Supreme Court of India Judgements

46468 Judgements hosted as on 12/05/2024 - 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

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