Supreme Court of India Judgements

46468 Judgements hosted as on 12/05/2024 - 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

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376(2)(g) and 506(1) – Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act, 1998 – Section 4 – Gang Rape – The victim’s testimony, along with her mother and aunt’s statements, was consistent with the initial complaint and corroborated by medical evidence – The defense argued that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – Whether the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies were not significant and did not affect the overall credibility of the evidence – The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The court rejected the defense’s argument that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant and rejected the defence’s arguments regarding inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Dismissal of Civil Suit – Condonation of delay – Standing to file an application – The court clarified that only parties to a suit or those who have accrued a right in the lis can file an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the suit. A stranger to the proceedings cannot file such an application.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 – Section 3(1)(b) – State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 – Section 29 – The appeals arise from a High Court judgment regarding the recovery of time-barred debts under the Act, 1979, and the Act, 1951 – The main issue is whether a debt time-barred under the Limitation Act can be recovered using the aforementioned Acts – The appellants argued that time-barred debts cannot be recovered under the Recovery of Dues Act, citing the precedent set in V.R. Kalliyanikutty – The respondents argued that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act allow for time-barred debt recovery, as they only bar the remedy, not the right – The court examined whether the Recovery of Dues Act creates a new right for creditors and allows for time-barred debt recovery – The court discussed the distinction between a debt and the right of action for its recovery, noting that the statute of limitation bars the latter but not the former – The court concluded that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act provide an alternative mechanism for recovering debts, even if they are time-barred – Matter needs to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate three-judge bench.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Policy Claim – The appellants, family of the deceased, filed a complaint after the LIC repudiated their claim on a policy following the policyholder’s accidental death – The main issue was whether there was a concluded contract between the deceased and LIC at the time of his death, which would obligate LIC to pay the insurance benefits – The appellants argued that LIC had accepted the first premium and issued a receipt, thereby assuming risk and concluding the contract before the policyholder’s death – LIC contended that the policy was not communicated to the deceased and was blocked due to his demise, implying no concluded contract existed – The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s order, restored the District Forum’s order in favor of the appellants, and directed LIC to pay the insurance benefits as per the policy terms – The Court found clear presumption of acceptance of the policy by LIC, as the first premium receipt indicated the corporation was on risk from the receipt date – The Court relied on precedents that establish the principles of insurance contracts and the obligations of good faith expected from insurers – The Supreme Court concluded that LIC had indeed entered into a contract with the policyholder before his death, and thus, was liable to pay the insurance benefits to the appellants.

May 12, 2024 sclaw