January 2022 - Page 7 of 9 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

November 23, 2024 3:13 am

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – any decision of such a Tribunal, including the one passed under Section 25 of the Act could be subjected to scrutiny only before a Division Bench of a High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. This unambiguous exposition of law has to be followed scrupulously while deciding the jurisdictional High Court for the purpose of bringing in challenge against an order of transfer of an Original Application from one bench of Tribunal to another bench

Jan 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. ALAPAN BANDYOPADHYAY — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 197…

Maintenance

The issue of maintenance has to be decided afresh by the concerned court/family court in accordance with law, taking into account all relevant factors including the income of the respective spouses, the number of persons actually dependent on the spouses etc. The parties shall make a disclosure of their income, assets, savings, etc. before the concerned court.

Jan 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UMA PRIYADARSHINI S. — Appellant Vs. SUCHITH K NAIR — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.…

State Laws

Demand raised by the appellants against the respondent company, of excise duty on the liquor lost in fire, is authorised by law and has rightly been raised as per the applicable provisions of the Act of 1910, the Excise Manual and the Rules of 1969. – Fire incident in question cannot be said to be that of an event beyond human control and the High Court has been in error in holding that no negligence could be imputed on the respondent company.

Jan 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF UP THROUGH SECRETARY (EXCISE) AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S MCDOWELL AND COMPANY LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh…

Education

NEET – Education – Admission – Reservation – Counselling on the basis of NEET-PG 2021 and NEET- UG 2021 shall be conducted by giving effect to the reservation as provided by the notice, including the 27 per cent reservation for the OBC category and 10 per cent reservation for EWS category in the AIQ seats.

Jan 7, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEIL AURELIO NUNES AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S.…

State Laws

Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 – Section 42 – Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 – Sections 13 and 13(A)(2) – Possession – Transfer of rights -Land allotted to Scheduled Caste – Declaration – Appellant-original defendant being a Scheduled Caste belonging to State of Punjab and being an ordinarily and permanent resident of the State of Punjab cannot claim the benefit of a Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of purchase of the land belonging to a Scheduled Caste person of State of Rajasthan, which was given to original allottee as Scheduled Caste landless person,

Jan 5, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHADAR RAM (D) THR. LRS — Appellant Vs. JASSA RAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…

Service

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 – Regulation 44 – Employee delinquent has no absolute right to avail the services by ex employee of the Bank as his DR in the departmental proceedings – it is observed that there is no absolute right in favour of the delinquent officer’s to be represented in the departmental proceedings through the agent of his choice and the same can be restricted by the employer. – High Court has committed an error in permitting respondent delinquent officer to be represented in the departmental enquiry through exemployee of the Bank.

Jan 4, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK (RMGB) AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA MEENA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

Arbitration

Termination of mandate – Appointment of fresh arbitrator – Earlier Arbitral Tribunal-Stationery Purchase Committee comprising of Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue as President and (i) Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue, (ii) Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, (iii) Deputy Secretary, Department of Finance, (iv) Deputy Secretary/Under Secretary, General Administration Department and (v) Senior Deputy Controller of Head Office, Printing as Members, has lost its mandate by operation of law in view of Section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule and a fresh arbitrator has to be appointed under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996

Jan 4, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ELLORA PAPER MILLS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Corporate

Companies Act, 1956 – Section 531 – Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 – Section 45-MB – Suit for Interest on delayed payment on Bonds -the plaintiffs, like the Shakespearean character of Shylock, have raised the demand “I’ll have my bond. Speak not against my bond.” – Holder of the Bond has received their ‘pound of flesh’, but they seem to want more – Additional sum is not merited as SIBCO has already received their just entitlement and burdening the defendant with any further amount towards interest would be akin to Shylockian extraction of blood from the defendant.

Jan 3, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. M/S. SIBCO INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh…

Service

Assured Career Progression (ACP) Benefits – An employee who had been offered regular vacancy based promotion before grant of ACP benefit and the regular promotion was refused, not eligible for ACP If a regular promotion is offered but is refused by the employee before becoming entitled to a financial upgradation, she/he shall not be entitled to financial upgradation only because she has suffered stagnation – This is because, it is not a case of lack of promotional opportunities but an employee opting to forfeit offered promotion, for her own personal reasons –

Jan 3, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MANJU ARORA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Arbitration

Arbitral proceedings – Resumption – It is the discretion vested with the Court for remitting the matter to Arbitral Tribunal to give an opportunity to resume the proceedings or not – Words “where it is appropriate” itself indicate that it is the discretion to be exercised by the Court, to remit the matter when requested by a party. Merely because an application is filed under Section 34(4) of the Act by a party, it is not always obligatory on the part of the Court to remit the matter to Arbitral Tribunal

Jan 3, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH I-PAY CLEARING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ICICI BANK LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

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: January 2022

You missed