Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: February 2019

Cr P C

Murder–Suspension of sentence–Bail during pendency of appeal–Accused charged for mercilessly assaulting deceased–High Court granted bail during pendency of appeal–Held; Appellate court is duty-bound to objectively assess the matter and to record reasons for the conclusion that the case warrants suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail

Feb 17, 2019 sclaw

  2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 440 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice  Asok Kuamr Ganguly Criminal Appeal No. 141…

Will & Succession

Will–Will is required to be attested and therefore, it cannot be used as evidence until at least one of attesting witness is called for the purpose of providing its executions provided such attesting witness is alive and subject to the process of Court and capable of giving evidence. Pleading–Non filing of Replication–Mere non filing of a replication does not and could not mean that there has been admission of facts pleaded in written statement.

Feb 17, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 434 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Civil Appeal No. 7082 of…

Evidence Act

Evidence Law–May presume and shall presume–Difference between–In the former case the Court has an option to raise the presumption or not, but in the latter case, the Court must necessarily raise the presumption–If in a case the Court has an option to raise the presumption and raises the presumption, the distinction between the two categories of presumptions ceases and the fact is presumed, unless and until it is disproved–Evidence Act, 1872, Section 4.     

Feb 17, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 428 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal Criminal Appeal No. 2045 of 2008…

Corporate

Infringement of Trademark-Passing of-Division Bench of High Court held that substitution of letter ‘T’ for letter ‘O’ would create confusion on the ground of deceptive similarity—Reputation of plaintiffs Trademark has been established and there is likelihood of its damage—Findings of Division bench upheld

Feb 17, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3198 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1929 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal No. 9844…

C P C

Remand of Case—After allowing the application for additional evidence in appeal High Court not justified in remanding the case to trial court for recording of the evidence—It can be done by competently by first Appellate Court Additional evidence of appellate stage—Allowing of application does not mean that document are to be directly exhibited as record on file—Such documents are required to be proved as per law before being considered

Feb 17, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3186 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1927 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice DipakMisra Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr.…

Rent

High Court gave finding that the Rent Appellate Tribunal allowed the appellant’s (landlady’s) appeal with a casual approach and failed to record any categorical finding on the plea of bona fide need—However, High Court neither remanded the case nor decided the appeal on merits—This approach of the High Court caused prejudice to the appellant (landlady) because there was no factual finding recorded either by the first appellate Court or the High Court on the question of bona fide need—Matter remanded back to Rent Appellate Tribunal

Feb 16, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3230 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1797 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal No.…

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