January 2022 - Page 2 of 9 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

May 8, 2024 4:32 pm

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 122 and 123 – Contract Act, 1872 – Section 16(3) – Gift deed – Ordinarily, no one is expected to sign or execute a document without knowing its contents, but if it is pleaded that the party executing the document did not know the contents thereof then it may, in certain circumstances, be necessary for the party seeking to prove the document to place material before the court to satisfy it that the party who executed the document had the knowledge of its contents

Jan 29, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KESHAV AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GIAN CHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Accident

HELD – looking to the grievous injuries suffered by the claimant and permanent partial disability and prolonged hospitalisation and the operations performed for right subfrontal craniotomy and evacuation of basifrontal contusion [03.10.2011]; repair of right ear [03.10.2011]; closed unreamed tibial interlock nailing [03.10.2011]; and Tracheostomy [05.10.2011], we are of the opinion that Rs. 50,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities, joy and Rs. 50,000/- awarded towards pain/sufferings respectively can be said to be on the lower side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that under the aforesaid heads, namely, loss of amenities, joy and towards pain/sufferings respectively, if a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- [over and above Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. 50,000/- on each count)] is awarded.

Jan 29, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHIVDHAR KUMAR VASHIYA — Appellant Vs. RANJEET SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

State Laws

Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 – Sections 45 and 49(2) – Exemption notification should be strictly construed and given meaning according to legislative intendment – Statutory provisions providing for exemption have to be interpreted in the light of the words employed in them and there cannot be any addition or subtraction from the statutory provisions – Respondent was not entitled to the exemption from payment of purchase tax on the ground that it did not fulfill the eligibility criteria/conditions and there was a breach of declaration in Form.

Jan 29, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF GUJARAT — Appellant Vs. ARCELOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. )…

Family Court

Explanation (b) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act 1984 expressly confers the Family Court with jurisdiction to determine the matrimonial status of a person – Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act 1984 grants a Family Court with the status of a District Court and Section 7(2) confers it with jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the first class under Chapter IX of the CrPC, thus enabling to collect evidence to make such a determination – HELD relying on the judgement of the Family Court which has jurisdiction to decide the gravamen of the offence alleged in the criminal complaint, would not be same as relying on evidentiary materials that are due for appreciation by the Trial Court, such as the investigation report before it is forwarded to the Magistrate

Jan 29, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUSSTT REHANA BEGUM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi,…

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of civil suit in the Civil Court – National Commission has grossly erred in observing in the impugned order that the complainant would be at liberty to seek remedy in the competent Civil Court and that if he chooses to bring an action in a Civil Court, he is free to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Jan 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNIL KUMAR MAITY — Appellant Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.…

Will & Succession

If a property of a male Hindu dying intestate is a self acquired property or obtained in partition of a co-parcenery or a family property, the same would devolve by inheritance and not by survivorship, and a daughter of such a male Hindu would be entitled to inherit such property in preference to other collaterals. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Sections 14 and 15 – Partition of properties – Right of daughter to father’s property – If death of father in prior to enforcement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Law of inheritance under Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are applicable.

Jan 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARUNACHALA GOUNDER (DEAD) BY LRS — Appellant Vs. PONNUSAMY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…

Specific Performance

Held, In evaluating whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his obligations under the contract, it is not only necessary to view whether he had the financial capacity to pay the balance consideration, but also assess his conduct throughout the transaction – the escalation of the price of the suit property, and whether one party will unfairly benefit from the decree – Remedy provided must not cause injustice to a party, specifically when they are not at fault.

Jan 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHENBAGAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KK RATHINAVEL — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service

Argument on lack of prior approval as per Section 17(2) of the ESI Act is obviated by the preamble to the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 – Contesting respondents have only supported the applicability of the DACP Scheme to claim promotion as Associate Professor after two years of service – Advertisements for recruitment mentioning the DACP Scheme would have no effect since they were in contravention of the applicable recruitment regulations – Appeal allowed.

Jan 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S.…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been incorporated into the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 -HELD High Court erred in holding that in view of the repeal of LA Act by coming into force of 2013 Act, the corresponding provisions of 2013 Act would regulate acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act and that this would include determination of compensation in accordance with 2013 Act

Jan 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv…

Service

Punjab Police Rules, 1934 – Rules 13.7, 13.7(9) and 13.7(14) – Promotion – Head Constable to Superintendent of Police (SP) – Quota of outstanding performance – Held, Recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee (CDP) headed by the SP is final and that the IG has no power to review or substitute the decision is misconceived –

Jan 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUSHIL KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. )…

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: January 2022

You missed