Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: May 2022

Bail Declined

Rape – Cancellation of bail – Brazen conduct of the accused has evoked a bona fide fear in the mind of the complainant that she would not get a free and fair trial if he remains enlarged on bail and that there is a likelihood of his influencing the material witnesses – Bail order deserves to be set aside

May 8, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MS. P. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Krishna Murari and Hima…

Constitution

HELD once the legality of closure of the old scheme was undisputed, there was no manner of right inhering with the club, to insist that its claim for any plot had to be considered. If at all, it ought to have applied under subsequent schemes, and waited like other applicants (of that scheme),

May 8, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RITU MAHESHWARI — Appellant Vs. M/S. PROMOTIONAL CLUB — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.…

Service Matters
Service

Administrative Tribunals (Procedure for Appointment of Members) Rules, 2011 – Rule 9(4) – There cannot be any manner of doubt that a conscious decision was taken by the Selection Committee not to recommend the extension of tenure of the respondent – Order of extension of term of appointment is set aside – Appeal allowed.

May 8, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NAVNEET KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B. R. Gavai, JJ. )…

Arbitration

HELD The Arbitral Tribunal, therefore, has rightly given effect to the specific agreement between the parties with regard to the rate of interest. We find that the arbitral award has been passed in consonance with the provisions as contained in clause (a) of sub-section (7) of Section 31 of the 1996 Act and specifically, in consonance with the phrase “unless otherwise agreed by the parties”

May 8, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai,…

Registration Act

Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 32 to 35 – Registration of document – A declaration that a document is null and void, is exclusively within the domain of the civil court, but it does not mean that the High Court cannot examine the question whether or not the Registering Authority performed his statutory duties in the manner prescribed by law.

May 8, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED — Appellant Vs. S.P. VELAYUTHAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. )…

Arbitration

Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998 (State Act), which has the effect of annulling the awards which have become “Rules of Court”, is a transgression on the judicial functions of the State and therefore, violative of doctrine of “separation of powers”

May 8, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JAMES VARGHESE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara…

Constitution

Designating Senior Advocate – HELD clarify the situation and direct that instead of ten marks to be allocated to a counsel who has put in between ten to twenty years of practice, the marks be allocated commensurate with the standing of the person at the Bar, that is to say, one mark each shall be allocated for every year of practice between ten to twenty years.

May 8, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AMAR VIVEK AGGARWAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit,…

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