Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: February 2019

Murder

Murder–Doctrine of Parity–Appellant submitted that there is a parity between the co-accused persons and while other were convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC he alone has been convicted under Section 302 IPC–However, appellant had given a fatal blow on the neck with aruval and injury caused by such act proved fatal–Plea of parity rejected.

Feb 25, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 530 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. 38…

I P C

Criminal Law–Murder–Common intention–Prosecution case that appellant alongwith other accused murdered the deceased–Evidence of PWs 2 and 3 did not attribute any overt act to the appellant–Mere fact that he was in the company of accused who were armed would not be sufficient to attract Section 34 I.P.C.–It is undisputed that appellant was not armed and he has no animosity with the deceased

Feb 24, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 518 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly Criminal Appeal No. of…

Property Matters

Co-sharer–When a co-sharer sells his share in the joint holding or any portion thereof and puts the vendor into possession of land in his possession what he transfers is his right as a co-sharers in said land and right to remain in its exclusive possession till joint holding is partitioned amongst all co-sharers—Sale of subsequent portion of land out of joint holding by the co-owners is nothing but a sale of a share out of the joint holding and is pre-emptible under Section 15(1)(b) of Act

Feb 24, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 514 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Civil Appeal No. 321…

Will & Succession

Will can be proved by examining at least one witness–Alongwith it has to be shown that it was free from suspicious circumstances–Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 3–Evidence Act, 1872, Section 68–Succession Act, 1925, Section 63(c).–It may be true that deprivation of a due share by the natural heir by itself may not be held to be a suspicious circumstance but it is one of the factors which is taken into consideration by the courts

Feb 24, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 502 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. 7434 of 2008…

Accident

Accident–Gratuitous passengers–About 30-40 persons were travelling in the tempo truck–All 30-40 persons by no stretch of imagination could have been the representatives of the owners of goods. Insurance company not liable Accident–Ordinarily an allegation made in FIR would not be admissible in evidence per se but tribunal would be entitled to look into same where allegations made in FIR had been made a part of the part of claim petition.

Feb 24, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 498 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. 7399 of 2008…

Service Matters
Service

Contention that prior to the amendment rules, the promotion to the cadre of District Judges was based on the principle of “Seniority-cum-merit” and now as per amended rules pursuant to the directions of Supreme Court, the principle has now been changed to “merit-cum-seniority” and this has seriously affected the rights of the members of the Civil Judges (Senior Division)–Contention rejected

Feb 24, 2019 sclaw

  2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 495 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam The Hon’ble Mr. Justice…

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