Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: September 2021

C P C

C P C – Order XI Rule 1 (4) and Order XI Rule 1 (5) applicable to the commercial suit shall be applicable only with respect to the documents which were in plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint. Therefore, the rigour of establishing the reasonable cause in non disclosure along with plaint may not arise in the case where the additional documents sought to be produced/relied upon are discovered subsequent to the filing of the plaint.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN — Appellant Vs. VINAY KUMAR G.B. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil…

Environment

N G T – It is the authorities who recommended approval in respect of only 24 hectares – Insofar as the mandatory distance from the water body is concerned, the authorities upon survey had found that the mandatory distance of 0.25 km is maintained – Tribunal has grossly erred in arriving at a finding that the appellant had reduced the area to 24 hectares only in order to avoid the rigours of public hearing and further that there was no distance of 0.25 km between the proposed mining area and the Singotham Lake – Appeal allowed.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DHRUVA ENTERPRISES — Appellant Vs. C. SRINIVASULU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 12A – Withdrawal of application admitted under section 7, 9 or 10 – Adjudicating Authority is entitled to withdraw the application admitted under Section 7 or Section 9 or Section 10, on an application made by the applicant with the approval of 90% voting share of the CoC.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH K.N. RAJAKUMAR — Appellant Vs. V. NAGARAJAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – HELD if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAGENDRA SAH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Acquittal

Abetment of Suicide – Harassment -Mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC – High Court as well as the learned trial Court have committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC – Appeal allowed.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VELLADURAI — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal…

Municipal Laws

Demolition of building – Damages – Finding of the High Court that the building was demolished without giving clear three days’ notice is partly correct – Once the order was passed by the Corporation on 5.1.1995 and was put on the means of communication, the date of actual receipt of notice is insignificant as the receipt could be delayed by the recipient, though there is no such attempt or finding. Rupees 5 Lakhs as compensation granted.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABDUL KHUDDUS — Appellant Vs. H.M. CHANDIRAMANI (DEAD) THR LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…

Arbitration

A and C Act, 1996 – Ss 9(1) and 9(3) – Arbitration agreement – Of course it hardly need be mentioned that even if an application under Section 9 had been entertained before the constitution of the Tribunal, the Court always has the discretion to direct the parties to approach the Arbitral Tribunal, if necessary by passing a limited order of interim protection, particularly when there has been a long time gap between hearings and the application has for all practical purposes, to be heard afresh, or the hearing has just commenced and is likely to consume a lot of time – High Court has rightly directed the Commercial Court to proceed to complete the adjudication.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARCELOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ESSAR BULK TERMINAL LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.…

I B C

As per Section 61(2) of the IB Code, the appeal was required to be preferred within a period of thirty days – Therefore, the limitation period prescribed to prefer an appeal was 30 days. However, as per the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Code, the Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal, but such period shall not exceed 15 days. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction at all to condone the delay exceeding 15 days from the period of 30 days, as contemplated under Section 61(2) of the IB Code.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL SPOT EXCHANGE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MR. ANIL KOHLI, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL FOR DUNAR FOODS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

Matrimonial

Divorce – Husband and wife have been living separately for more than 16 years – Marriage between the parties is emotionally dead and there is no point in persuading them to live together any more – Therefore, this is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India – Marriage between the parties is dissolved.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUBHRANSU SARKAR — Appellant Vs. INDRANI SARKAR (NEE DAS) — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder of wife on suspicion of her infidelity – Sentence of imprisonment for life – Question of propriety of specifying rigorous imprisonment while imposing life sentence – Matter settled in Naib Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1983) 2 SCC 454 held that the sentence of imprisonment for life has to be equated to rigorous imprisonment for life

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MD. ALFAZ ALI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) SLP…

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