Supreme Court of India Judgements

46640 Judgements hosted as on 10/10/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: February 2022

C P C

IMP – Commercial Suits – Time limit for filing written statement – in the ordinary circumstances, the mandates of Rule 1(1) of Order V, Rule 1 of Order VIII as also Rule 10 of Order VIII, as applicable to the Commercial dispute of a Specified Value, do operate in the manner that after expiry of 120th day from the date of service of summons, the defendant forfeits the right to submit his written statement and the Court cannot allow the same to be taken on record but

Feb 26, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASH CORPORATES — Appellant Vs. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s).…

Education

Council of Architecture may prescribe minimum standards of architectural education, either by way of regulations issued under Section 45(2) or even otherwise – It is only in cases where the Council chooses to prescribe standards in the form of regulations that the requirement of approval of the Central Government under Section 45(1) would become necessary.

Feb 26, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE — Appellant Vs. THE ACADEMIC SOCIETY OF ARCHITECTS (TASA) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian,…

Land Acquisition

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Sections 19, 22, 22(b), 22(c) and 31(5) – Under the MRTP Act, in the Development Plan, the Planning Authority and/or the Appropriate Authority has to make the provisions for the public purposes mentioned in Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 22 and sub-section (5) of Section 31 of the MRTP Act – in the facts and circumstances of this case, when land is found to be unsuitable and unusable for the purposes for which it has been reserved, Corporation cannot be compelled to pay a huge compensation for such a useless and unsuitable land.

Feb 26, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE KOLHAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VASANT MAHADEV PATIL (DEAD) THROUGH L.R.S AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah…

Consumer

When the complainant had lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of the vehicle, and when the police after the investigation had arrested the accused and also filed challan before the concerned Court, and when the claim of the insured was not found to be not genuine, the Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim merely on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft.

Feb 20, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAINA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY — Appellant Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi,…

Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 11A – Dismissal form service – Misconduct – Looking into seriousness of the nature of allegations levelled against the employee, the punishment of dismissal inflicted upon him in no manner could be said to be shockingly disproportionate which would have required to be interfered with by the Tribunal in exercise of its power under Section 11A of the Act 1947

Feb 20, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNITED BANK OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BACHAN PRASAD LALL — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters
Service

HELD Considering the fact that it can be said to be a case of loss of confidence in the employee by the Bank – It just and proper to substitute the punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement – Appellant shall be entitled to all the benefits which may be available to him by converting the punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement – Appeal allowed.

Feb 20, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UMESH KUMAR PAHWA — Appellant Vs. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UTTARAKHAND GRAMIN BANK AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V.…

Constitution

Reinstatement of woman Additional District Judge, who complained of sexual harassment against the judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and resigned in 2014 – Petitioner’s resignation from the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gwalior dated 15th July 2014, cannot be construed to be voluntary – directed to re­instate the petitioner forthwith as an Additional District & Sessions Judge

Feb 20, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MS. X — Appellant Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R.…

Accident

Multiplier – Since the deceased was 54 years of age on the date of incident, therefore, the suitable multiplier would be 11 – Thus, the appellants are found entitled to compensation of Rs. 24,33,064/- with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation.

Feb 20, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R. VALLI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Acquisition of land – Notification – Once the very acquisition and the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were the subject matter of other proceedings pending before the High Court, in order to avoid any further conflicting orders HC not to decide appeals separately. Remanded

Feb 20, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M.P. HOUSING BOARD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SATISH KUMAR BATRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

You missed

Cr P C I P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under Section 482 in Cases with Predominantly Civil Character — The court reiterated the principle that criminal cases with overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions, matrimonial relationships, or family disputes, should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves — This principle is applied in the present case, where the dispute involved a loan transaction between the accused persons and the bank, and the parties had settled the matter through the One Time Settlement (OTS).

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw
Service

The main issue is whether the eligibility criteria requiring AICTE approval for diplomas is valid, given the Supreme Court’s previous ruling that universities do not need AICTE approval for technical courses —The petitioners argued that the eligibility criteria were inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling and that they were unfairly excluded from the recruitment process —The respondents contended that the recruitment process was conducted according to the existing rules and that the petitioners were bound by the doctrine of acquiescence —The Supreme Court directed the Bihar Technical Service Commission to prepare a fresh select list of meritorious candidates, considering the previous High Court order and the AICTE’s stance —The Court found that changing the eligibility criteria after the selection process was completed was impermissible and that the petitioners had a legitimate right to be considered — The appeals were disposed of with directions to prepare a revised select list within three months, ensuring that eligible candidates are considered fairly.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw
Direct Taxation Income Tax

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 139(5) — Revised Income Tax Return — The appellant filed multiple revised returns for the assessment year 1989-90, which were not considered due to being barred by limitation —Whether the assessing officer can consider claims made in a revised return filed after the time limit prescribed by Section 139(5) of the Act — The appellant argued that the assessing officer should consider the claim for deduction of deferred revenue expenditure, even if the revised return was filed late —The respondent contended that the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to consider claims made in a time-barred revised return —The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that the assessing officer cannot consider claims in a time-barred revised return —The Court emphasized that the assessing officer’s jurisdiction is limited by the time constraints set in Section 139(5) —The Court referred to previous judgments, including Wipro Finance Ltd. and Goetze (India) Ltd., to support its decision —The appeal was dismissed, affirming that claims in a time-barred revised return cannot be considered by the assessing officer.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Coal Mining Bid — Rejection of — Eligibility criteria — Appellants challenged the rejection of its technical bid by Respondent-BCCL for a coal mining project, while the bid of Respondent No. 8 was accepted despite non-compliance with mandatory requirements —Whether BCCL was justified in rejecting the appellant’s bid and accepting the bid of Respondent No. 8, which did not meet the eligibility criteria — Appellant argues that the rejection was arbitrary and discriminatory — The appellant complied with all requirements, while Respondent No. 8 was allowed to submit missing documents later — BCCL argues that the appellant’s bid was non-compliant due to issues with the Power of Attorney — The Tender Committee could seek shortfall documents but not replace them —The Supreme Court found BCCL’s actions arbitrary and illegal, setting aside the rejection of the appellant’s bid and the acceptance of Respondent No. 8’s bid — The appellant’s Power of Attorney was valid and notarized before submission — BCCL’s acceptance of Respondent No. 8’s bid despite non-compliance was unjustified —Government bodies must act fairly and transparently in awarding contracts — The decision-making process must be free from arbitrariness and bias —The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside BCCL’s decision and any subsequent agreements, and directed BCCL to initiate a fresh tender process.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw