Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - 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

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