Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: July 2020

Rent

Property Tax–Sub-lessee whether liable to pay property tax–Deed placed number of restrictions on the sub-lessee which prevented the sub lessee from full enjoyment of the leasehold rights–As the deed did not operate as a conveyance and the industrial plot was let out to sub-lessee the primary liability to pay property tax cannot be fastened on sub-lessee.

Jul 5, 2020 sclaw

Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy Civil Appeal Nos.6802-6806 Of 2003 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shashnak Steel Industries (P) Ltd {Decided…

Evidence Act

Extra judicial confession–Confession before PW3 after a week of occurrence–PW3 is the former President of the Village Panchayat–He had not chosen to reduce into writing the extra judicial confession of the accused or produce him at the police station–Confession not reliable.

Jul 5, 2020 sclaw

Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2003 Inspector Of Police, T.N. v. Palanisamy @ Selvan {Decided…

I P C

Mischief–Accused forcibly entered sugarcane fields of complainant and destroyed the crop–Accused used derogatory words against him–Complainant belongs to Scheduled Tribe–Accused rightly convicted under Section 427 I.P.C. under Section 3(1)(iv) and (v) of Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Jul 5, 2020 sclaw

Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 1967 of 2008 Kashiben Chhaganbhai Koli v. State of Gujarat {Decided on…

Service Matters
Service

Pension–Husband of appellant died in 1978–Pension claimed after 14 years under Rule 22-A–Rule 22-A made effective from September 1, 1982 with prospective effect–A right or a liability which was created for the first time, cannot be given a retrospective effect.

Jul 5, 2020 sclaw

Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Civil Appeal Nos.7556-7557 of 2008 Panchi Devi v. State of Rajasthan {Decided on 18/12/2008} Important Point Pension–Husband…

Property Matters

Easement right–A right of easement can be declared only when the servient owner is a party to the suit–If the High Court was of the view that defendants were not the owners of the suit property, it could not have granted declaration of easementary right as no such relief could be granted unless the servient owner is impleaded as a defendant.

Jul 5, 2020 sclaw

Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Civil Appeal Nos.5798-5799 Of 2008 Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal {Decided on 23/09/2008} Important Point…

Accident

Accident Law–Multiplier–Deceased was aged 31 years at the time of the accident–Claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act–In the case of the deceased whose age was above 30 years but not exceeding 35 years, the multiplier of 17 in terms of the Second Schedule is required to be applied

Jul 5, 2020 sclaw

Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2009 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6227 of 2006] Mohan Singh…

Cr P C

Summoning order–Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against summoning order–Petition dismissed by High Court stating that remedy of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. also available–Held; it is difficult to conceive that jurisdiction of High Court would be held to be barred only because the revisional jurisdiction could also be availed of.

Jul 5, 2020 sclaw

Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Criminal Appeal No. 2055 of 2008 Dharimal Tobaco Products Ltd. v. Sate of Maharashtra {Decided on 17/12/2008}…

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