Supreme Court of India Judgements

46650 Judgements hosted as on 11/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: January 2020

Constitution

IMP – KASHMIR SHUTDOWN – – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) – Right to freedom of speech and expression – Freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g). Restriction upon such fundamental rights should be in consonance with the mandate under Article 19(2) and (6) of the Constitution, inclusive of the test of proportionality Repetitive orders under Section 144, Cr.P.C. would be an abuse of power.

Jan 10, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ANURADHA BHASIN — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

Service Matters
Service

Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – Section 34 – Transfer of pending cases – Whether an appeal against an order of a single judge of a High Court deciding a case related to an Armed Forces personnel pending before the High Court is required to be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal or should be heard by the High Court – Held, NO TRANSFER

Jan 9, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALKRISHNA RAM — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta And Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Juvenile Justice

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 2(33) – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 304 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Sections 2(k), 2(l), and 15 – Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 – Section 2(h) – Offences Prescribing Max Sentence Of More Than 7 Years But Not Providing Minimum Sentence Are Not ‘Heinous Offences’, But ‘Serious Offences’

Jan 9, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHILPA MITTAL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…

Will & Succession

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Natural Guardians – Section 6 and 8 – A Karta is the manager of the joint family property – He is not the guardian of the minor members of the joint family – What Section 6 of the Act provides is that the natural guardian of a minor Hindu shall be his guardian for all intents and purposes except so far as the undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property is concerned HELD In such an eventuality it would be the mother alone who would be the natural guardian and, therefore, the document executed by her cannot be said to be a void document

Jan 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. ARUMUGAM — Appellant Vs. AMMANIAMMAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 17 – Interim measures ordered by arbitral tribunal – Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 – Section 3 – Works contract – Whether the Gujarat Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal constituted under Section 3 of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 has jurisdiction to make interim orders in terms of Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Held, YES

Jan 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. AMBER BUILDERS — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…

Service Matters
Service

Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 – Regulation 4(h) – Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 – Regulations 5 and 5(3) – Misconduct – Order of punishment – It is clear from the Regulation 5(3) that the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority higher than it, may impose any penalties specified in Regulation 4 on any officer employee

Jan 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CANARA BANK AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KAMESHWAR SINGH — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law – Appointment under compassionate grounds – Family pension – Appeal against HELD Basic principles applicable to the cases of compassionate employment, i.e., succor being provided at the stage of unfortunate demise, coupled with compassionate employment not being an alternate method of public employment

Jan 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDIAN BANK AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PROMILA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law – Termination – Benefit of arrears of salary, seniority and continuity, arrears of salary and related benefits HELD the petitioner should be reinstated, and at the same time, the pay fixation order should ensure that the period of absence which would otherwise be treated as dies non is ignored for the purpose of fixation and fitment of salary alone – The order can also expressly state that the benefit of arrears of salary would not accrue to the petitioner

Jan 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANGILAL KAJODIA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Writ…

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