January 2024 - Page 3 of 5 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

May 20, 2024 9:15 am

Even if the case of later payments by the respondents to the appellants is accepted, the same being at great intervals and there being no willingness shown by them to pay the remaining amount or getting the Sale Deed ascribed on necessary stamp paper and giving notice to the appellants to execute the Sale Deed, it cannot be said that in the present case, judged on the anvil of the conduct of parties, especially the appellants, time would not remain the essence of the contract – Suit for specific performance dismissed

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALAGAMMAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GANESAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Constitution G S T

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 366(29A)(d) – Finance Act, 1994 – Section 65(105)(zzzzj) – Transfer of right to use the goods -When the substantial control remains with the contractor and is not handed over to the user, there is no transfer of the right to use the vehicles, cranes, tankers, etc – Whenever there is no such control on the goods vested in the person to whom the supply is made, the transaction will be of rendering service within the meaning of Section 65(105) (zzzzj) of the Finance Act after the said provision came into force.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. K.P. MOZIKA — Appellant Vs. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh…

Constitution

High Court, by the impugned judgment and order, could not have issued a mandamus to the instrumentalities of the State to enter into a contract, which was totally harmful to the public interest – Award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction – In arriving at a commercial decision, considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai…

Constitution Cr P C

BILKIS BANO – In a case where the trial has been transferred by this Court from a court of competent jurisdiction of a State to a court in another State, it is still the Government of the State within which the offender was sentenced which is the appropriate Government which has the jurisdiction as well as competency to pass an order of remission under Section 432 of the CrPC – Therefore, it is not the Government of the State within whose territory the offence occurred or the convict is imprisoned which can assume the power of remission – Gujarat Government’s order granting remission to 11 convicts is quashed

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BILKIS YAKUB RASOOL — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Writ…

Dying Declaration

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Dying declaration – There is no specific material piece of evidence to establish that the deceased was alive or in a position to speak when his brother & mother reached the spot – There is no material to corroborate the said dying declaration – Conviction and sentence is set-aside – Appeal allowed.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA @ JITTU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal,…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – While the principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, in the present case the evidence adduced gives rise to doubts, improbabilities and inconsistencies – Conviction and sentence is set-aside – Appeal allowed.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRADEEP KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Corruption

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 319 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 406, 409, 420, 457 and 380 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) – Summoning order against police officials – Misappropriating of paddy – Corruption – There appears to be prima facie evidence on record to make it a triable case as against the police officials – Summoning order against police officials is upheld – Appeal dismissed.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURDEV SINGH BHALLA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Arbitral award – Jurisdiction to modify – Any court under Section 34 would have no jurisdiction to modify the arbitral award – Any attempt to “modify an award” under Section 34 would amount to “crossing the Lakshman Rekha” – Arbitral proceedings are per se not comparable to judicial proceedings before the Court.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S.V. SAMUDRAM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil…

Preventive Detention

(COFEPOSA) – Section 3 – Detention order – Right of detenue to make representation – – No error in the procedure adopted by the respondents as due compliance was made to translate all documents in Bengali apart from persuading the detenue to receive them – In addition, the panchnama was signed by the independent witnesses – Detenue also read the grounds of detention and the relevant documents – Therefore, he was well aware of his right to make a representation – Order of detention is upheld – Appeal dismissed

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SARFARAZ ALAM — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 34 – Murder of wife – Circumstantial evidence – If there is a snap in the chain, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt – If some of the circumstances in the chain can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis, then also the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence is set-aside – Appeal allowed.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DARSHAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : B. R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376(2)(g) and 506(1) – Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act, 1998 – Section 4 – Gang Rape – The victim’s testimony, along with her mother and aunt’s statements, was consistent with the initial complaint and corroborated by medical evidence – The defense argued that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – Whether the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies were not significant and did not affect the overall credibility of the evidence – The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The court rejected the defense’s argument that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant and rejected the defence’s arguments regarding inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

Limitation

Dismissal of Civil Suit – Condonation of delay – Standing to file an application – The court clarified that only parties to a suit or those who have accrued a right in the lis can file an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the suit. A stranger to the proceedings cannot file such an application.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 – Section 3(1)(b) – State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 – Section 29 – The appeals arise from a High Court judgment regarding the recovery of time-barred debts under the Act, 1979, and the Act, 1951 – The main issue is whether a debt time-barred under the Limitation Act can be recovered using the aforementioned Acts – The appellants argued that time-barred debts cannot be recovered under the Recovery of Dues Act, citing the precedent set in V.R. Kalliyanikutty – The respondents argued that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act allow for time-barred debt recovery, as they only bar the remedy, not the right – The court examined whether the Recovery of Dues Act creates a new right for creditors and allows for time-barred debt recovery – The court discussed the distinction between a debt and the right of action for its recovery, noting that the statute of limitation bars the latter but not the former – The court concluded that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act provide an alternative mechanism for recovering debts, even if they are time-barred – Matter needs to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate three-judge bench.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

Consumer

Consumer Law – Policy Claim – The appellants, family of the deceased, filed a complaint after the LIC repudiated their claim on a policy following the policyholder’s accidental death – The main issue was whether there was a concluded contract between the deceased and LIC at the time of his death, which would obligate LIC to pay the insurance benefits – The appellants argued that LIC had accepted the first premium and issued a receipt, thereby assuming risk and concluding the contract before the policyholder’s death – LIC contended that the policy was not communicated to the deceased and was blocked due to his demise, implying no concluded contract existed – The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s order, restored the District Forum’s order in favor of the appellants, and directed LIC to pay the insurance benefits as per the policy terms – The Court found clear presumption of acceptance of the policy by LIC, as the first premium receipt indicated the corporation was on risk from the receipt date – The Court relied on precedents that establish the principles of insurance contracts and the obligations of good faith expected from insurers – The Supreme Court concluded that LIC had indeed entered into a contract with the policyholder before his death, and thus, was liable to pay the insurance benefits to the appellants.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

Month: January 2024

You missed