Supreme Court of India Judgements

46448 Judgements hosted as on 05/05/2024 - 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

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Constitution Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

May 5, 2024 sclaw