Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - 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 394 read with Section 397 – Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery – The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 394 and 397 of the IPC, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine, based on the recovery of stolen items and identification by the complainant – The appeal challenges the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s appeal against the trial court’s conviction and sentence – The appellant contested the identification of the stolen items and the legality of the disclosure statement used to convict him – The State supported the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the recovery of stolen items and the identification process – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered release, citing insufficient evidence to affirm guilt – The Court’s reasoning focused on the improper proof of the disclosure memo and the questionable identification of the stolen items by the complainant – The conclusion was that the prosecution failed to connect the appellant with the crime conclusively.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
State Laws

M.P. Excise Act, 1915 – The case involves the applicability of a rule for imposing penalties related to the liquor license period of 2009-10 and whether the old or substituted rule should apply – The main issue is whether the penalty should be based on the rule in place during the violation (2009-10) or the substituted rule from 2011, which reduced the penalty – The appellant argues for the application of the substituted rule, which imposes a lower penalty, as the old rule was repealed – The State contends that the old rule should apply to transactions from 2009-10, despite the substitution – The Supreme Court accepted the appellant’s contention, applying the substituted rule to pending proceedings – The Court reasoned that the purpose of the amendment was to balance the offence and penalty, and not applying the substituted rule would not serve public interest – The Court distinguished between the effects of repeal and substitution of rules, emphasizing that the substituted rule should apply from the date of substitution – The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court’s judgment, and the penalty was determined based on the substituted rule from 2011.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 236 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 190, 193 and 200 – The appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India against the Ex-Directors of M/s. SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. for offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The primary issue is whether the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013 has jurisdiction to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings and that offences under the Code should be tried by the Special Court – The respondents contended that the High Court’s judgment was correct and that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code – The Court reasoned that the reference to the Special Court in Section 236(1) of the Code is a ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not a ‘legislation by reference’, meaning subsequent amendments to the Companies Act do not affect the Code – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine that the case is one of ‘legislation by incorporation’ – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. The judicial opinion emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the distinction between ‘legislation by incorporation’ and ‘legislation by reference’ in determining jurisdiction.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(2) and 302 read with Section 149 – The appellants were convicted for the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court, reversing their earlier acquittal by the trial court – The main issue was the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and the admissibility of evidence, such as the FIR and recovery of weapons – The appellants argued that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal, contending that the eyewitnesses were unreliable and the FIR was a post-investigation document – The State contended that the eyewitness testimonies were credible and the FIR was lodged promptly without undue delay – The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, acquitted the appellants, and discharged their bail bonds – The Court found inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts and issues with the FIR and recovery of weapons – The Court applied principles regarding the appellate court’s power in appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the need for the High Court to find perversity or illegality in the trial court’s judgment to reverse an acquittal – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s judgment was flawed and restored the trial court’s acquittal of the appellants.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw