Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: February 2020

Constitution

Boycott Of Courts Can’t Be Justified As Freedom Of Speech & Expression : SC On Lawyers’ Strikes HELD “To go on strike/boycott courts cannot be justified under the guise of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Nobody has the right to go on strike/boycott courts. Even, such a right, if any, cannot affect the rights of others and more particularly, the right of Speedy Justice guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution”,

Feb 29, 2020 sclaw

Boycott Of Courts Can’t Be Justified As Freedom Of Speech & Expression : SC On Lawyers’ Strikes [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 28 Feb 2020 5:11 PM The Supreme Court…

Corporate

Tender – Installation and maintenance of 74 videoscopes at various field formations of CBEC – direct that out of the payment to be made to M/s. ASVA Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd., a sum of Rs. 63 lakhs shall be deducted and orders with regard to that amount shall be passed after hearing the parties in detail at the time of final hearing.

Feb 29, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER, DIRECTORATE OF LOGISTICS — Appellant Vs. ALMIGHTY TECHSERV, PROPRIETOR MR. MANISH DALMIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha…

Corporate

IMP ::: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 5(8) and 43 – Mortgage by a Corporate debtor to secure debts of third party not “Financial Debt” within meaning of Section 5(8) – Whether lenders of Jaiprakash Associates Limited could be treated as financial creditors, HELD it cannot be said that the corporate debtor owes them any ‘financial debt’ within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Code; and hence, such lenders of Jaiprakash Associates Limited do not fall in the category of the ‘financial creditors’ of the corporate debtor Jaypee Infratech Limited – Appeals are allowed

Feb 27, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANUJ JAIN INTERIM RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL FOR JAYPEE INFRATECH LIMITED — Appellant Vs. AXIS BANK LIMITED ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) Section 340 read with 195 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 – Production of forged documents before the Revenue Court – Larger bench to consider (i) Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court? (ii) What is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry?

Feb 27, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF PUNJAB — Appellant Vs. JASBIR SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

State Laws

Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 – Section 28 – Deposit of amount – Word “deposit” used in the Section, is to be understood and mean that deposit is to be made either, before making an application, or simultaneously with the application within the prescribed time of thirty days

Feb 26, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARAYAN YADAV (D) THR.LRS. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and R. Subhash…

Service Matters
Service

Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 – Regulations 39(1), 39(4)(i) and 39(4) – Penalty imposed on employee on the grounds of conduct which had led to a conviction on a criminal charge – Where the respondent was convicted of various criminal offences and subsequently, a notice to show cause was issued – HELD DB of high court was in error to hold the action on notice pending, decision of criminal appeal

Feb 26, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. MUKESH POONAMCHAND SHAH — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, 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