Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: January 2022

Registration Act

Mere agreement of the steps to be taken in future for the division of the properties – HELD If a document does not by itself create a right or interest in immovable property, but merely creates a right to obtain another document, which will, when executed create a right in the person claiming relief, the former document does not require registration and is accordingly admissible in evidence.

Jan 29, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH K. ARUMUGA VELAIAH — Appellant Vs. P.R. RAMASAMY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Service Matters
Service

Railways service benefits under Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS) Scheme – An employee who received service benefits till the date of superannuation, was not entitled to make a claim under the LARSGESS scheme – Benefit of the LARSGESS scheme could not be extended where an employee had attained the age of superannuation.

Jan 29, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. A NISHANTH GEORGE — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna,…

Service Matters
Service

Alibi of employee has not been accepted but that might be plausible and considering his 25 years of long service and fortunately it was a minor accident which resulted into some loss to the vehicle and considering the fact that the employee has since died – converting the punishment of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement, death-cum-retirement benefits as also the benefit of family pension, if any, shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased employee in accordance with law

Jan 29, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRIJESH CHANDRA DWIVEDI (DEAD) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. SANYA SAHAYAK AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Arbitration

Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole arbitrator – Courts had very limited jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act. Courts are to take a ‘prima facie’ view, as explained therein, on issues relating to existence of the arbitration agreement. Usually, issues of arbitrability/validity are matters to be adjudicated upon by arbitrators. The only narrow exception carved out was that Courts could adjudicate to ‘cut the deadwood’. Ultimately the Court held that the watch word for the Courts is ‘when in doubt, do refer’.

Jan 29, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. WATERLINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya…

Consumer

Compensation sought by the appellants cannot be granted as Section 12-B of MRTP Act empowers the Commission to grant compensation only when any loss or damage is caused to a consumer as a result of a monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practice – Appellants have failed to prove unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent, they are not entitled to any compensation.

Jan 29, 2022 sclaw

UPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH B.B. PATEL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DLF UNIVERSAL LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Constitution

Reservation – No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide for reservation – No writ of mandamus can be issued directing the State to collect quantifiable data to justify their action not to provide for reservation – If the under-representation of Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes in public services is brought to the notice of the Court, no mandamus can be issued by the Court to the State Government to provide for reservation

Jan 29, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF PUNJAB — Appellant Vs. ANSHIKA GOYAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

Bail Declined

Murder – Cancellation of bail – Accused is a history sheeter and is having a criminal antecedent and is involved in the double murder of having killed the father and brother of the informant – High Court releasing the accused on bail is absolutely unsustainable and the same cannot stand – Appeal allowed.

Jan 29, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNIL KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Criminal…

Cr P C

(CrPC) – Sections 372 and 378(4) – Appeal against order of acquittal – Victim has not to pray for grant of special leave to appeal, as the victim has a statutory right of appeal under Section 372 proviso and the proviso to Section 372 does not stipulate any condition of obtaining special leave to appeal like subsection (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. in the case of a complainant and in a case where an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint – Right provided to the victim to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal is an absolute right

Jan 29, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JOSEPH STEPHEN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SANTHANASAMY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

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