Supreme Court of India Judgements

46650 Judgements hosted as on 11/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: June 2017

Service Matters
Service

An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities-Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity-Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily-He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity

Jun 9, 2017 sclaw

  2016(5) Law Herald (P&H) 3870 (SC): 2016 LawHerald.Org 1911 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 213 OF 2013 State of Punjab & Ors.…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 1 Rule 10 – Execution of sale deed – Respondent 2 has filed a suit in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Jullundur for a declaration that the sale deed allegedly executed by Defendant 1 in favour of Defendant 2 acting as power of attorney of the plaintiff is null and void and consequently the lease deed dated 10-2-1993 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff

Jun 6, 2017 sclaw

(1998) 8 SCC 466 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA BALDEV SINGH — Appellant Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A. M. Ahmadii, C.J; Sujata V. Manohar,…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 23 – Acquisition of land – Market value, determination of – Small plots – Acquisition of large area – Rates at which small plots sold cannot be a safe criteria. Where large area is the subject matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criteria.

Jun 6, 2017 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER — Appellant Vs. NOOKALA RAJAMALLU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Doraiswamy Raju, J; Arijit Pasayat, J ) Civil Appeal No’s.…

Property Matters

The High Court was in error while coming to the conclusion that the Appellant had no right in the plot in question and the impugned judgment as well as the order passed in Company Application are quashed and set aside and it is held that the plot in question does not belong to the Company in liquidation and the official liquidator has no right to deal with the plot or dispose of the plot and it would be open to the Appellant-Corporation to deal with or allot the plot as per its policy

Jun 6, 2017 sclaw

  2014) 2 AD 285 : AIR 2014 SC 618 : (2013) 15 JT 327 : (2013) 14 SCALE 231 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THE A.P.I.I. CORPORATION LTD. — Appellant…

Compassionate Appointment

Compassionate Appointment–If there is no Scheme providing compassionate appointment , any appointment on such ground would be illegal. Compassionate Appointment–Such appointment cannot be granted to a person other than those for whose benefit the exception has been carved out.

Jun 4, 2017 sclaw

  2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 3141 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Civil Appeal No. 429 of…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw