Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: November 2021

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 60(5)(c) – Residuary jurisdiction of the NCLT cannot be invoked if the termination of a contract is based on grounds unrelated to the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor – NCLT does not have any residuary jurisdiction to entertain the present contractual dispute which has arisen dehors the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor.

Nov 27, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. VISHAL GHISULAL JAIN, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL, SK WHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

Service Matters
Service

An employee could be said to be suffering from stagnation as per the office order only if he possessed the requisite qualification for the next higher post and was unable to get the higher post on account of non availability of such post – Claim of the respondents based on the office order, for getting the pay scale of the next higher post – without assuming the responsibilities of the said promotional posts, was thoroughly misconceived. What they were entitled to, as per the scheme to alleviate the stagnation as contained in the office,

Nov 27, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. BAL KRISHAN SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and…

Service Matters
Service

Relaxation cannot be prayed as a matter of right – If a conscious decision is taken not to grant the relaxation, merely because Rule permits relaxation, no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying service – High Court has committed a grave error in issuing the writ of mandamus commanding the competent authority to grant relaxation in the qualifying service – Appeal allowed.

Nov 27, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VIKASH KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ…

C P C

Jurisdiction of civil courts – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is a self-contained Code – Various provisions of the Act make it clear that if any orders are passed by the competent authority, there is provision for appeal, revision before the designated appellate and revisional authorities – In view of such remedies available for aggrieved parties, the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, stands excluded by implication

Nov 27, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF M.P. — Appellant Vs. GHISILAL — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 2153…

Acquittal

HELD ” The evidence adduced is not separable and the common findings rendered shall be made applicable to all the accused. There are too many loopholes which cannot be filled up, nor is there any evidence to come to a different conclusion including that of exceeding the right of private defence. What emerged as a civil dispute between two groups of villagers turned into a criminal case, thus inclined to hold that the Accused-Appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt as we also give our imprimatur to the plea of private defence as possible and plausible with due discharge of onus.

Nov 23, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARVIND KUMAR @ NEMICHAND AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…

Arbitration

A and C Act, 1996 – Ss 33, 34 and 37 – Only in a case of arithmetical and/or clerical error, the award can be modified and such errors only can be corrected -Order passed by the learned arbitrator in the application under Section 33 of the 1996 Act is beyond the scope and ambit of Section 33 of the 1996 Act – Therefore, both, the City Civil Court as well as the High Court have committed a grave error in dismissing the arbitration suit/appeal under Sections 34 and 37

Nov 22, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GYAN PRAKASH ARYA — Appellant Vs. M/S TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Property Matters

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – Sale deed – Payment of price is an essential part of a sale covered by section 54 of the TP Act. If a sale deed in respect of an immovable property is executed without payment of price and if it does not provide for the payment of price at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law. It is of no legal effect – Therefore, such a sale will be void – It will not effect the transfer of the immovable property.

Nov 22, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KEWAL KRISHAN — Appellant Vs. RAJESH KUMAR AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Civil…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – General Conditions of Contract – Clause 16(2) – Pendente lite and future interest – – held that in view of specific bar contained in clause 16(2) of the GCC, the contractor shall not be entitled to any interest pendente lite or future interest on the amounts due and payable to it under the contract.

Nov 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. MANRAJ ENTERPRISES — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 6592…

Service Matters
Service

Without commenting on the legality of the decision to discontinue the said provision in the pension scheme by the employer, as the pensioner was not alive on the date of discontinuance – It appropriate to pass necessary orders in her favor in this proceeding itself – Resultantly, the sum due and payable under the Pension scheme be computed and the same is ordered to be disbursed to the appellant – Amount earlier refunded to the appellant be adjusted suitably during the remittance process – Respondent/ employer should do the needful in terms of this order within 8 weeks – Appeal allowed.

Nov 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  VEENA PANDEY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil…

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