Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: February 2022

Acquittal

(IPC) 307 – PWs-1 & 2 have not contradicted between themselves being the eye-witnesses. Merely because they are related witnesses, in the absence of any material to hold that they are interested, their testimonies cannot be rejected. The High Court has rightly set aside the conviction rendered by the trial court for the charge under Section 307 IPC. PWs-1 & 2 have not spoken about the presence of the injured witness

Feb 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH YADAV AND ANOTHER ETC. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. )…

Labour Cases

HELD the question as to whether the workmen engaged by the contractors would be entitled to pay at par with other workmen of the employer and demand to that effect was raised with the appellants only. Thus, the settlement of 19th September, 2016, in which the employers were the contractors cannot bind the subject-dispute, where the appellants have been found to be the employer on the basis of materials considered by the High Court. Their engagement by the contractors cannot be the sole basis for determining their status as workmen of contractors.

Feb 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE PRESIDENT, OIL FIELD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L.…

Acquittal

(CrPC) – Section 482 – (IPC) – Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Misappropriation of amount – Main allegations are against the co-accused and others – There are no allegations that the appellants are related to the co-accused and others – It cannot be said that there is any prima facie case made out against the appellants for the offences – Quashed

Feb 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. REKHA JAIN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V.…

Consumer

HELD – The value of the timber loaded in the truck SCDRC to examine this issue afresh without being influenced by its earlier order, including the order passed by the NCDRC. The appellants and the respondent would be permitted to file additional documents regarding delivery to the consignee and the valuation of the consignment, including the documents filed by the Bank before us. The parties would be asked to lead evidence through affidavits.

Feb 6, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDUSIND BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SIMARJIT SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil…

Electricity Act

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 12 – Electricity Act, 2003 – Sections 61, 62, 84 and 86(1)(b) – Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act, 1998 – Section 21 – Withdrawal of petition for grant of approval of Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) – – Appellants (DISCOMS) could not be permitted to change the decision at their whims and fancies and, particularly, when it is adversarial to the public interest and public good – APTEL has rightly held that the appellants-(DISCOMS) could not have been permitted to withdraw petition.

Feb 6, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION POWER COMPANY LIMITED OF ANDHRA PRADESH (APSPDCL) AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER —…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 – Appointment of member of the Bar as the sole Arbitrator – Appeal against – – While dealing with petition under Section 11, the Court by default would refer the matter when contentions relating to non-arbitrability are plainly arguable – In such case, the issue of non-arbitrability is left open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal – No case for interference is made out – Appeal dismissed.

Feb 6, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHAMMED MASROOR SHAIKH — Appellant Vs. BHARAT BHUSHAN GUPTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )…

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 – Bearing in mind these exceptional facts and circumstances, by means of the saving clause in the Repealing Act, 2018, the Manipur Legislature could not have infused life into a legislation, which was recognised by the Legislature itself as unconstitutional and thereby, a nullity, prompting its repeal.

Feb 6, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SURJAKUMAR OKRAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 39 Rule 2­A – Contempt of a civil nature- The allegation of wilful disobedience being in the nature of criminal liability, the same has to be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the disobedience was not mere “disobedience” but “wilful” and “conscious” – Implication of exercise of contempt jurisdiction, held that the power must be exercised with caution rather than on mere probabilities

Feb 6, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH FUTURE COUPONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI,…

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