Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: March 2020

Preventive Detention

Article 32 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing of the Detention Orders HELD that once the detention order has been made by any of the authorities competent to detain in terms of Section 3 (1) of the COFEPOSA Act, the representation to seek revocation of the detention order can be considered and decided by the Detaining Authority dehors the decision of the Advisory Board and the acceptance of recommendation by the appropriate Government. The consideration for revocation of adetention order is limited to examining whether the order conforms with the provisions of law whereas the recommendation of the Advisory Board

Mar 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ANKIT ASHOK JALAN — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Hemant Gupta,…

State Laws

Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 – Section 14 – Grant of Lease – Counter-claim – High Court reiterated that it is the State which is the proprietor of all minerals beneath the land – There can be no dispute to the above proposition – HELD Additional evidence brought on record by the State before this Court which has been accepted on record fully support the counter-claim of the defendant – Counter-claim of the defendant-appellant deserves to be allowed and the judgment of courts below is to be modified – Appeal allowed

Mar 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF GOA — Appellant Vs. NARAYAN V. GAONKAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters
Service

Succession Act, 1925 – Section 372 – Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990 – Rule 40(6) – Family pension – Rule 40(6) is conditional in nature and does not vest an automatic statutory right in appellant no.1 to equal share in the family pension – Family pension would be payable to more than one wife only if the government servant had made a nomination to that effect and which option was open to him under the Pension Rules

Mar 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TULSA DEVI NIROLA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RADHA NIROLA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. )…

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 149(2)(a)(ii) – Accident – Willful negligence while employing driver – While hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence – If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise

Mar 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NIRMALA KOTHARI — Appellant Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

State Laws

HELD It appears to us that the absence of a comma is a mistake and in fact according to us, a comma should be read after ‘shamilat’ and before ‘taraf’ in the latter part of the section also – Word ‘shamilat’ has to be read with all four­ ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ – A land can be ‘shamilat deh’ only if it is ‘shamilat taraf’, ‘shamilat patti’, ‘shamilat panna’, or ‘shamilat thola’. In case the word shamilat is missing from any of these four terms, then the land cannot be said to be belonging to a group of people and could never become ‘shamilat deh’ land HELD This Court allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 03.07.2008 and the orders of all the authorities below – Name of the appellant be entered in the column of ownership with the entry ‘shamlat patti’.

Mar 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PATRAM — Appellant Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT KATWAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters
Service

Kerala State Higher Judicial Services Special Rules, 1961 – HELD the Division Bench of the High Court has completely erred in law in holding that the appellant has delayed the challenge of his appointment vide order dated 22nd December, 2010. The appellant was appointed pursuant to a direction issued earlier by the Division Bench. The Division Bench has directed to re-cast the select list and in such select list,

Mar 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH C. JAYACHANDRAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Civil…

Direct Taxation

HELD We have stated the facts of the present case only by way of narration of events and explaining the chronology. We shall not be taken to have dealt with merits or demerits of the rival contentions of the parties. The merits of the matter shall be gone into independently by the concerned authorities without being influenced, in any way, by any of the observations made by the High Court and this Court.

Mar 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LIMITED — Appellant Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 1 — Respondent ( Before :…

Service Matters
Service

Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 HELD our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is however disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee

Mar 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH N.C. SANTHOSH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A. S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, 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