and detail, and claim due compliance with the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) and the statutory mandate under Section 19(1) of the PMLA.
Important Judgment for CLAT PG