Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - 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

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