Supreme Court of India Judgements

46650 Judgements hosted as on 11/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: March 2021

I B C

Insolvency Process – Reference to arbitration – Where the petition under Section 7 of IB Code is yet to be admitted and, in such proceedings, if an application under Section 8 of the Act, 1996 is filed, the Adjudicating Authority is duty bound to first decide the application under Section 7 of the IB Code

Mar 29, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. KOTAK INDIA VENTURE (OFFSHORE) FUND (EARLIER KNOWN AS KOTAK INDIA VENTURE LIMITED) AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

I P C

Only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses – It is clear that the assault was intentional which resulted in the death of the deceased and all accused had a common object, as such the High Court has rightly convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section 302/149, IPC etc.

Mar 29, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA @ RAJAPPA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.…

Cr P C

Mohd. Mukhtar Ansari case – It is a well settled principle of law that the Statute must be interpreted to advance the cause of the Statute and not to defeat the same – State Government being a prosecuting agency in the Criminal Administration, is vitally interested in such administration – Petition under section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable.

Mar 29, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Appellant Vs. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.…

Service Matters
Service

Appellant was not entitled to claim benefit of military service for purpose of seniority for appointment to Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) since the benefit of Rule 4(1) of 1972 Rules was not continued in 1982 Rules. His seniority was to be governed by statutory rules applicable after the enforcement of 1982 Rules – Appeal dismissed.

Mar 29, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH JAGMOHAN SINGH DHILLON ETC.ETC. — Appellant Vs. SATWANT SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer and Hemant Gupta,…

I P C

Facebook post read in its entirety pleads for equality of non-tribals in the State of Meghalaya – There was no intention on the part of the Appellant to promote class/community hatred – As there is no attempt made by the Appellant to incite people belonging to a community to indulge in any violence, the basic ingredients of the offence under Sections 153 A and 505 (1) (c) have not been made out – Appeal allowed

Mar 29, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PATRICIA MUKHIM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Service

In the present case, 440 vacancies were advertised; they were to be considered together; obviously, in respect of older vacancies which arose for previous years, the qualifications applicable for the vacancy years were applicable – None of the appellants disputed that they were ineligible in terms of the old rules, as they did not hold the requisite intermediate qualifications in the science stream – Appellants’ contention, in this regard too, consequently fails – Appeal dismissed.

Mar 29, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUMAN DEVI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat,…

Environment

Construction of Road over Bridges – Felling of trees – As per the Report of the Expert Committee submitted, primarily, about 50 trees have already been felled and potentially another 306 trees are to be felled. As per the Report, many of the trees can be called ‘historical trees’ ,

Mar 29, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A.…

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