Supreme Court of India Judgements

46448 Judgements hosted as on 05/05/2024 - 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

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Constitution Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

May 5, 2024 sclaw