Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - 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

Constitution Service

Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges as the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link of the accused’s disclosure leading to the discovery of skeletal remains under Section 27 and the DNA evidence was also found to be inconclusive due to lack of proper collection of samples. – Proof of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 — Voluntariness and Uninfluenced Nature — The Court reiterates that the information provided by an accused under Section 27 must be voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 54 and 59 — Buttondar knife — Specific Intent Required — The court clarifies that mere possession of a knife covered by a notification like the DAD Notification is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the Arms Act — There must be specific intent to use it for the prohibited purposes such as “manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test.” – The prosecution must clearly allege and prove the intent of the accused to use the weapon for the specified prohibited purposes — Absence of such allegation in the charge-sheet renders the proceedings defective.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw