Supreme Court of India Judgements

46468 Judgements hosted as on 12/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: October 2017

Rent

Landlord & Tenant-Eviction-Arrears of Rent-Landlord made statement before High Court that they have no objection if tenant pays enhanced rent-In compliance of High Court’s order tenant deposited the amount as directed-Thereafter, landlord cannot agitate that no such concession was made

Oct 6, 2017 sclaw

  2017(2) Law Herald (SC) 1541 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 526 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi Hon’ble  Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Civil Appeal Nos.…

Arbitration

Arbitrator–Appointment of- -Once the arbitrator has become ineligible by operation of law, he cannot nominate another as an arbitrator. The arbitrator becomes ineligible as per prescription contained in Section 12(5) of the Act. It is inconceivable in law that person who is statutorily ineligible can nominate a person.

Oct 5, 2017 sclaw

2017(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2284 (SC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1222 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Hon’ble Mr. Justice…

I P C

Confession is a substantive piece of evidence, but as a ‘Rule of Prudence’ the Court should seek other corroborative evidence to test its veracity. Kidnapping and Extortion–The act of kidnapping for extorting ransom from the victim cannot be termed as an act committed “with intent to overawe the Government as by law established–TADA not applicable. Confession–Admissibility of–The mere fact that retracted subsequently is not a valid ground to reject the confession. The crucial question is whether at the time when the accused was giving the statement he was subjected to coercion, threat or any undue influence or was offered any inducement to give any confession

Oct 4, 2017 sclaw

  2007(5) LAW HERALD (SC) 4030 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. G. Balakrishnan The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. P. Mathur Criminal Appeal No.…

Matrimonial

Divorce—By Mutual Consent—Waiting period of six months from date of filing application is not mandatory and is directory in nature. Divorce—By Mutual Consent—Waiving off waiting period—Court before whom proceedings are pending including Family Court/District Court can exercise the discretion. Divorce–By Mutual Consent—Waiving off waiting period— The statutory period of six months specified in Section 13B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13B(1) of separation of parties must be already over before the first motion itself.

Oct 1, 2017 sclaw

2017(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2273 (SC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1394 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before                    Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday UmeshLaiit Civil…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376(2)(g) and 506(1) – Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act, 1998 – Section 4 – Gang Rape – The victim’s testimony, along with her mother and aunt’s statements, was consistent with the initial complaint and corroborated by medical evidence – The defense argued that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – Whether the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies were not significant and did not affect the overall credibility of the evidence – The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The court rejected the defense’s argument that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant and rejected the defence’s arguments regarding inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Dismissal of Civil Suit – Condonation of delay – Standing to file an application – The court clarified that only parties to a suit or those who have accrued a right in the lis can file an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the suit. A stranger to the proceedings cannot file such an application.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 – Section 3(1)(b) – State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 – Section 29 – The appeals arise from a High Court judgment regarding the recovery of time-barred debts under the Act, 1979, and the Act, 1951 – The main issue is whether a debt time-barred under the Limitation Act can be recovered using the aforementioned Acts – The appellants argued that time-barred debts cannot be recovered under the Recovery of Dues Act, citing the precedent set in V.R. Kalliyanikutty – The respondents argued that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act allow for time-barred debt recovery, as they only bar the remedy, not the right – The court examined whether the Recovery of Dues Act creates a new right for creditors and allows for time-barred debt recovery – The court discussed the distinction between a debt and the right of action for its recovery, noting that the statute of limitation bars the latter but not the former – The court concluded that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act provide an alternative mechanism for recovering debts, even if they are time-barred – Matter needs to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate three-judge bench.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Policy Claim – The appellants, family of the deceased, filed a complaint after the LIC repudiated their claim on a policy following the policyholder’s accidental death – The main issue was whether there was a concluded contract between the deceased and LIC at the time of his death, which would obligate LIC to pay the insurance benefits – The appellants argued that LIC had accepted the first premium and issued a receipt, thereby assuming risk and concluding the contract before the policyholder’s death – LIC contended that the policy was not communicated to the deceased and was blocked due to his demise, implying no concluded contract existed – The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s order, restored the District Forum’s order in favor of the appellants, and directed LIC to pay the insurance benefits as per the policy terms – The Court found clear presumption of acceptance of the policy by LIC, as the first premium receipt indicated the corporation was on risk from the receipt date – The Court relied on precedents that establish the principles of insurance contracts and the obligations of good faith expected from insurers – The Supreme Court concluded that LIC had indeed entered into a contract with the policyholder before his death, and thus, was liable to pay the insurance benefits to the appellants.

May 12, 2024 sclaw