Supreme Court of India Judgements

46650 Judgements hosted as on 11/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: June 2020

Rent

COMPARATIVE HARDSHIP – LANDLORD vs TENANT :: Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 – Section 11(8) – Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – Section 13(2) – Eviction – Section 11(8) of the Kerala Rent Act is materially different from Section 13(2) of the Bombay Rent Act in that it does not provide for partial eviction if comparative hardship of a landlord and a tenant are to be weighed against each other.

Jun 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ADDISSERY RAGHAVAN — Appellant Vs. CHERUVALATH KRISHNADASAN — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.…

Direct Taxation

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 80-O – Deduction – Income received in foreign exchange – Whether the income received by the appellants in foreign exchange, for the services provided by them to foreign enterprises, qualifies for deduction under Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as applicable during the respective assessment years from 1993-94 to 1997-98 – Held, NO. Appeal dismissed

Jun 7, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMNATH AND COMPANY — Appellant Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Articles 2, 3, 22 and 113 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 7 Rules 11 an 11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Barred by law of limitation HELD having noticed from the averments in the plaint that the right to sue accrued to the appellant on receiving letter from the Senior Manager, dated 8.5.2002, and in particular letter dated 19.9.2002, and again on firm refusal by the respondents vide Advocate’s letter dated 23.12.2003 in response to the legal notice sent by the appellant on 28.11.2003; and once again on the follow up legal notice on 7.1.2005, the plaint filed in February, 2005 would be well within limitation – Appeal allowed.

Jun 7, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SHAKTI BHOG FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. — Appellant Vs. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Indira…

State Laws

Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 – Sections 5 and 5(2)(AA) – General Conditions of Contract – Clause 45.2 – Reimbursement of sales tax – Contractor company is rightfully entitled to claim reimbursement of the amount of sales tax levied on the taxable turnover of the works contracts executed by it.

Jun 7, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF ORISSA — Appellant Vs. B. ENGINEERS & BUILDERS LTD. & ORS. — Respondent ( Before : A.M.Khanwilkar, Indira Banerjee and Dinesh…

Constitution

Supreme Court dismisses CBI’s Review Petition challenging P Chidambaram bail in INX Media Case HELD The investigating agency argued that the findings of the Court dealing with influencing witnesses in the case “are contrary to record which is required to be corrected”.

Jun 4, 2020 sclaw

Supreme Court dismisses CBI’s Review Petition challenging P Chidambaram bail in INX Media Case The investigating agency argued that the findings of the Court dealing with influencing witnesses in the…

SARFAESI

Who is liable to pay outstanding statutory electricity dues after auction-sale of property? Supreme Court answers. HELD “That electricity dues, where they are statutory in character under the Electricity Act and as per the terms & conditions of supply, cannot be waived in view of the provisions of the Act itself more specifically Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in pari materia with Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910), and cannot partake the character of dues of purely contractual nature.”

Jun 3, 2020 sclaw

Who is liable to pay outstanding statutory electricity dues after auction-sale of property? Supreme Court answers Shruti Mahajan Jun 3, 2020, 12:27 PM IST The Supreme Court has reiterated that statutory…

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