Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: February 2023

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Articles 58 and 72 – Suit for declaration – Trial Court held that the suit was barred by limitation considering Articles 58 and 72 of the Limitation Act and when the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the said findings of facts in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the CPC.

Feb 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. CHANDERVIR SINGH NEGI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…

Land Acquisition

Twin conditions – For lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, namely, (i) the possession is not taken and (ii) the compensation is not tendered/paid are to be satisfied and if one of the conditions is not satisfied there shall not be any lapse or deemed lapse under the Act, 2013.

Feb 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. RAJENDER SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Land Acquisition

Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority to the facts of the case on hand, the High Court has materially erred in declaring that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the entire land i.e., 15 bigha 18 biswa are deemed to have lapsed is unsustainable – Appeal allowed

Feb 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR — Appellant Vs. JAI PRAKASH TYAGI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 6 – when the entire acquisition proceedings have been concluded including declaration of the award, passing of the award and the payment of the compensation, the acquisition with respect to the said land which is required for widening of the road ought not to have been quashed

Feb 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NIRANJAN SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…

C P C

AIADMK internal conflict – The logic and reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court stand in accord with law as also the facts of the present case – The facts of the case make it abundantly clear that so far as convening of the meeting is concerned, the same had never been in doubt or in any dispute – The said meeting was indeed convened by the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator jointly — When Coordinator and Joint Co-ordinator were shown to be not functioning jointly (for whatsoever reason), a functional deadlock came into existence for the party and a workable solution was required to be found

Feb 26, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THIRU K. PALANISWAMY — Appellant Vs. M. SHANMUGAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Corruption

Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 – Section 20(1) – Provisions relating to complaints and preliminary inquiry and investigation – there was no element of bias in conducting a preliminary inquiry in the instant case and the objection raised by the respondents stands overruled – Appeal Allowed.

Feb 26, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OFFICE OF THE ODISHA LOKAYUKTA — Appellant Vs. DR. PRADEEP KUMAR PANIGRAHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M.…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 – S 302 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Murder of her five-year-old child – If the accused does not offer an explanation under Section 106 and there is corroborative evidence establishing a chain of circumstances leading to the conclusion of guilt, the accused could be convicted on that basis

Feb 26, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VAHITHA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

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