SC directs swift execution of decrees, clarifies cheque dishonor jurisdiction, and addresses Hajj airfare concerns—ensuring legal clarity and procedural efficiency.
DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (7 MARCH 2025)
SUPREME COURT DIRECTS HIGH COURTS TO EXPEDITE EXECUTION PETITIONS
Case Name: Periyammal (Dead Thr. LRs.) & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr. Etc.
The Supreme Court has instructed all High Courts to gather statistics on pending execution petitions and issue administrative directions securing their disposal within six months. Delay in execution nullifies the decree-holder’s rights; hence, enforcing them in a timely manner is vital. The presiding officers shall be held responsible for non-compliance.
Legal Provision
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Order XXI governs execution proceedings.
- Rahul S Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021): Mandated completion of execution within six months.
- Bhoj Raj Garg vs. Goyal Education & Welfare Society (2022): This case stated the need for smooth execution.
Source: Supreme Court of India
SUPREME COURT RULES ON JURISDICTION FOR CHEQUE DISHONOR CASES
Case Name: M/S Shri Sendhuragro & Oil Industries Pranab Prakash vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
The Supreme Court made it clear that a dishonor complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881, has to be made where there is an account of the payee and not where the bank of the drawer is situated. The judgment concurs with the 2015 amendment to Section 142(2) of the NI Act.
Legal Provision
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138 (Cheque Dishonor), Section 142(2) (Jurisdiction).
- Dasrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) Initially held jurisdiction lies where the check is drawn.
- 2015 Amendment: Reversed the 2014 ruling, establishing jurisdiction at the payee’s bank location.
Source: Supreme Court of India
SC REFUSES TO INTERFERE IN HAJJ AIRFARE STRUCTURE
Case Name: Abdussalam & Ors. vs. The Hajj Committee of India & Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 190/2025
The Supreme Court refused to intervene in the Hajj airfare rate, declaring that it is a commercial policy choice. The Court, however, ordered the government to post an official explanation online on the reason for the increased airfare from Calicut-Jeddah compared to other Kerala points of embarkation.
Legal Provision
- Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination.
- Ministry of Minority Affairs: The Ministry is responsible for looking into airfare regulations and also taking care of Hajj policies.
- Judicial Precedents: Courts avoid interfering in commercial pricing decisions unless grossly arbitrary.
Source: Supreme Court of India
Also Read: DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (6 MARCH 2025)
