Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: July 2022

Land Acquisition

State of Haryana withdrew from acquisition declared as mala fide and inoperative HELD the land transfers are invalidated all transfers effected from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4, to the date of publication of the State’s decision to revoke the acquisition i.e., from 27.08.2004 to 29.01.2010 .

Jul 22, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAMESHWAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam…

Environment

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – Section 2 – Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose – State Government or any other authority can always permit the use of any forest land or any portion thereof for non-forest purposes only with the prior approval of the Central Government

Jul 22, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NARINDER SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DIVESH BHUTANI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A. M. Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and C.…

State Laws

Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act 1951 – Sections 14 36(1) – Misappropriation of government properties – Validity of the Direction to Hold Inquiry through Economic Offences Wing — Allegation of misappropriation can be gone into only by the Authorities under the Public Trusts Act

Jul 22, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE KHASGI (DEVI AHILYABAI HOLKAR CHARITIES) TRUST, INDORE AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. VIPIN DHANAITKAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M.Khanwilkar, Abhay…

Specific Performance

Specific performance -There is a distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract and both ingredients are necessary for the relief of Specific Performance – While readiness means the capacity of the Plaintiff to perform the contract which would include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct of the Plaintiff.

Jul 17, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH U.N. KRISHNAMURTHY (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. A. M. KRISHNAMURTHY — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

State Laws

HELD On account of competition between the existing and new sugar factory, it would be the farmers who will be the beneficiary as they would have an option to select the sugar mill which provides better service in the manner of payment of price. Keeping in view the recommendations of the Rangarajan Committee and the fact that the Central Government has exercised its jurisdiction to grant extension in time, the ultimate beneficiary would be the farmer and not the existing or the new sugar factory.

Jul 17, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SWAMI SAMARTH SUGARS AND AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. — Appellant Vs. LOKNETE MARUTRAO GHULE PATIL DNYANESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

You missed

Constitution Service

Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges as the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link of the accused’s disclosure leading to the discovery of skeletal remains under Section 27 and the DNA evidence was also found to be inconclusive due to lack of proper collection of samples. – Proof of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 — Voluntariness and Uninfluenced Nature — The Court reiterates that the information provided by an accused under Section 27 must be voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 54 and 59 — Buttondar knife — Specific Intent Required — The court clarifies that mere possession of a knife covered by a notification like the DAD Notification is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the Arms Act — There must be specific intent to use it for the prohibited purposes such as “manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test.” – The prosecution must clearly allege and prove the intent of the accused to use the weapon for the specified prohibited purposes — Absence of such allegation in the charge-sheet renders the proceedings defective.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw