December 2021 - Page 2 of 9 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

May 9, 2024 1:07 pm

Appointment to NCC Constable – respondent No.1 did not produce the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the original application as per the advertisement and the same was submitted after a period of three years from the cut-off date and that too after the physical test, he was not entitled to the additional five marks of the NCC ‘B’ certificate

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MADHU KANT RANJAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…

C P C Limitation

Application for condonation of delay, that as such no explanation much less a sufficient or a satisfactory explanation had been offered by respondents – High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously – Reasoning given by the High Court while condoning huge delay of 1011 days is not germane – Court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity – Delay defeats equity – Courts help those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAJJI SANNEMMA @ SANYASIRAO — Appellant Vs. REDDY SRIDEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

Accident

Conclude Disciplinary proceedings – It appreciate the steps taken by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, which shall ensure to maintain the purity of the legal profession in the State of Uttar Pradesh and also impress upon the Bar Council of India/Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law as early as possible. Before Directions – Before any further directions are issued, response from the Ministry of Transport, Government of India to have their suggestions for remedial and preventive measures for curbing the menace of filing of false/fraud claim petitions.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAFIQ AHMAD — Appellant Vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.…

State Laws

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 – Section 38E – Grant of ownership certificate -the protected tenants are deemed to be owners – Once the protected tenants are deemed to be owners, there could not be any occupancy rights certificate as the purchasers were divested of their ownership by virtue of the grant of ownership certificate under Section 38E of the Tenancy Act. Such certificate was also not disputed by the purchasers – Therefore, title of the protected tenants is complete and the ownership unambiguously vests with them.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P. SATYANARAYANA — Appellant Vs. NANDYALA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) SLP (Civil) No.…

Compassionate Appointment

Appointment on compassionate grounds is not automatic, but subject to strict scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation of the other members of the family – Therefore, no one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds – Application of the respondent for compassionate appointment shall stand dismissed.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (PRIMARY) AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BHEEMESH ALIAS BHEEMAPPA — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and…

Civil Cases

Repayment of Borrowed Amount – A party who admits receipt of certain amount of money on a particular date and pleads discharge by way of a full and final settlement at a latter date, is the one on whom the onus lies -In a suit for recovery of money, a defendant admitting the receipt of money but pleading that the same was a gratuitous payment, is obliged to prove that it was a gratuitous payment – Respondents miserably failed to discharge the onus of proof so cast upon them. Hence, the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to a decree

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANITA RANI V. ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ANITA RANI — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. )…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 48(1) – Acquisition – Housing and development – Release of land – A notification under Section 48(1) does not warrant any notice or opportunity of hearing, to the original land owners – If at all any person will be aggrieved by the Notification under Section 48(1), it will be the beneficiary of the acquisition, which in this case is the Parishad, and not the land owners – Therefore, This Court can understand if the Parishad makes out a grievance that their rights were taken away by the notification under Section 48(1)

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD THROUGH HOUSING COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NOOR MOHAMMAD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta…

Civil Cases

Respondents have taken up wholly untenable ground that the documents were signed under duress – Large number of documents such as invoices, debit notes and ST-1 Form spread over 3 months is unbelievable to be an exercise of duress – Stand of the respondents is wholly untenable and unjustifiable in law and is only to defeat the legitimate claim raised by the appellant – Appeal allowed.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S STAR PAPER MILLS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S BEHARILAL MADANLAL JAIPURIA LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V.…

SARFAESI

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Non-Performing Asset – Recovery of loan by auction of mortgaged property – Appeal against order of high court granting benefit under the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme – No writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing a financial institution/bank to positively grant the benefit of One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme to a borrower

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE BIJNOR URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BIJNOR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MEENAL AGARWAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Setting aside of arbitral award – At the same time when an order is passed without recourse to arbitration and in utter disregard to the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34 of the Act will not apply.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JHARKHAND URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and R. Subhash…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

Constitution Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

Month: December 2021

You missed