Introduction

Justice Surya Kant was born in Hisar (Haryana) on 10th February 1962. He graduated from Government Post College Hisar in 1981 and completed his bachelor’s degree in law from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak in 1984.   

Career 

• Justice Surya Kant embarked on his professional journey by commencing his legal practice at the District Court in Hisar the in 1984. 
• In 1985 Justice Kant shifted his practice to Chandigarh, where he delved into matters concerning the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 
• He was appointed as the Advocate General of Haryana on 7th July 2000. 
• He was designated as Senior Advocate in March 2001. 
• He was designated as Permanent Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court on 9th January 2004. 
• He assumed the role of Chief Justice of High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 5th September 2018. 
• He was elevated as the judge of Supreme Court on 24th May 2019.  
  

Notable Judgments

Landmark Judgments 

• In Re, Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (2023) 
  • The issue was whether the arbitration agreement would be unenforceable and invalid if the underlying contract is not stamped. 
  • The Court held that Section 35 of Stamp Act is unambiguous and it renders the unstamped instrument inadmissible and not void.  
  • The non payment of stamp duty is characterized as a curable defect. 
  • The Court held the following: 
    • Agreements which are not stamped or are inadequately stamped are inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. Such agreements are not rendered void or void ab initio or unenforceable. 
    • Non-stamping or inadequate stamping is a curable defect.  
    • An objection as to stamping does not fall for determination under Sections 8 or 11 of the Arbitration Act. The Court concerned must examine whether the arbitration agreement prima facie exists.  
    • Any objections in relation to the stamping of the agreement fall within the ambit of the arbitral tribunal.  
    • The decisions in NN Global Mercantile (P) Ltd v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2021) and SMS Tea Estates (P) Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. (P) Ltd., (2011), were overruled. Further, Paragraphs 22 and 29 of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engg. Ltd., (2019) were overruled to that extent. 
• In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution (2023) 
  • A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the decision of the Union Government to repeal Article 370 of the Constitution. 
  • The Court held that the interpretation clause cannot be used to amend the constitution, it can only be used to define or give meaning to particular terms.   
  • The Court held that the President had the power under Article 370(3) to unilaterally notify that Article 370 shall cease to exist. 
  • Further, the Court held that since the concurrence of the State Government was not required for the exercise of power under Article 370(1)(d), the President securing the concurrence of the Union of India was not mala fide.   
• S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022) 
  • The petitions were filed challenging the validity of Section 124A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on the ground that it is violative of Article 19(1)(a), Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).  
  • The Court in this case passed the order that the State Government and Central Government must restrain from registering FIR, continuing any investigation or taking any coercive measure by invoking Section 124A of IPC. 
  • The Court also directed that all the proceedings arising out of Section 124 A of IPC should be kept in abeyance.  
• Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian (2022) 
  • The Supreme Court held that once the signatures on the cheque or deed were admitted, the trial Court ought to have presumed that the cheque was issued for consideration of a legally enforceable debt.  

Recent Judgments 

• Arvind Kumar Pandey v. Girish Pandey (2024) 
  • In this case a claim was filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 
  • The deceased was a 50 year old woman who was a homemaker. 
  • The Court held that the role of a homemaker is as important as any other member of the family whose income is tangible as a source of livelihood for the family. 
  • The Court held that as a homemaker her direct and indirect monthly income can in no circumstances be less than the wages admissible to a daily wager in the State of Uttarakhand under the Minimum Wages Act.   
• Government of NCT of Delhi v. M/S BSK Realtors LLP and Anr (2024) 
  • The court observed that the decision in the first round of litigation could not serve as res judicata to bar the second round, especially considering situations where larger public interest is at stake. 
    • It noted that GNCTD and DDA did not have conflicting interests either before the High Court or before the Supreme Court. 
    • There were no disputed issues between them in the first round. 
  • Considering public interest concerns, most appeals filed by the Delhi government were allowed, and directions were issued. 
    • Separate orders were passed in other cases. 
  • The bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan said that in such cases, "a more flexible approach ought to be adopted by courts, recognizing that certain matters transcend individual disputes and have far-reaching public interest implications." 
• Mariam Fasihuddin&Anr v. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr. (2024): 
  • The Bench comprising of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan observed that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property. 
  • The Court further states that cheating generally involves a preceding deceitful act that dishonestly induces a person to deliver any property or any part of a valuable security, prompting the induced person to undertake the said act, which they would not have done but for the inducement.