Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: November 2020

Constitution

RBI Loan moratorium – HELD petitioner has expressed its satisfaction on the measures taken by the Government of India redressing grievances of the petitioner – Court dispose of the present writ petition with directions to the respondents to ensure that all steps be taken to implement the decision dated 23.10.2020 of the Government of India

Nov 29, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GAJENDRA SHARMA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ.…

Bail Granted

Basic rule of criminal justice system is “bail, not jail”- Right to life and personal liberty- HELD the High Court should not foreclose itself from the exercise of the power when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of their personal liberty in an excess of state power.

Nov 29, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee,…

Education

Admission – Super Specialty Medical Courses – Reservation – This Court direct that the counselling for admission to Super Specialty Medical Courses for the academic year 2020-2021 shall proceed on a date to be fixed by the competent authority without providing for reservations to in-service doctors for the academic year 2020-2021

Nov 29, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DR. PRERIT SHARMA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DR. BILU B.S. & ORS. — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and…

Service Matters
Service

Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualification, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2020 – Advocates with experience of 10 years will be eligible for appointment as judicial members in tribunals – Members of Indian Legal Service will also be eligible for appointment as judicial members provided they fulfill same criteria as advocates.

Nov 29, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra…

Service Matters
Service

Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services (General Branch) Rules, 1975- HELD To forestall any apprehensions as to which of the appointees would be senior, and if those from the earlier process are appointed later, the proviso clarifies that candidates from the earlier process would rank senior

Nov 29, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOHAR LAL JAT AND OTHERS ETC — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS ETC — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 50 – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 13(1) – Foreign award – Enforcement of – A further appeal by a party aggrieved by an order of enforcement, even under the later enacted Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is not maintainable

Nov 29, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NOY VALLESINA ENGINEERING SPA, (NOW KNOWN AS NOY AMBIENTE S.P.A) — Appellant Vs. JINDAL DRUGS LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira…

Direct Taxation

I Tax Act, 1961 – S 40(a)(iib) – CoI, 1950 – Art 226 – VAT expenditure is not allowable as deduction – When the vires of S 40(a)(iib) of the I T Act were challenged, which can be decided by the High Court alone in exercise of powers under Art 226, the H C ought to have decided the issue with regard to vires of S 40(a)(iib) on merits, irrespective of the fact whether the matter was sub judice before the Income Tax Authority

Nov 29, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S TAMIL NADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash…

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