Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: June 2021

Arbitration

(i) Whether the provisions of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 18(3) of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ?; HELD YES (ii) Whether, counter claim is maintainable in such arbitration proceedings ? HELD YES “MSMED Act, being a special Statute, will have an overriding effect vis-à-vis Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is a general Act.”

Jun 30, 2021 sclaw

“18. With regard to first issue, namely, applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 to the arbitration proceedings initiated under provisions of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, we need…

Land Acquisition

Tamil Nadu State legislature had legislative competence to enact Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 and is not inconsistent with Article 254 of the Constitution of India. HELD “We hold the 2019 Act to be a legitimate legislative exercise and find it to be consistent with and within the four corners of Article 254 of the Constitution of India and also of the High Court judgment.”,

Jun 29, 2021 sclaw

State legislature had legislative competence to enact retrospective validating Act As regards the competency of legislature to enact a retrospective validating Act, the bench referred to precedents and noted the…

Constitution

HELD – Persons With Disabilities Have Right To Reservation In Promotions Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka FOLLOWED Further HELD that the principle in Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India & Others – (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 215 against reservation in promotions will not extend to PWDs.

Jun 28, 2021 sclaw

The Supreme Court on Monday held that persons with physical disabilities have right to reservation in promotions also. A 2-judge bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R Subhash Reddy…

I P C

HELD “Thus, for covering an offence under Section 364A (IPC) , apart from fulfillment of first condition, the second condition, i.e., “and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person” also needs to be proved in case the case is not covered by subsequent clauses joined by “or”.”

Jun 28, 2021 sclaw

Issues framed by the Supreme Court The Supreme Court considered the following issues : I.What are the essential ingredients of Section3 46A to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the…

Juvenile Justice

No adoption of affected children should be permitted contrary to the provisions of the JJ Act, 2015 – Invitation to persons for adoption of orphans is contrary to law as no adoption of a child can be permitted without the involvement of CARA – Stringent action shall be taken by the State Governments/Union Territories against agencies / individuals who are responsible for indulging in this illegal activity

Jun 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IN RE CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN CHILDREN PROTECTION HOMES ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) SMW (C) No.…

Constitution

Republic of Italy, deposited pursuant to award dated 21.05.2020 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal can be said to be a reasonable amount of compensation and can be said to be in the interest of heirs of the deceased – In exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. FIR quashed and set aside.

Jun 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MASSIMILANO LATORRE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…

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