Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: December 2018

Dowry Death

Dowry Death–Soon before death–Words “Soon before her death” occurring in section 304-B of Penal Code, are to be understood in relative and flexible sense–Those words cannot be construed as lying down a rigid period of time to be mechanically applied in each case–Whether or not the cruelty or harassment meted out to the victim for or in connection with the demand of dowry was soon before her death and the proximate cause of her death, under abnormal circumstances, would depend upon the facts of each case–There can be no fixed period of time in this regard–Penal Code, 1860, Section 304-B.  

Dec 31, 2018 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 88 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2006…

Arbitration

Territorial Jurisdiction–Ouster clause–Agreement between parties that only Courts at Jaipur alone would have jurisdiction–Even though Courts at Calcutta would have jurisdiction but in view of ouster clause it would only the Courts at Jaipur which would have jurisdiction to entertain such proceeding.

Dec 31, 2018 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 81 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Civil Appeal Nos. 5430-5431 of…

Accident

Accident–Owner of vehicle already dead–Vehicle not transferred in the name of his heirs–Insurance renewed in the name deceased owner–Accident took place and driver died–No witnesses examined by insurance company that they were not aware about death of original owner–Compensation rightly granted to wife of deceased driver.

Dec 31, 2018 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 74 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Civil Appeal No. 7009 of 2008…

Bail Declined

COMPLAINANT HAS NOT TO WAIT FOR MISUSE OF BAIL ORDER CAN STRAIGHTWAY CHALLENGE IT–Cancellation of Bail–Complainant can always question the order granting bail if the said order is not validly passed–It is not as if once a bail is granted by any Court, the only way is to get it cancelled on account of its misuse–Bail order can be tested on merits also–Complainant could question the merits of order granting bail– Penal Code, 1860, Section 302–Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439(2).         

Dec 31, 2018 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 72   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar Criminal Appeal No. 2087 of…

Matrimonial

Marriage–Nullity of–A Christian married to a Hindu in a temple and subsequently marriage  was registered under Section 8 of Hindu Marriage Act–Marriage was a nullity and its registration could not validate the same. Marriage–Conditions for–Usage of expression “may” in the opening line of Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act does not make the provision optional.

Dec 31, 2018 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 68 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam Civil Appeal No. 2446 of 2005…

Cheque Dishonour

Dishonour of Cheque–Breach of trust–Loan advanced by appellant to respondent–Respondent issued cheques–Loan amount not repaid and cheques presented got bounced–Complaint under Section 138 by appellant against respondent pending–Respondent does not dispute issuance of cheques–Ingredients of section 406 IPC not made out against appellant.

Dec 31, 2018 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 64 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No.1966 Of…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39 R.I & R.2 and O.41 R.23–Injunction- Temporary Injunction—Rejection of stay application—Remand of Case- Held; No adequate reason is given in the impugned order for not granting stay; and secondly, the reason given does not in itself justify the rejection having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the writ petition-­ Case remanded to be decided afresh.       

Dec 30, 2018 sclaw

           2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3298 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1792 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Civil…

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