Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: March 2019

Property Matters

On the peculiar facts and circumstances, it may not be just to deny the plot to the appellant, inspite of having been allotted plots, both under the general category and under the Government employees quota. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the HUDA should accept the belated production of Integrity Certificate and confirm the allotment of Plot No. 946 (Sector 25) to the appellant

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 615 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendaran The Hon’ble Mr. Justice  J.M.Panchal Civil Appeal No. 607 of 2009 (Arising…

Will & Succession

Inheritance–Legal heir–Claim over property–Respondent claimed that disputed property in itself acquired property of his father–However, no evidence produced by respondent that the property was self acquired property his father–No entry of name of respondent in revenue record–Revisional Court rightly held that property was not self acquired property of father of respondent.

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 612 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice  Lokeshwar Singh Panta The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.Sudershan…

Acquittal

Common intention–Evidence of PWs 2 and 3 did not attribute any overt act to the appellant–The mere fact that he was in the company of the accused who were armed would not be sufficient to attract Section 34 IPC–Appellant cannot be held guilty by application of Section 34 IPC–His conviction is accordingly set aside. Common intention–Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself–For applying Section 34 it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of the accused.

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 606 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…

Murder

Murder–Appeal against acquittal–Evidence clearly established that the accused caused farsa injury on the head of the deceased–PWs. 3 & 16 corroborated the prosecution version–High Court erroneously observed that there was no injury–Farsa injury caused on the head has not been noticed–Matter remitted to the High Court for detailed analysis.

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

  2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 600   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 661…

Consumer

Malaria is most commonly transmitted to humans through malaria virus infested mosquito bites, and when a virus is contracted through normal means brought about by everyday life it cannot be deemed to be an unexpected or unforeseen accident — HELD the illness of encephalitis malaria through a mosquito bite cannot be considered as an accident. It was neither unexpected nor unforeseen. It was not a peril insured against in the policy of accident insurance

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. SMT. MOUSUMI BHATTACHARJEE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud…

Labour Cases

Since we have formed an opinion to dispose of this appeal by awarding to the respondent a lump sum compensation of Rs. one Lakh in lieu of his all claims arising out of this case, we do not consider it necessary to examine any legal issue arising in the case though argued by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective contentions.

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE REGIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. DINESH SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari,…

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