Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: March 2021

Limitation

For appeals filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule

Mar 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA (WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT) REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER — Appellant Vs. M/S BORSE BROTHERS ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent (…

Matrimonial

Family Courts Act, 1984 – Sections 7, 10, 14, 15 and 15 – Jurisdiction of Family Court – Family Court does not have plenary powers to do away with the mandatory procedural requirements in particular, which guarantee fairness and transparency in the process to be followed and for adjudication of claims of both sides.

Mar 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AMAN LOHIA — Appellant Vs. KIRAN LOHIA — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Transferred Case (Civil)…

Service Matters
Service

Held, Selection in respect of 3295 posts was undertaken in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Kumar Yadav and Ors. vs. State, (2018) 17 SCC 398, State Government and its functionaries were obliged to go strictly in order of merit and apply the principle of reservation with the availability of 3295 additional posts, in the re-working exercise, if the candidates who were already selected against reserved posts were entitled to be considered against open category posts, that exercise cannot be termed as illegal or invalid on any count.

Mar 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Pecuniary jurisdiction – Proceedings instituted before the commencement of the Act of 2019 on 20 July 2020 would continue before the fora corresponding to those under the Act of 1986 (the National Commission, State Commissions and District Commissions) and not be transferred in terms of the pecuniary jurisdiction set for the fora established under the Act of 2019.

Mar 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEENA ANEJA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 – Regulation 2B – Companies Act, 2013 – Section 230 – Compromise or arrangement – A person who is not eligible under the IBC to submit a resolution plan for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor shall not be a party in any manner to such compromise or arrangement.

Mar 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARUN KUMAR JAGATRAMKA — Appellant Vs. JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R.…

Arbitration

A & C Act – Obviously, once time has started running, any final rejection by the Appellant by its letter dated 10.11.2010 would not give any fresh start to a limitation period which has already begun running, following the mandate of Section 9 of the Limitation Act – This being the case, the High Court was clearly in error in stating that since the applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act were filed on 06.11.2013, they were within the limitation period of three years starting from 10.11.2020.

Mar 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT BOARD — Appellant Vs. M/S B. RAMACHANDRAIAH AND SONS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil…

Bail Declined

BAIL – Even otherwise in a case like this, where the allegations are of tampering with the court order and for whatever reason the State has not filed the bail application the locus is not that much important and it is insignificant. accused to surrender forthwith as a consequence of cancellation of the bail granted by the High Court, if not surrendered.

Mar 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAVEEN SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M. R.…

I P C

Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC does not bar prosecution by the investigating agency for offence punishable under Section 193 IPC, which is committed during the stage of investigation – This is provided that the investigating agency has lodged complaint or registered the case under Section 193, IPC prior to commencement of proceedings and production of such evidence before the trial court

Mar 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHIMA RAZU PRASAD — Appellant Vs. STATE, REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/SPE/ACU-II — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Vineet…

You missed

Constitution Service

Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges as the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link of the accused’s disclosure leading to the discovery of skeletal remains under Section 27 and the DNA evidence was also found to be inconclusive due to lack of proper collection of samples. – Proof of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 — Voluntariness and Uninfluenced Nature — The Court reiterates that the information provided by an accused under Section 27 must be voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 54 and 59 — Buttondar knife — Specific Intent Required — The court clarifies that mere possession of a knife covered by a notification like the DAD Notification is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the Arms Act — There must be specific intent to use it for the prohibited purposes such as “manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test.” – The prosecution must clearly allege and prove the intent of the accused to use the weapon for the specified prohibited purposes — Absence of such allegation in the charge-sheet renders the proceedings defective.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw