Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: February 2020

Labour Cases

[Employee’s Compensation Act] Relevant Date For The Determination Of Compensation Payable Is The Date Of The Accident: SC HELD ….benefit of 2009 amendment of the Act which had deleted the provision that capped the monthly wages of an employee at Rs 4,000 does not apply to accidents that took place prior to its coming into force……. Award not interfered.

Feb 13, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. SIVARAMAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. P. SATHISHKUMAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.…

Constitution

Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 – Section 7 – Rejection of the claim for pension – Participants of Goa Liberation Movement, Phase-II, the SSSP scheme was extended with the conditions that only those applicants shall be eligible to receive the benefits of the scheme who are in receipt of State Pension on 01.08.2002 HELD judgement Mukund Lal Bhandari and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1993) supp. 3 SCC 2 not applicable

Feb 12, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SITAKANT S. DUBHASHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ.…

Consumer

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 – Appeal – Breach of condition of Policy — HELD Fidelity Guarantee is different from contingency guarantee – The insurance under it, is for honesty, against negligence or for being faithful and loyal to its employees – The protection afforded is different than in normal insurance policies – Precisely, it is a contract whereby, for a consideration, one agrees to indemnify another, against loss, arising from the breach of honesty, integrity or fidelity of an employee or other person holding a position of trust”

Feb 12, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL BULK HANDLING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash…

C P C

The expression ‘appeal’ has not been defined in the CPC. Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Edn.) defines an appeal as “a proceeding undertaken to have a decision reconsidered by bringing it to a higher authority.” It is a judicial examination of the decision by a higher court of the decision of a subordinate court

Feb 12, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MALLURU MALLAPPA(D) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. KURUVATHAPPA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil…

Cr P C

“The conclusion of the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings is on the basis of its assessment of the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC being wholly inadmissible in evidence cannot be taken into consideration by the Court”

Feb 12, 2020 sclaw

Section 482 CrPC] HC Cannot Quash Criminal Proceedings On The Basis Of Its Assessment Of 161 Statements: SC [Read Judgment] Sanya Talwar 11 Feb 2020 7:37 PM “The conclusion of…

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