Supreme Court of India Judgements

46640 Judgements hosted as on 10/10/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: November 2018

C P C

Injunction—Question of Title—Findings of title can be recorded in a suit for injunction if there are necessary and appropriate issues regarding question of title Second Appeal—Question of Title—High Court while dismissing the second appeal being devoid of merit was not justified in making an observation which has the potential of reopening the already settled issue of title in respect of the suit property—Such findings set aside

Nov 1, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 2337 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1522 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant  Vs.  VIJAY KRISHNA UNIYAL (D) THROUGH L.RS. — Respondent ( Before : Kurian…

Limitation

Adverse Possession—Permissive possession over the property howsoever long never becomes adverse to the interest of real owner at any point of time Adverse Possession—The limitation of 12 years begins when the possession of the defendants would become adverse to that of the plaintiffs -Adverse Possession—Proof of—Tax receipt, Chaukidari receipt and Khatian extract—These documents at the most depict the possession of the defendants and not their adverse possession.                                

Nov 1, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 2316 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1520 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                                                            Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Civil Appeal…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S, 100-Second Appeal-Substantial Question of law-High Court also failed to see that the issue of resjudicata and the issue of ownership were independent issues and the decision on one would not have answered the other one—In other words, both the issues had to be examined independent of each other on their respective merits—It was, however, possible only after framing of substantial questions on both the issues as provided under Section 100(4) and (5) of the Code—This was, however, not done in this case-Case remanded back

Nov 1, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 2311 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1519     SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARAYANA GRAMANI — Appellant Vs. MARIAMMAL — Respondent ( Before : Abhay Manohar Sapre and…

You missed

Cr P C I P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under Section 482 in Cases with Predominantly Civil Character — The court reiterated the principle that criminal cases with overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions, matrimonial relationships, or family disputes, should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves — This principle is applied in the present case, where the dispute involved a loan transaction between the accused persons and the bank, and the parties had settled the matter through the One Time Settlement (OTS).

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw
Service

The main issue is whether the eligibility criteria requiring AICTE approval for diplomas is valid, given the Supreme Court’s previous ruling that universities do not need AICTE approval for technical courses —The petitioners argued that the eligibility criteria were inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling and that they were unfairly excluded from the recruitment process —The respondents contended that the recruitment process was conducted according to the existing rules and that the petitioners were bound by the doctrine of acquiescence —The Supreme Court directed the Bihar Technical Service Commission to prepare a fresh select list of meritorious candidates, considering the previous High Court order and the AICTE’s stance —The Court found that changing the eligibility criteria after the selection process was completed was impermissible and that the petitioners had a legitimate right to be considered — The appeals were disposed of with directions to prepare a revised select list within three months, ensuring that eligible candidates are considered fairly.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw
Direct Taxation Income Tax

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 139(5) — Revised Income Tax Return — The appellant filed multiple revised returns for the assessment year 1989-90, which were not considered due to being barred by limitation —Whether the assessing officer can consider claims made in a revised return filed after the time limit prescribed by Section 139(5) of the Act — The appellant argued that the assessing officer should consider the claim for deduction of deferred revenue expenditure, even if the revised return was filed late —The respondent contended that the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to consider claims made in a time-barred revised return —The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that the assessing officer cannot consider claims in a time-barred revised return —The Court emphasized that the assessing officer’s jurisdiction is limited by the time constraints set in Section 139(5) —The Court referred to previous judgments, including Wipro Finance Ltd. and Goetze (India) Ltd., to support its decision —The appeal was dismissed, affirming that claims in a time-barred revised return cannot be considered by the assessing officer.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Coal Mining Bid — Rejection of — Eligibility criteria — Appellants challenged the rejection of its technical bid by Respondent-BCCL for a coal mining project, while the bid of Respondent No. 8 was accepted despite non-compliance with mandatory requirements —Whether BCCL was justified in rejecting the appellant’s bid and accepting the bid of Respondent No. 8, which did not meet the eligibility criteria — Appellant argues that the rejection was arbitrary and discriminatory — The appellant complied with all requirements, while Respondent No. 8 was allowed to submit missing documents later — BCCL argues that the appellant’s bid was non-compliant due to issues with the Power of Attorney — The Tender Committee could seek shortfall documents but not replace them —The Supreme Court found BCCL’s actions arbitrary and illegal, setting aside the rejection of the appellant’s bid and the acceptance of Respondent No. 8’s bid — The appellant’s Power of Attorney was valid and notarized before submission — BCCL’s acceptance of Respondent No. 8’s bid despite non-compliance was unjustified —Government bodies must act fairly and transparently in awarding contracts — The decision-making process must be free from arbitrariness and bias —The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside BCCL’s decision and any subsequent agreements, and directed BCCL to initiate a fresh tender process.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw