Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: March 2019

Arbitration

High Court has committed a manifest error in passing the impugned order and adopting a mechanical process in appointing the Arbitrator without any supportive evidence on record to prima facie substantiate that an arbitral dispute subsisted under the agreement which needed to be referred to the arbitrator for adjudication – Appeals allowed

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. ANTIQUE ART EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi,…

C P C

Civil Suit – Decree for permanent injunction – Application for re­-hearing of the second appeal –It is a settled law that all the contesting parties to the suit must get fair opportunity to contest the suit on merits in accordance with law. A decision rendered by the Courts in an unsatisfactory conducting of the trial of the suit is not legally sustainable. It is regardless of the fact that in whose favour the decision in the trial may go – Appeal allowed.

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJINDER TIWARI — Appellant Vs. KEDAR NATH(DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…

Cheque Dishonour

The question before the High Court was whether the remand order of the Appellate Court was legal or not. Second, instead of deciding the aforementioned question, the High Court proceeded to decide the complaint itself on its merits and while allowing the complaint, sentenced the appellant (accused) with simple imprisonment for 2 months along with a direction to pay compensation of Rs. 3 Lakhs to respondent No.1 (complainant). It was not legally permissible.

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUSANTA DEY — Appellant Vs. BABLI MAJUMDAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

I P C

–The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 365 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code–HELD –On going through the evidence of PW1 in its entirety, we concur with the opinion rendered by the courts below that her evidence appears to be natural, consistent, probable and reliable. Her evidence remains unimpeached on material particulars. PW1 has given the details of the incident in question and we do not find any major contradiction in her evidence so as to disbelieve her testimony.

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAJAGOPAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee,…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 170, 395 and 412 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Dacoity –While maintaining the conviction, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the accused are sentenced to undergo seven years R.I. is hereby modified and both the accused are sentenced to undergo five years R.I. for the offences for which they are convicted – Appeals partly allowed.

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAHANGIR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Appointment of independent arbitrator – Whether the Chief Justice or his Designate in exercise of power under Section 11(6) of the Act should directly make an appointment of an independent arbitrator without, in the first instance, resorting to ensure that the remedies provided under the arbitration agreement are exhausted. HELD The appellants are directed to appoint the arbitrator in terms of clause 64(3) of the agreement

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. PARMAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10 – Claim for Regularization – Industrial reference – High Court was right in observing that the remedy of the appellant and respondent Nos. 4­6 lies in applying to the Central Government to make an industrial reference to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the ID Act

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNIL KUMAR BISWAS — Appellant Vs. ORDINANCE FACTORY BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…

Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Abduction and murder – Merely because the actual recovery of the body happened before the accused lead the police to the scene, it does not, in the facts and circumstances of this case, negate the validity of the recovery based on a confession, in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PATTU RAJAN — Appellant  Vs.  THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee, JJ.…

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