Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: November 2017

Acquittal

Medical Jurisprudence–By no norms a dead body would be skeletalized within a period of 3-4 days–it shall in ordinary course take at least few weeks. Murder–Acquittal–Police found a human skeleton–No DNA test conducted and investigating officer could not decipher as to whether dead body is of male or female. Disclosure Statement–Recovery of a weapon at instance of accused which has no nexus with cause of death of deceased in inadmissible in evidence.

Nov 22, 2017 sclaw

2008(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 280 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi Criminal Appeal No. 620 of…

Service Matters
Service

Industry–Law Department is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. Precedent–Reliance on the decision without looking into the factual background of the case before it, is clearly impermissible. Precedent–The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a Court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. Precedent–Judgments of Courts–Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments–They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes.

Nov 22, 2017 sclaw

2008(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 275 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam Civil Appeal No. 3021 of 2006…

You missed

Family Court I P C

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

”Eggshell Skull Rule Applied: Supreme Court Holds Hospital Liable for Post-Surgery Complications” Consumer Law – Medical Negligence – Appellant-Jyoti Devi underwent an appendectomy at Suket Hospital, but suffered continuous pain post-surgery – A needle was later found in her abdomen, leading to another surgery for its removal – The case revolves around medical negligence, deficient post-operative care by the hospital, and the determination of just compensation for the claimant-appellant – The claimant-appellant sought enhancement of compensation for the pain, suffering, and financial expenses incurred due to medical negligence – The respondents argued against the presence of the needle being related to the initial surgery and contested the amount of compensation – The Supreme Court restored the District Forum’s award of Rs.5 lakhs compensation, with 9% interest, and Rs.50,000 for litigation costs – The Court applied the ‘eggshell skull’ rule, holding the hospital liable for all consequences of their negligent act, regardless of the claimant’s pre-existing conditions – The Court emphasized the benevolent nature of the Consumer Protection Act and the need for just compensation that is adequate, fair, and equitable – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower commissions’ awards and reinstating the District Forum’s decision for just compensation.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7(a) – Taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence – The appeal challenges the High Court of Karnataka’s decision to quash an FIR against respondent for alleged bribery, based on a complaint by the appellant – The main issue is whether the High Court was correct in quashing the FIR, which was based on allegations of bribery and corruption against the respondent – The Supreme Court found the High Court’s decision legally unsustainable, noting that it failed to consider direct evidence, such as a pendrive, indicating the respondent’s complicity – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s judgment, and restored the FIR for further legal proceedings.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section Section 2(1)(g) – Deficiency of Service and unfair trade practice – The case involves a consumer dispute regarding a promotional trailer for a film produced by Yash Raj Films Private Limited – The complainant, a teacher, felt deceived when the song from the trailer was not in the movie and sought damages for mental agony – The court considered whether a promotional trailer creates a contractual obligation or amounts to an unfair trade practice if its content is not in the movie – The Supreme Court held that promotional trailers are unilateral and do not qualify as offers eliciting acceptance, thus not forming agreements enforceable by law – It also ruled that the facts do not indicate an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – The court reasoned that a promotional trailer is not an offer but an invitation to treat, meant to encourage viewers to watch the movie. It does not create a contractual relationship or promise regarding the movie’s content – The appeal was allowed, setting aside the findings of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the lower courts. The court emphasized the creative freedom in services involving art and the need for a different standard in judging representations followed by such services.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw