Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: July 2022

C P C

(CPC) – Or 21 R 102 – Rules not applicable to transferee pendent lite – Rule 102 clarifies that Rule 98 and Rule 100 shall not apply in a case where resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property is offered by ‘transferee pendente­lite’

Jul 10, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SRIRAM HOUSING FINANCE AND INVESTMENT INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. OMESH MISHRA MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K.…

Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proof – in a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then such a response in itself becomes an additional link in the chain of events.

Jul 3, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SABITRI SAMANTARAY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ODISHA — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Criminal…

Land Acquisition

Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force – HELD The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded

Jul 3, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AGRA — Appellant Vs. ANEK SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

Land Acquisition

Provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force – HELD The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded

Jul 3, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RAM NEWAJ AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Consumer

Consumer – Vehicle Stolen – refused to settle the claim on non ­submission of the duplicate certified copy of certificate of registration, which the appellant could not produce due to the circumstances beyond his control – Insurance Company directed to pay Rs.12 lakhs insurance along with interest @7 per cent from the date of submitting the claim.

Jul 3, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH GURMEL SINGH — Appellant Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

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