Supreme Court of India Judgements

46468 Judgements hosted as on 12/05/2024 - 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

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