Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - 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

Constitution Service

Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges as the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link of the accused’s disclosure leading to the discovery of skeletal remains under Section 27 and the DNA evidence was also found to be inconclusive due to lack of proper collection of samples. – Proof of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 — Voluntariness and Uninfluenced Nature — The Court reiterates that the information provided by an accused under Section 27 must be voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 54 and 59 — Buttondar knife — Specific Intent Required — The court clarifies that mere possession of a knife covered by a notification like the DAD Notification is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the Arms Act — There must be specific intent to use it for the prohibited purposes such as “manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test.” – The prosecution must clearly allege and prove the intent of the accused to use the weapon for the specified prohibited purposes — Absence of such allegation in the charge-sheet renders the proceedings defective.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw