Supreme Court of India Judgements

46468 Judgements hosted as on 12/05/2024 - 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

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376(2)(g) and 506(1) – Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act, 1998 – Section 4 – Gang Rape – The victim’s testimony, along with her mother and aunt’s statements, was consistent with the initial complaint and corroborated by medical evidence – The defense argued that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – Whether the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies were not significant and did not affect the overall credibility of the evidence – The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The court rejected the defense’s argument that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant and rejected the defence’s arguments regarding inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Dismissal of Civil Suit – Condonation of delay – Standing to file an application – The court clarified that only parties to a suit or those who have accrued a right in the lis can file an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the suit. A stranger to the proceedings cannot file such an application.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 – Section 3(1)(b) – State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 – Section 29 – The appeals arise from a High Court judgment regarding the recovery of time-barred debts under the Act, 1979, and the Act, 1951 – The main issue is whether a debt time-barred under the Limitation Act can be recovered using the aforementioned Acts – The appellants argued that time-barred debts cannot be recovered under the Recovery of Dues Act, citing the precedent set in V.R. Kalliyanikutty – The respondents argued that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act allow for time-barred debt recovery, as they only bar the remedy, not the right – The court examined whether the Recovery of Dues Act creates a new right for creditors and allows for time-barred debt recovery – The court discussed the distinction between a debt and the right of action for its recovery, noting that the statute of limitation bars the latter but not the former – The court concluded that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act provide an alternative mechanism for recovering debts, even if they are time-barred – Matter needs to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate three-judge bench.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Policy Claim – The appellants, family of the deceased, filed a complaint after the LIC repudiated their claim on a policy following the policyholder’s accidental death – The main issue was whether there was a concluded contract between the deceased and LIC at the time of his death, which would obligate LIC to pay the insurance benefits – The appellants argued that LIC had accepted the first premium and issued a receipt, thereby assuming risk and concluding the contract before the policyholder’s death – LIC contended that the policy was not communicated to the deceased and was blocked due to his demise, implying no concluded contract existed – The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s order, restored the District Forum’s order in favor of the appellants, and directed LIC to pay the insurance benefits as per the policy terms – The Court found clear presumption of acceptance of the policy by LIC, as the first premium receipt indicated the corporation was on risk from the receipt date – The Court relied on precedents that establish the principles of insurance contracts and the obligations of good faith expected from insurers – The Supreme Court concluded that LIC had indeed entered into a contract with the policyholder before his death, and thus, was liable to pay the insurance benefits to the appellants.

May 12, 2024 sclaw