Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: July 2023

Bail Granted

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 121, 121A, 124A, 153A, 505(1)(b), 117, 120B read with Section 34 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 15(1)(b), 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39, 40 and 43D(5) – Mere holding of certain literatures through which violent acts may be propagated would not ipso facto attract the provisions of Section 15(1)(b) of the said Act – There has been no credible evidence of commission of any terrorist act or enter into conspiracy to do so to invoke the provisions of Section 43D(5) of the 1967 Act – Bail granted with conditions.

Jul 31, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VERNON — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

C P C

Valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction of suit – Once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction – Value for court fees and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases; but it is the value for court fees stated by the plaintiff that is of primary importance.

Jul 31, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH B.P. NAAGAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAJ PAL SHARMA — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Cr P C

Summoning of additional accused – At the stage of summoning an accused, there has to be a prima facie satisfaction of the Court – Evidence which was there before the Court was of an eye witness who has clearly stated before the Court that a crime has been committed, inter alia, by the revisionist- Appeal allowed

Jul 31, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANDEEP KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Criminal…

Service Matters
Service

Army Act, 1950 – Sections 39(b) and 63 – Dismissal from Service – Army driver – Unauthorizedly absent for 108 days – Habitual offender -One must be mindful of the fact that discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of service – Order dismissal from Service upheld.

Jul 31, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EX SEPOY MADAN PRASAD — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

Contempt

Contempt of Court – Maximum Punishment — Simple imprisonment, not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding Rs.2,000/- — Sub-Section (2) reads “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force” this implies that save and except the punishment provided in sub-Section (1) no other punishment can be prescribed to a person guilty of committing contempt of Court.

Jul 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: B.R. Gavai & Sanjay Karol, JJ. Civil Appeal No.4725 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.13789 of 2022) Decided on: 28.07.2023 Gostho Behari Das – Appellant…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 – Ss 302 & 304-I – Army Act, 1950 – Section 69 – Murder – Conviction and Sentence – Alteration of – Appellant-accused contended that case will be governed by exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC as the incident was an outcome of a sudden fight and he acted in a heat of passion – Conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is altered to the one under Part 1 of Section 304 of IPC

Jul 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NO.15138812Y L/NK GURSEWAK SINGH — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…

Constitution Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provide for the remedy of appeal to Supreme Court only with respect to the orders which are passed by the NCDRC in its original jurisdiction or as the court of first instance (original orders) and no further appeal lies against the orders which are passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction.

Jul 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. SURESH CHAND JAIN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj…

Consumer

Medical bills which have been issued by Hospital and Research Centre, as per which appellant had incurred expenditure – – Direction to pay the amount, Rs.4,09,000/- in terms of Medical bills with interest of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint before the District Forum till its realisation – Appeal allowed.

Jul 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HEM RAJ — Appellant Vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, 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