Supreme Court of India Judgements

46448 Judgements hosted as on 05/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: November 2020

Acquittal

(IPC) – S 302, 34 – Refusal to undergo Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Guilt cannot be based purely on the refusal to undergo a (TIP) – Ballistics evidence connecting the empty cartridges & the bullets recovered from the body of the deceased with an alleged weapon of offence is contradictory and suffers from serious infirmities. Appeal allowed.

Nov 3, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAJESH @ SARKARI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira…

State Laws

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 – Kerala Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 – Rule 4 – Restrictions on activities within wetlands -It is open to the Appellant to challenge the order of the Collector dated 30.04.2019 in accordance with law –

Nov 2, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THOMAS LAWRENCE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee,…

Corporate

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is at a nascent stage and it is better that the interpretation of the provisions of the Code is taken up by this Court to avoid any confusion, and to authoritatively settle the law – Personal gurantor – Writ Petitions are transferred from the High Courts to SCOI

Nov 2, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. LALIT KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta…

Matrimonial

Child Custody – During interaction on the video-conferencing platform, “S” son of the Appellant/Respondent indicated his desire to reside with his mother in Singapore – While the child is attached to the respondent, he has indicated, in no uncertain terms, his desire to live with his mother. Appeal allowed.

Nov 2, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MRS RITIKA SHARAN — Appellant Vs. MR SUJOY GHOSH — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, JJ.…

State Laws

U P Mining Minerals (Concession) R, 1963 – Rule 40(h) – disruption of mining operations- State of UP states that they are only liable to refund (i) any security deposit; or (ii) advance royalties paid to them, for this obstructed period – the State already consented and recorded in such order .

Nov 2, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Constitution Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

May 5, 2024 sclaw