Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: February 2023

Education

Medical College Admissions in breach of court order . Disastrous consequences which will be faced by the students if their admissions are disturbed, the sanctity of the judicial process has to be observed also. HELD that the admissions which were granted to 100 students should not be disturbed conditional on the Medical College depositing an amount of Rs 2.5 crores AIIMS.

Feb 16, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ANNASAHEB CHUDAMAN PATIL MEMORIAL MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

Customs & Excise

The attempt by the appellants to have these appeals argued of only academic interest and would not serve any practical purpose because there is no current lis where the principles and circumstances prior may be applied. – Impose costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the appellants for unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings before SCOI. This sum is to be donated to any benevolent organisation that helps children with cancer.

Feb 16, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH G.T.C. INDUSTRIES LTD (NOW KNOWN AS GOLDEN TOBACCO LIMITED) THR. MANAGER LEGAL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHERS —…

Service Matters
Service

Employee had died on 11.08.2009 whereas the Government order is dated 16.9.2009 – Therefore, there was no chance for him to exercise any option at all – HELD the LRs would be entitled to the benefit of the Government Order dated 16.9.2009 and would be entitled to the benefit of death-cum-retirement gratuity being the heirs of the deceased employee.

Feb 16, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SMT. PRIYANKA — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 25 – Determination of compensation – the sale deed is dated 2.11.2006 and the acquisition of the same villages commenced vide notification dated 30.06.2005 and therefore the sale deed after the first notification dated 30.06.2005 could not have been the basis for assessing/determining the compensation with respect to the subsequent acquisition – On the contrary, giving 8 to 12 percent cumulative increase on the amount of compensation awarded for the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005, would be a safe and guiding factor.

Feb 14, 2023 sclaw

Docid # IndLawLib/1602681   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SATPAL AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Respondent…

Consumer

Fire Policy – Once that assessment has been made regarding the loss/damage which took place due to fire dated 20th October, 2006 and that was not disputed by the Company, repudiating the claim invoking clause 6(b) of the policy, was unfair and is not legally sustainable – Company is directed to make the payment of Rs, 21,76,524/ as assessed by the Surveyor along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the Surveyor’s report.

Feb 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KARNAVATI VENEERS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar,…

Land Acquisition

HELD possession of the land in question was taken on 04.03.1983, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.

Feb 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHAKEEL AHMED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar,…

Land Acquisition

HELD possession of the land in question was taken on 23.02.2007, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside

Feb 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SH. MANISH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar,…

Land Acquisition

HELD the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.

Feb 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SH. NARENDER AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar,…

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