Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - 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 394 read with Section 397 – Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery – The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 394 and 397 of the IPC, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine, based on the recovery of stolen items and identification by the complainant – The appeal challenges the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s appeal against the trial court’s conviction and sentence – The appellant contested the identification of the stolen items and the legality of the disclosure statement used to convict him – The State supported the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the recovery of stolen items and the identification process – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered release, citing insufficient evidence to affirm guilt – The Court’s reasoning focused on the improper proof of the disclosure memo and the questionable identification of the stolen items by the complainant – The conclusion was that the prosecution failed to connect the appellant with the crime conclusively.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
State Laws

M.P. Excise Act, 1915 – The case involves the applicability of a rule for imposing penalties related to the liquor license period of 2009-10 and whether the old or substituted rule should apply – The main issue is whether the penalty should be based on the rule in place during the violation (2009-10) or the substituted rule from 2011, which reduced the penalty – The appellant argues for the application of the substituted rule, which imposes a lower penalty, as the old rule was repealed – The State contends that the old rule should apply to transactions from 2009-10, despite the substitution – The Supreme Court accepted the appellant’s contention, applying the substituted rule to pending proceedings – The Court reasoned that the purpose of the amendment was to balance the offence and penalty, and not applying the substituted rule would not serve public interest – The Court distinguished between the effects of repeal and substitution of rules, emphasizing that the substituted rule should apply from the date of substitution – The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court’s judgment, and the penalty was determined based on the substituted rule from 2011.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 236 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 190, 193 and 200 – The appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India against the Ex-Directors of M/s. SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. for offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The primary issue is whether the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013 has jurisdiction to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings and that offences under the Code should be tried by the Special Court – The respondents contended that the High Court’s judgment was correct and that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code – The Court reasoned that the reference to the Special Court in Section 236(1) of the Code is a ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not a ‘legislation by reference’, meaning subsequent amendments to the Companies Act do not affect the Code – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine that the case is one of ‘legislation by incorporation’ – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. The judicial opinion emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the distinction between ‘legislation by incorporation’ and ‘legislation by reference’ in determining jurisdiction.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(2) and 302 read with Section 149 – The appellants were convicted for the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court, reversing their earlier acquittal by the trial court – The main issue was the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and the admissibility of evidence, such as the FIR and recovery of weapons – The appellants argued that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal, contending that the eyewitnesses were unreliable and the FIR was a post-investigation document – The State contended that the eyewitness testimonies were credible and the FIR was lodged promptly without undue delay – The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, acquitted the appellants, and discharged their bail bonds – The Court found inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts and issues with the FIR and recovery of weapons – The Court applied principles regarding the appellate court’s power in appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the need for the High Court to find perversity or illegality in the trial court’s judgment to reverse an acquittal – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s judgment was flawed and restored the trial court’s acquittal of the appellants.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw