Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: October 2017

I P C

Relation witness–Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder–Applicability of Section 300 Exception 4–Discussed. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder–Sudden fight– A “sudden fight” implies mutual provocation and blows on each side–The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side–For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1.

Oct 14, 2017 sclaw

  2007(5) LAW HERALD (SC) 4073   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam Criminal Appeal No. 1533 of…

Service Matters
Service

Pension–High Court dismissed the petition as respondent produced fabricated documents–Allowed another petition extending benefit of governing rules–Not justified. Writ Jurisdiction–Miscellaneous Application–Where a proceedings stands terminated by final disposal of writ petition–It is not open to the court to re-open the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of action.

Oct 14, 2017 sclaw

   2007(5) LAW HERALD (SC) 4066 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. K. Sema The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Civil Appeal No.…

I P C

Death by Negligence–Negligence and rashness to be punishable in terms of Section 304-A must be attributable to a state of mind wherein the criminality arises because of no error in judgment but of a deliberation in the mind risking the crime as well as the life of the person who may lose his life as a result of the crime. Death by Negligence–Accident on unmanned railway crossing, where appellant was driving a bus and engine of train struck and rear of bus–Several injured and two died–Section 302 IPC has no application. Death by Negligence– The provision of section is not limited to rash or negligent driving–Any rash or negligent act whereby death of any person is caused becomes punishable

Oct 14, 2017 sclaw

  2007(5) LAW HERALD (SC) 4060     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam Criminal Appeal No.…

Cr P C

Bail–Anticipatory Bail–Grant of–It is granted at a stage when the investigation is incomplete and, therefore, it is not informed about the nature of evidence against the alleged offender–It is, therefore, necessary that such anticipatory bail orders should be of a limited duration only. Bail–Anticipatory Bail–Use of the expression ‘reason to believe’ shows that the applicant may be arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds–Mere “fear” is not ‘belief’. Bail–Anticipatory Bail–Grant of–Normally a direction should not issue to the effect that the applicant shall be released on bail “whenever arrested for whichever offence whatsoever”–Such ‘blanket order’ should not be passed. Bail–Anticipatory Bail–Grant of– Reference to particular portions of case diary–The papers which are to be supplied to the accused have been statutorily prescribed–The Courts should take serious note when the accused or the informant refers to the case diary to buttress a stand.

Oct 11, 2017 sclaw

  2007(5) LAW HERALD (SC) 4045   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Criminal Appeal No.…

C P C

Wakf— Notified list—If any property had been omitted to be included in the list of auqaf by inadvertence or otherwise, then it was/is for the Wakf Board to take action within a period of one year from the date of publication of the Gazette notification. Rejection of Plaint—If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that b of us litigation will end at the earlier stage

Oct 10, 2017 sclaw

2017(2) Law Herald (SC) 1619 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1043 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K.Agrawal The Hon’ble Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Civil Appeal No. 5368…

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