October 2021 - Page 6 of 11 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

December 19, 2024 11:52 am

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Ss 143(3), 263 and 263(2) – Assessment – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Receipt of the order passed under Section 263 by the assessee has no relevance for the purpose of counting the period of limitation – The order was made/passed by the learned Commissioner on 26.03.2012 and it was dispatched on 28.03.2012. The relevant last date for the purpose of passing the order under Section 263 considering the fact that the assessment was for the financial year 200809 would be 31.03.2012 and the order might have been received as per the case of the assessee. Wrongly held passed by the learned Commissioner was barred by period of limitation

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI — Appellant Vs. MOHAMMED MEERAN SHAHUL HAMEED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

Service

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Section 91(3) – Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951 – Rule 86 – Termination – HELD Single Judge erred in entertaining the petition in the year 2012 challenging the order of termination passed in the year 1996, on the ground of delay and laches and more particularly when even otherwise if the termination order would not have been passed the deceased employee would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 1999.

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SURJI DEVI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil…

Service

Part-time temporary employees in a Government run institution cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work – Regularization can be only as per the regularization policy declared by the State/Government and nobody can claim the regularization as a matter of right dehors the regularization policy

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ILMO DEVI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…

Constitution

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Sections 20(3) and 20(5) – Jurisdiction of Lok Adalat – Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction at all to decide the matter on meris once it is found that compromise or settlement could not be arrived at between the parties – Impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat dismissing the writ petition on merits is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ESTATE OFFICER — Appellant Vs. COLONEL H.V. MANKOTIA (RETIRED) — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Environment

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Sections 14, 16, 18(2)(e) and 19(25) – Whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has the power to exercise Suo Motu jurisdiction in discharge of its functions under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Held, NGT is vested with suo motu power in discharge of its functions under the NGT Act:

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI — Appellant Vs. ANKITA SINHA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T. Ravikumar,…

Will & Succession

Indian Succession Act S 63 & Indian Evidence Act S 68 have been duly complied with in proving Exhibit P4 (Will). HELD due execution of Exhibit P4 is accepted as against Exhibit D1. Exhibit P4 also cannot be questioned by the Respondent No. 1 who is none other than the erstwhile brother-in-law of the Appellant. Respondent No. 1 & 2 merely rely upon Exhibit D1 which is rightly found to be not genuine by both the Courts. We feel that the Appellate Court has not considered the relevant materials and substituted its own views when not warranted either on facts or law.HELD due execution of Exhibit P4 is accepted as against Exhibit D1. Exhibit P4 also cannot be questioned by the Respondent No. 1 who is none other than the erstwhile brother-in-law of the Appellant. Respondent No. 1 & 2 merely rely upon Exhibit D1 which is rightly found to be not genuine by both the Courts. We feel that the Appellate Court has not considered the relevant materials and substituted its own views when not warranted either on facts or law.

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V. PRABHAKARA — Appellant Vs. BASAVARAJ K. (DEAD) BY LR. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…

Service

Service Law – HELD Firstly, the first appellant found that the respondent is not suitable for re-appointment, which was approved by the other authorities. Therefore, the employer has taken a conscious decision in the interest of the society. Secondly, it is not a case of extension in which case maybe the confirmation by “ACC” would have been warranted. We may also note that all the appellants, including the Hon’ble Minister, have approved the subsequent decision to go for a fresh recruitment by taking note of the larger public interest.

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. N MURUGESAN ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. )…

Constitution

Government houses/flats are meant for serving Government employees. Post retirement, the government employees including Kashmiri Migrants are granted pensionary benefits including monthly pension – Classification made in favour of Government employees who were Kashmiri Migrants stands on the same footing as that of other Government employees or public figures – There cannot be any justification on the basis of social or economic criteria to allow the Kashmiri Migrants to stay in Government accommodation for indefinite long period.

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. OMKAR NATH DHAR (D) THROUGH L.RS. — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna,…

Rent

High Court in its revisional jurisdiction after taking into consideration the material on record, arrived to the conclusion that the delay of 175 days was bona fide and has been satisfactorily explained and allowed the application seeking condonation of delay of 175 days. In sequel thereof, the ex-parte decree was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Rent Controller to hear the parties on merits.

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MRS. AMBIKA MURALI — Appellant Vs. TMT. VALLIAMMAL AND ANOTHER AND ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…

Service

HELD the grievance of the respondent is not sustainable for the reason that the post of Assistant Public prosecutor is included in the Schedule appended to the Uttar Pradesh Transport (Subordinate) Prosecution Service Rules, 1979 (for short ‘the 1979 Rules’) which was published in the extraordinary Gazette on 27.07.1979 and in terms of Rule 5 of the 1979 Rules. Appeal Allowed

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHYAM LAL JAISWAL — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )…

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

Month: October 2021

You missed