Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: August 2021

Limitation

Suit for redemption – Limitation – Suit for redemption can be filed within 30 years from the date fixed for redemption.- Advance of loan and return thereof are part of the same document which creates a relationship of debtor and creditor – Thus, it would be covered by proviso in Section 58(c) of the Act – Order of First Appellate Court accepting the appeal of the defendants and dismissing the suit for redemption is not sustainable in law, so as the order passed by the High Court – Appeal allowed.

Aug 15, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHIMRAO RAMCHANDRA KHALATE (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. — Appellant Vs. NANA DINKAR YADAV (TANPURA) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S.…

Service Matters
Service

Determination of seniority – High Court by which it was resolved that the merit of candidates in LCE would not be relevant for altering inter se seniority in the feeder cadre – Seniority of the Petitioners which has been determined prior to the 2017 Rules cannot be disturbed – Petitioners will not be adversely affected by Rule 11 (4) (b) of the 2017 Rules which alters the criteria for determination of seniority from merit to inter se seniority in the lower cadre – Resolution set aside – Petition allowed.

Aug 15, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREM NARAYAN SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha…

Education

There can be no rational for NCTE or its Regional Committee to deny the recognition from the Academic Year 2021-2022 and insist on recognition for Academic Session 2022-2023 – Petition Allowed – The petitioners would be entitled to admit the students for Academic Session 2021-2022 as per the sanction granted by NCTE for the Academic Session 2022-2023

Aug 15, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEVENDRA PATHAK SARVODAYA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and…

Direct Taxation

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 43B Explanation 3C – Explanation 3C, which was introduced for the “removal of doubts” , only made it clear that interest that remained unpaid and has been converted into a loan or borrowing shall not be deemed to have been actually paid

Aug 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M.M. AQUA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-III — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

C P C

(CPC) – Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971- High Court without taking note of these aspects of the matter has wrongly invoked the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaint, when in the instant facts there is neither express nor implied bar under any law – On the other hand, the learned Munsif was justified in passing the order holding the suit to be maintainable

Aug 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RATUL MAHANTA — Appellant Vs. NIRMALENDU SAHA — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 4627 of…

Acquittal

(IPC) – Ss 302 and 436 – Murder by pouring kerosene in house and around the deceased and children – Circumstantial Evidence – Appellant not being injured alone cannot be held as a circumstance to hold one guilty of having set fire to the house – Since the other circumstances in the chain are not established, the same cannot be held against the appellant

Aug 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARUBAI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1154…

I B C

IBC – Dispute Section 9 – It is important to separate the grain from the chaff – so long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has no other option but to reject the application – the Court is not required to be satisfied as to whether the defence is likely to succeed or not – Court also cannot go into the merits of the dispute

Aug 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED — Appellant Vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

I P C

IBC – Resolution plan approved by Committee of Creditors (CoC) – Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority cannot extend into entering upon merits of a business decision made by a requisite majority of the CoC in its commercial wisdom – Nor is there a residual equity based jurisdiction in the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority

Aug 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRATAP TECHNOCRATS (P) LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MONITORING COMMITTEE OF RELIANCE INFRATEL LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya…

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