Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: October 2020

Narcotics

Officers under Section 53 of NDPS Act are police; statement under Section 67 is confessional statement: Supreme Court in 2:1 judgment The Court noted that given the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, they have to be construed bearing in mind the fact that the severer the punishment, the greater the care.

Oct 30, 2020 sclaw

The Supreme Court has held by a 2:1 majority that officers under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 are police officers (Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil…

Bail Granted

DEFAULT BAIL – the magistrate ought to inform the accused of the availability of the indefeasible right u/S 167(2) CrPC once it accrues, without any delay.HELD Irrespective of the seriousness of the offence and the reliability of the evidence available, filing additional complaints merely to circumvent the application for default bail is an improper strategy.

Oct 27, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  M. RAVINDRAN — Appellant Vs. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law – Claim to re-employment – continuation in service – HELD the view in Indu Singh, 2017 SCC Online 1527 dealing with an identical statute, was correctly interpreted – Impugned judgment and orders of the High Court are set aside – Appellants consequently, to continue till the end of the following June on re-employment – Appeal allowed.

Oct 18, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAVIN CHANDRA DHOUNDIYAL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat,…

Corporate

Tender agreement – Termination of – enquiry report prepared by the M D was conducted ex parte & the M D failed to offer opportunity of hearing before passing the order impugned which terminated agreement for no justifiable reason to hold that the respondent was at fault . Bias therefore, cannot be ruled out, terminating the agreement cannot be sustained in law.

Oct 18, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF U.P. — Appellant Vs. SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph,…

Constitution

IMP : Cancellation of the award of tender in favour of the applicant, the audi alteram partem rule were breached in its entirety.  HELD  writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable at the instance of an aggrieved party to enforce a contractual obligation of the State or its instrumentality when the State acts in an arbitrary manner.

Oct 18, 2020 sclaw

Cancellation of the award of tender in favour of the applicant, the audi alteram partem rule were breached in its entirety.  HELD  writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution…

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