Supreme Court of India Judgements

46650 Judgements hosted as on 11/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: August 2023

Consumer

HELD that the leak of ammonia gas was not occasioned due to wear and tear (as claimed by the Respondent) but was the outcome of an accident[1] which was not foreseen and beyond its control and not covered by any of the exceptions in the Refrigeration Policy (Exception Clause 3) so as to entitle the Respondent to claim immunity for the ultimate purpose of repudiating the insurance claim lodged by the Appellant – Payment of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- in full and final.

Aug 10, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S.S. COLD STORAGE INDIA PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ.…

Cr P C I P C

If the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 395 of the IPC is made out – None of the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 365, 342 and 506 respectively of the IPC are disclosed on plain reading of the FIR – FIR is nothing but abuse of the process of law – FIR quashed.

Aug 10, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HAJI IQBAL @ BALA THROUGH S.P.O.A. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala,…

Cr P C

Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely – FIR quashed.

Aug 10, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.…

Cr P C

Quashing of FIR – Gang Rape – By just naming the appellant-accused in the FIR, offence cannot be said to have been committed by him – If any particular role is attributed or some kind of active participation is alleged in relation to the alleged offence, then it would be a different scenario – FIR quashed.

Aug 10, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HAJI IQBAL @ BALA THROUGH S.P.O.A. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala,…

Acquittal

There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” – Facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty – – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appeal allowed.

Aug 8, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMAL — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Constitution Cr P C Prevention of Money Laundering Act

An Authorized Officer under the PMLA, 2002 is not duty bound to follow the rigor of Section 41A of the CrPC, 1973 as against the binding conditions under Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 – – When an arrestee is forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 19(3) of the PMLA, 2002 no writ of Habeus Corpus would lie — Section 167 of the CrPC, 1973 is a bridge between liberty and investigation performing a fine balancing act

Aug 8, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V. SENTHIL BALAJI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and M. M.…

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