Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: February 2020

Civil Cases

“….no compulsion for the plaintiff to, at the stage of filing the suit, prove or establish the claim that the suit lands were revenue paying and the details of such revenue paid. Once it is conceded that the value of the land [per explanation to Section 7 (iv-A)] is to be determined according to either sub clauses (v), (va) or (vb) of the Act, this meant that the concept of “market value” – a wider concept in other contexts, was deemed to be referrable to one or other modes of determining the value under sub clauses (v), (va) or (vb) of Section 7 (iv-A)…”

Feb 20, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AGRA DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. ANIL DAVID AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M. R. Shah and S. Ravindra…

State Laws

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Sections 3, 6(19), 34 and 108 – Specific endowment – Deed of Settlement does create a “specific endowment” HELD In view of Section 108, no suit or legal proceedings in respect of the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter for determining or deciding which provision is made in the Act shall be instituted in a civil court

Feb 20, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JOINT COMMISSIONER — Appellant Vs. P K THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAM ANANDHANA TRUST, REP.…

State Laws

Rajasthan Pre-emption Act 1966 – Sections 5(1)(c), 6, 6(1)(ii) and 6(3) – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100 – Right of pre-emption – Whether a right of pre-emption was available to plaintiff who is alleged to be a joint owner in possession of the disputed courtyard. HELD plaintiff had a superior right of pre-emption by virtue of the provisions of Section 6(3) since he was the brother of the second defendant – First defendant has an inferior right of pre-emption as compared to plaintiff – Hence his claim cannot prevail over the superior right of pre-emption of plaintiff

Feb 19, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURESH CHAND AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SURESH CHANDER (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and…

Matrimonial

Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 – Sections 7, 8, 10 and 11 – Rights of child – It is indisputed that the rights of the child need to be respected as he/she is entitled to the love of both the parents – Even if there is a breakdown of marriage, it does not signify the end of parental responsibility – It is the child who suffers the most in a matrimonial dispute

Feb 18, 2020 sclaw

Parental Responsibility Does Not End With Breakdown Of Marriage: SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 18 Feb 2020 5:14 PM “The Courts should decide the issue of custody on a…

Service Matters
Service

HELD that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to Rules and made as a stop gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for determining seniority. It was further held that the period of officiation can be counted if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the Rules but the appointees continued in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the Rules

Feb 17, 2020 sclaw

UPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINOD GIRI GOSWAMI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak…

C P C

High Court has totally erred in relying on the lease deed dated 12.3.1997, which was found to be insufficiently stamped and brushing aside the report of the Registrar (Judicial), when the respondents had failed to pay the insufficient stamp duty and penalty as determined by the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Karnataka. Dismissed

Feb 17, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S. DHARMARATNAKARA RAI BAHADUR ARCOT NARAINSWAMY MUDALIAR CHATTRAM AND ORS. — Appellant Vs. M/S BHASKAR RAJU & BROTHERS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…

C P C

HELD we find that the High Court erred in law in interfering with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court as affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless, the findings are perverse. The High Court could not have interfered with the findings of the fact.

Feb 17, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH C. DODDANARAYANA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. C. JAYARAMA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

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