Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: January 2019

Matrimonial

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13-B—Divorce—By Mutual Consent-­Once both the parties have consciously obtained a decree of divorce by mutually agreed terms and moved ahead in life, later they cannot be allowed to claim that divorce decree is null and void and not binding on them.

Jan 6, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3307 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1795 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul Civil Appeal No.…

Will & Succession

Will—To challenge the genuineness of the Will inter alia indicates challenge to the genuineness of the signature of testator. Expert Evidence—If the scientific investigation of the document in question facilitates the ascertaining of truth, it can be done even after closure of the evidence from both sides.

Jan 6, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3304 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1794 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indira Banerjee Civil Appeal Nos. 10684-10685…

Acquittal

Common Intention –Unless a common intention is established as a matter of necessary inference from the proven circumstances, the accused person will be liable for their individual acts and not for the act done by any other person.Appeal against conviction–Appellant acquitted by trial Court–High Court convicted the appellant–Held, if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it ought not to be disturbed by appellate Court–

Jan 5, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 175 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy Criminal Appeal No. 1657…

Acquittal

Criminal Law –Murder–Circumstantial evidence–Last seen theory–Deceased last seen with accused–Held, The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible

Jan 5, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 161 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.598-599 of…

Arbitration

Arbitrator–Appointment of –High Court dismissed the petition for appointment of arbitrator on the ground that arbitration agreement does not lay down procedure for appointment of arbitrator–Answer lies in section 11(5) of the Act–Supreme Court appointed a former Judge as arbitrator.

Jan 5, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 157 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Civil Appeal No. 107 of 2009…

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