Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: January 2019

Service Matters
Service

Service Law—Higher Qualification—Possession of higher qualification does not always mean that candidate has requisite prescribed lower qualification for the post Service Law—Qualification—It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications

Jan 12, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3443 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1953 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.U. Lalit Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud Civil Appeal…

Arbitration

Arbitrator—Appointment of—Challenge to—When an arbitrator was allegedly appointed against the terms of the agreement (arbitration clause) the provisions of 5.11(6) cannot be invoked to challenge such appointment Arbitrator—Appointment of—Amendment of 2015—General conditions of the contract cannot be taken to be the agreement between the parties so as to apply the provisions of the amended Act

Jan 12, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3433 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1952 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indira Banerjee Civil Appeal Nos. 11824-11825…

Property Matters

Unauthorised Possession—To prove that the possession is legal, prima facie plaintiff has to prove that he is either the owner of such property or is in possession as a lawful tenant or is in its permissive possession with the express consent of its true owner

Jan 8, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3416: 2018 LawHerald.Org 1949 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal Nos. 11761-11762…

Constitution

ALOK VERMA, CBI DIRECTOR Case–Contention of the Attorney General that the action against Verma cannot be regarded as “transfer” or “removal”, as he was merely taken off charge, Repelled by court. “the term ‘transfer’, as used in section 4B of the DSPE Act, cannot be understood in its traditional sense and must be interpreted as including actions which impact the functioning of the CBI Director – held that the word “transfer” has to be understood as encompassing all acts which affect the independent functioning of CBI Director” Further Held “Vineet Narain and others vs. Union of India and another, (1998) 1 SCC 226 case cannot be disregarded, and the subsequent enactment of the CVC Act, introducing amendments to the DSPE Act, in pursuance of the 1997 judgment was with the object of ensuring absolute insulation of the CBI Director.”

Jan 8, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ALOK KUMAR VERMA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ranjan Gogoi, C.J.I, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M.…

You missed

Constitution Service

Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges as the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link of the accused’s disclosure leading to the discovery of skeletal remains under Section 27 and the DNA evidence was also found to be inconclusive due to lack of proper collection of samples. – Proof of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 — Voluntariness and Uninfluenced Nature — The Court reiterates that the information provided by an accused under Section 27 must be voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 54 and 59 — Buttondar knife — Specific Intent Required — The court clarifies that mere possession of a knife covered by a notification like the DAD Notification is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the Arms Act — There must be specific intent to use it for the prohibited purposes such as “manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test.” – The prosecution must clearly allege and prove the intent of the accused to use the weapon for the specified prohibited purposes — Absence of such allegation in the charge-sheet renders the proceedings defective.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw