Supreme Court of India Judgements

46650 Judgements hosted as on 11/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: November 2018

Constitution

Detention–Seizure–Appellant was detained for about 15 hours at the airport–Appellant traveled by air from Hyderabad to Chennai and carried Rs. 65 lakhs- suspicion was created in the mind of the officers on account of appellant carrying an unusually large sum of money in cash–After investigation and verification, nothing found to be amiss or irregular–Investigating Department expressed regret for the inconvenience–However, Premature disclosures or ‘leakage’ to the media in a pending investigation, condemned.

Nov 12, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 213 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan Civil Appeal No. 7914 of 2009…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 and Section 151–Interim Injunction–High Court set aside the order of injunction passed by the trial Court–Appeal–Object of the Trust in wanting to acquire the suit property was to extend its school unit and if the suit property is allowed to be commercially exploited, the entire object of the suit filed by the appellant Trust will be rendered meaningless–Order of the High Court set aside–Appeal allowed–In the light of the principles of balance of convenience and inconvenience, interim relief should be granted to the appellant Trust.                   

Nov 12, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 209 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Civil Appeal Nos. 8081-8082 of 2009…

Constitution

Cannot be said that Article 21 been infringed in the matter–Petitioner not rendered remedy-less merely by denial of interim relief–Case not “the rarest of rare” so as to permit the petitioner to bypass the normal procedure of filing appeal against the order of the Single Judge–SC decline to  interfere with the order passed by  the  Single Judge of   the Delhi  High Court–Court  can grant   the relief   in cases:  where manifest injustice has been done:  or where there is manifest illegality or manifest want of jurisdiction.                   

Nov 11, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 196 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar Special Leave Petition No. 32840…

Constitution

Rent–Enhancement of –Enhanced rent was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable as matter purely contractual and the appellants voluntarily entered into the lease/licence with the respondents–Appellants not entitled to seek redress under Article 226 of the Constitution for any breach of the covenants contained in the lease agreements.

Nov 11, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 190 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar Civil Appeal No. 5158 Of…

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138–Dishonour of the cheque–Sentence–Appellant facing criminal prosecution for the last 7 years–Appellant a petty businessman–He paid the hefty amount of compensation as a penalty for dishonour of the cheque issued by him.–No material placed on the record to indicate that the appellant had earlier committed any such or similar offence–Substantive sentence of imprisonment, set aside–Sentence of  fine of Rs.1,000/- maintained and imposition of compensation in the sum of Rs.35,000/- also maintained.  

Nov 11, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 188 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar Criminal Appeal No. 2337 Of…

I P C

– Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 307, 109, 120-B/34–Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, Section 3(1) read 2(e), 3(2) read with Section 120-B–Arms Act, Section 3 & 7, Section 25(1A), 25(1B)–Murder–Death sentence–Rarest of rare case-If a person is sentenced to imprisonment, even if it be for life, and subsequently it is found that he was innocent and was wrongly convicted, he can be set free. Of course, the imprisonment that he has suffered till then cannot be undone and the time he has spent in the prison cannot be given back. Such a reversal is not possible where a person has been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death. The execution of the sentence of death in such cases makes miscarriage of justice irrevocable. It is a finality which cannot be corrected.

Nov 11, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 153 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal Nos. 85-86 of 2006…

Murder

Forensic– Gun Shot Injury–Cartridge of .303 bore can be fired from .315 bore weapon–High Court, therefore, conscious of the fact that in an appeal against acquittal, interference should be minimal and that too in case of perversity of the judgment of the trial Court, held that the finding were indeed perverse and accordingly reversed the judgment of acquittal–Appeal dismissed

Nov 11, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 150 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur Criminal Appeal No. 1037 of…

Service Matters
Service

General Clauses Act, S.10–ServiceLaw–Computation of time– Medical Certificate–Last Date of Submission–Appellant did not obtain the medical certificate on 14th April as being a gazetted holiday & the previous days were also holidays–His application should have been considered on merit.

Nov 11, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 147 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly Civil Appeal No. 8200 of…

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