Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: December 2020

Education

Admission in Medical Courses – Benefit of ‘First Priority’ Policy – Candidates whose parents were domiciles of the UT of Dadra and Nagar Haveli or Daman and Diu and had studied the same place(s) mentioned above for at least the classes of 8th to 12th standards, their children are eligibile for the same

Dec 26, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUSKAN SAMIR MODASIA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Petition(s)…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – HELD – this is a case where the inferences drawn are a non-sequitur to the plain and simple words of the e-mails/communications read in evidence, which were before the Tribunal and which do not support the inferences drawn. In this view of the matter, clearly the approach of the majority of arbitrators is arbitrary and capricious; and therefore cannot pass judicial muster. (See : Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49)

Dec 20, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANGLO AMERICAN METALLURGICAL COAL PTY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MMTC LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman and K.M. Joseph, JJ. )…

Constitution

FARMERS AGITATION : We clarify that this Court will not interfere with the protest in question. Indeed the right to protest is part of a fundamental right and can as a matter of fact, be exercised subject to public order. There can certainly be no impediment in the exercise of such rights as long as   it is non-violent and does not result in damage to the life and properties of other citizens and is in accordance with law. We are of the view at this stage that the farmers’ protest should be allowed to continue without impediment

Dec 17, 2020 sclaw

1 ITEM NO.28 TO 32 Court 1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION X/PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A…

Bail Declined

Dowry death – Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail of in-laws of the deceased- Grant of anticipatory bail in such a serious offence would operate to obstruct the investigation – It is a well settled principle of law that the setting aside of an “unjustified, illegal or perverse order” granting bail is distinct from the cancellation of bail – Investigation transferred to CBI

Dec 17, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DR. NARESH KUMAR MANGLA — Appellant Vs. SMT. ANITA AGARWAL AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra…

Service Matters
Service

CAS promotion, the incumbent teacher must have holding a substantive sanctioned post, as much as CAS promotion being a personal promotion to the incumbent teacher – promotion under the scheme, is to be given benefit only from the entry of service of such incumbent into the University – Action of university upheld writ dismissed

Dec 17, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DR. PRABHUGOUDA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R.…

Corporate

Competition Act, 2002 – Section 3 – Anti-competitive agreements – Ola and Uber do not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices between drivers, who are independent individuals, who act independently of each other, so as to attract the application of section 3 of the Act, as has been held by both the CCI and the NCLAT.

Dec 17, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SAMIR AGRAWAL — Appellant Vs. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, K.M. Joseph and Krishna Murari,…

Corporate

Winding up proceeding pending – Transfer of – High court to NCLT -Words “party or parties” appearing in the 5th proviso to Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 434 would take within its fold any creditor of the company in liquidation – If any creditor is aggrieved by any decision of the official liquidator, he is entitled under the 1956 Act to challenge the same before the Company Court

Dec 17, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ACTION ISPAT AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SHYAM METALICS AND ENERGY LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, K.M. Joseph…

Domestic Violence

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 8 – Summary Eviction Procedure – Right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act 2007.

Dec 17, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SMT. S VANITHA — Appellant Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indu…

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