Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: May 2023

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Subsequent buyer of the property after issuance of the notification under Section 4 the 1894 Act has no locus to invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

May 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal,…

Arbitration Limitation

Bank guarantee encashed in 2016 requisite amount stood transferred to Government account that was the end of the matter – This “Breaking Point” should be treated as the date at which the cause of action arose – statutory time period cannot be defeated on the ground that the parties were negotiating

May 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S B AND T AG — Appellant Vs. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and J. B.…

Consumer

Insurance Policy – Exclusionary Clause – It is trite to say that wherever such an exclusionary clause is contained in a policy, it would be for the insurer to show that the case falls within the purview of such clause – In case of ambiguity, the contract of insurance has to be construed in favour of the insured.

May 27, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. — Appellant Vs. VEDIC RESORTS AND HOTELS PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi,…

Service Matters
Service

Disciplinary proceedings – Judicial review – Limit of – When the changed form of quotation also contained signature of respondent no.1, it clearly established his involvement in the tampering of document. This fact has not even been noticed by the Division Bench of the High Court – Appeal allowed

May 27, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. AJIT KUMAR SINGH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh…

Cr P C

(CrPC) – Sections 372 and 378(4) – Appeal against order of acquittal – – where the victim and/or the complainant, as the case may be, has not preferred and/or availed the remedy of appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under Section 372 Cr.P.C. or Section 378(4), as the case may be, the revision application against the order of acquittal at the instance of the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall not be entertained and the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be relegated to prefer the appeal as provided under Section 372 or Section 378(4), as the case may be.

May 27, 2023 sclaw

(2022) 119 ACrC 239 : (2022) 231 AIC 223 : (2022) AIR(SC) 670 : (2022) AIR(SC)Cri 460 : (2022) 1 ALT(Crl) 296 : (2022) 1 AndhLD(Criminal) 959 : (2022) 1…

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