Supreme Court of India Judgements

46610 Judgements hosted as on 29/08/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: December 2019

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 34(4) – Arbitral award – Legislative intention of providing Section 34(4) in the Arbitration Act was to make the award enforceable, after giving an opportunity to the Tribunal to undo the curable defects HELD that ordinarily unintelligible awards are to be set aside, while the challenge on inadequacy of reasons, has to be adjudicated based on the degree of particularity of reasoning required having regard to the nature of issues falling for consideration.

Dec 22, 2019 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S. DYNA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. M/S. CROMPTON GREAVES LTD. — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and…

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 – Complete justice – Provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution provide a unique power to the Supreme Court, to do “complete justice” between the parties, i.e., where at times law or statute may not provide a remedy, the Court can extend itself to put a quietus to a dispute in a manner which would befit the facts of the case. Divorce granted.

Dec 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNISH KAKKAR — Appellant Vs. NIDHI KAKKAR — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 9318…

Matrimonial

V IMP :: Supreme Court recently dissolved a marriage by exercising its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, even as it recognised that there is no statutory law for recognising irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce in India.- HELD “on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, if this is not a fit case to grant divorce, what would be a fit case!”

Dec 18, 2019 sclaw

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage: “Nothing remains in this marriage”, Supreme Court invokes Article 142 to grant divorce Rintu Mariam Biju December 18 2019 The Supreme Court recently dissolved a marriage by exercising its inherent powers…

Service Matters
Service

Candidate Not Estopped From Challenging Selection Process When Misconstruction Of Statutory Rules Is Alleged HELD candidate will not be estopped from challenging a selection process on the ground of having participated in it when there is allegation of “misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom”.

Dec 18, 2019 sclaw

Candidate Not Estopped From Challenging Selection Process When Misconstruction Of Statutory Rules Is Alleged : SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 17 Dec 2019 7:58 PM In a notable judgment…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 205 and 205 (2) – Dispensation with personal appearance/attendance – In the case of Bhaskar Industries Ltd. V. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC 401, this Court has observed that if a Court is satisfied that in the interest of justice the personal attendance of an accused before it need not be insisted on, then the court has the power to dispense with the attendance of the accused – HELD consequently the application submitted by the appellant to dispense with his appearance before the learned Trial Court on all dates of adjournments and permitting his counsel to appear on his behalf is here by allowed on the conditions.

Dec 17, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNEET DALMIA — Appellant CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, HYDERABAD — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M. R. Shah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 34 and 302 – Murder – Common intention – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Appellant was present on the spot of the offence HELD In order to invoke the principle of joint liability in the commission of a criminal act as laid down in Section 34, the prosecution should show that the criminal act in question was done by one of the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention of all.

Dec 17, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIRENDER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and K. M. Joseph, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Contempt

Contempt Petition (Civil) -We do not see anything wrong in the process undertaken by the State Government in pursuance of various interim orders passed by this Court and also in pursuance of the Judgment and final order dated 25.07.20171. The fact that out of 12,091 candidates only few could be selected and the reasons for non-selection of rest of the candidates, were part of the record since October 2016.

Dec 15, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAI KUMAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DR. PRABHAT KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and M. R. Shah, JJ. )…

You missed

Consumer

The flat was purchased for the personal use of one of its directors and his family — The appellant created confusion by double allotment of the flat and unfairly forfeited the deposited amount —The NCDRC ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the appellant to refund the deposited amount with interest — The Supreme Court upheld this decision —The respondent was considered a consumer as the flat was for personal use — The appellant’s actions were deemed deficient and unfair due to the double allotment and premature cancellation —

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Anticipatory bail — Cancellation of — The appellant had his anticipatory bail cancelled without notice due to failure to plant saplings —Whether the cancellation of anticipatory bail without notice was justified The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting additional time to plant 500 trees —The anticipatory bail granted to is revived, and he must deposit the cost of saplings with the Forest authorities.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420 and 34 — Nature of Offence —The Court’s decision to grant bail in a case involving Sections 420 and 34 IPC indicates that while these sections pertain to serious offenses (cheating and criminal conspiracy, respectively), bail may still be granted if the circumstances of the case, such as the nature of the transaction and the relationship between the parties, warrant it.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) — PPA between Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, and the Hirehalli Solar Power Project LLP — The respondent sought an extension of the scheduled commissioning date (SCD) under the force majeure clause of the PPA due to delays in obtaining necessary approvals and licenses —The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) rejected the force majeure claim, but the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) reversed the decision, finding that the delay was not attributable to the respondent and that the force majeure clause was applicable — The Supreme Court agreed with the APTEL’s findings and dismissed the appeals — The court also rejected the appellant’s contention that the APTEL’s direction to pay late payment surcharge to the respondent was unjustified, as it was rooted in the PPA and in furtherance of the intention of the parties.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw