Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: January 2024

Constitution Cr P C

CHANDRABABU NAIDU -As we have expressed opinions taking different views on the interpretation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as also its applicability to the appellant in the subject-case, we refer the matter to the Honble the Chief Justice of India. The Registry to place the papers before the Honble the Chief Justice of India so that appropriate decision can be taken for the constitution of a Larger Bench in this case for adjudication on the point on which contrary opinions have been expressed by us.

Jan 18, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARA CHANDRABABU NAIDU Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Environment

Protection of Chittorgarh Fort – Directions issued – Blasting operations undertaken for limestone extraction resulting in possible damage to the existing structures of the Chittorgarh Fort – Keeping in perspective the continuous exposure of ancient monuments to peak particle velocity (PPV) arising from blasting, a radius of five kilometres from the compound wall of the Fort shall not be subjected to mining by blasting or use of explosives for mining of any minerals

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR — Appellant Vs. BHANWAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti,…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 8 Rule 10 – Failure to file written statement – Provision of Rule 10 of Order VIII, CPC is by no means mandatory in the sense that a court has no alternative but to pass a judgment in favour of the plaintiff – Since facts are required to be pleaded in a plaint and not the evidence, which can be adduced in course of examination of witnesses, mere failure or neglect of a defendant to file a written statement controverting the pleaded facts in the plaint, in all cases, may not entitle him to a judgment in his favour unless by adducing evidence he proves his case/claim.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ASMA LATEEF AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHABBIR AHMAD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Dipankar Datta and Aravind Kumar, JJ.…

Environment

Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 – Section 18 – Development Plan – – NGT could not have directed the delegatee who has been delegated powers under the TCP Act to enact the regulations, to do so in a particular manner – Development plan, which has been finalized after taking recourse to the statutory provisions and undergoing the rigors thereto, cannot be stalled in entirety thereby putting the entire developmental activities to a standstill.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. YOGENDERA MOHAN SENGUPTA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Aravind…

Environment

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Sections 14, 15 and 18(1) – Environment Pollution – Pollution created by Inland Container Depot (ICD) at Tughlakabad – NGT has inter alia observed that there is an option to restrict the entry of diesel vehicles in the said ICDs at Tughlakabad by diverting these vehicles to the ICDs at Dadri, Rewari, Ballabhgarh, Khatuawas or any other ICD around Delhi so as to control the pollution in Delhi NCR, as if only the people living in Delhi NCR alone are entitled to pollution free atmosphere and not those living in other parts of the country. Such an observation by the NGT is in complete ignorance of the fact that citizens living in other parts of the country other than Delhi NCR also have a fundamental right to a pollution free environment as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. — Appellant Vs. AJAY KHERA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…

Constitution Cr P C

Rs 25 LAKHS IMPOSED ON UNSCRUPLOUS LITIGANT – Unnecessary turning of a civil matter into a criminal case not only overburdens the criminal justice system but also violates the principles of fairness and right conduct in legal matters – Unscrupulous litigants should not be allowed to go scot-free – They should be put to strict terms and conditions including costs. It is time to check with firmness such litigation initiated and laced with concealment, falsehood, and forum hunting – Even State actions or conduct of government servants being party to such malicious litigation should be seriously reprimanded – This Court impose costs of Rs. 25 lakhs on respondent-complainant.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINESH GUPTA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law – Recovery of personal/promotional pay scale benefits – Benefit of a personal/promotional pay scale was granted to Appellants/Ayurvedic Medical Officers by the State of Uttarakhand – Benefit was withdrawn under a subsequent decision of the State of Uttarakhand – By the order dated 8th November 2006, the personal time-bound pay scale was granted to the appellants, subject to the condition that if the Government takes any decision to the contrary, the amount will be recovered from the salary of the concerned medical officers – Recovery order upheld – Appeal dismissed.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. BALBIR SINGH BHANDARI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal,…

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