December 2021 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

November 22, 2024 8:05 am

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 35(1)(c) – Joint complaint – HELD the proper way of interpreting Section 35(1) read with section 2(5), would be to say that a complaint may be filed: (i) by a single consumer; (ii) by a recognised consumer Association; (iii) by one or more consumers jointly, seeking the redressal of their own grievances without representing other consumers who may or may not have the same interest; (iv) by one or more consumers on behalf of or for the benefit of numerous consumers; and (v) the Central Government, Central Authority or State Authority.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ANIL KUMAR VIRMANI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…

Service

M P State Civil Services Rules, 2015 – Rule 4(3)(c)(1) and (2) – Appointment to post of the Chief Municipal Officer – If a candidate is selected in the main list on the basis of the higher priority of the post given by him in the preference sheet, the candidate will not be considered for the remaining post indicated in the preference sheet -The candidate concerned had applied without demur and also furnished a declaration with regard to correctness of details provided. He cannot thereafter turn around to seek alteration of the position to the detriment of others.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION — Appellant Vs. MANISH BAKAWALE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna,…

I B C

Dominant purpose of the IBC is revival of the Corporate Debtor and making it an ongoing concern – Opinion expressed by the CoC after due deliberations in the meetings through voting, as per voting shares, is the collective business decision and that the decision of the CoC’s ‘commercial wisdom’ is non justiciable, except on limited grounds as are available for challenge under Section 30(2) or Section 61(3) of the IBC – Under Section 61(3)(ii) of the IBC, an appeal would be tenable if there has been material irregularity in exercise of the powers by the RP during the corporate insolvency resolution period – Scope of the words ‘material irregularity’, as are found in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NGAITLANG DHAR — Appellant Vs. PANNA PRAGATI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 392 and 397 – Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 – Sections 11 and 13 – Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt – If the charge of committing the offence is alleged against all the accused and only one among the ‘offenders’ had used the firearm or deadly weapon, only such of the ‘offender’ who has used the firearm or deadly weapon alone would be liable to be charged under Section 397 IPC

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAM RATAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, JJ. )…

Constitution

HELD Bar Council of India may consider empanelling experienced and seasoned advocates and/or retired judicial officers to act as Inquiry Officers where an inquiry would be necessitated. On such inquiry being concluded the report of the Inquiry Officers could be received by the Bar Council of India and may issue suitable directions to the State Bar Council to enlist a panel of Inquiry Officers for the purpose of conducting the inquiry on behalf of the Bar Council of India in the respective States itself and on conclusion of the said inquiry to transmit the inquiry report to the Bar Council of India for enabling it to take it further action in the matter.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. ANJINAPPA — Appellant Vs. K.C. KRISHNA REDDY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service

Disciplinary proceeding – Procedure for imposing major penalties – Memorandum of charges -Allegations against the appellant are serious in nature and ought not to be scuttled on purely technical ground. But the Tribunal in the judgment which was set aside by the High Court had reserved liberty to issue a fresh memorandum of charges under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as per Rules laid down in the matter, if so advised. Thus, the department’s power to pursue the matter has been reserved and not foreclosed.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNNY ABRAHAM — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil…

Dowry Death

Dowry Death – There is sufficient evidence brought on record to inculpate husband of deceased – As for mother-in-law from the evidence on record only certain omnibus allegations have been made against her with respect to dowry demands – Respondent-State has not been able to indicate any specific allegations, nor point to any specific evidence or testimony against her – Conviction of husband of deceased maintained – Conviction of mother-in-law set aside.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PARVATI DEVI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR NOW STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 304 Part II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Reduction of sentence – Land dispute – Sudden quarrel – No premeditated or preplanned incident – While confirming the conviction for offence under Section 304(ii) of the IPC – Sentence reduced form ten years to two years rigorous imprisonment with fine.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVINDAN — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

C P C

Suit for recovery – Impleadment of party in appeal – There cannot be an automatic allowing of the appeal and quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court without any further entering into the merits of the appeal and/or expressing anything on merits in the appeal on an impleadment of a party in an appeal

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IL AND FS ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S. BHARGAVARAMA CONSTRUCTIONS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 96, Order 41 Rule 31 – Appeal from original decree – Without framing points for determination and considering both facts and law; without proper discussion and assigning the reasons – First Appellate Court cannot dispose of the first appeal under Section 96 CPC and that too without raising the points for determination as provided under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IL AND FS ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S. BHARGAVARAMA CONSTRUCTIONS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

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

Month: December 2021

You missed