January 2024 - Page 4 of 5 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

November 17, 2024 9:00 pm

Share Market – Drastic fall in the securities market,- The impact on investors, the purported lack of redressal available and the disbursement of loans to the Adani Group allegedly without due procedure – The petitioners sought various directions, including a direction to constitute an SIT to oversee the SEBI investigation into the Adani Group and that all such investigations be court-monitored –

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VISHAL TIWARI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj…

Adverse Possession Property Matters

Property Law – Whether the appellant, who purchased a plot of land through a registered sale deed in 1966, is entitled to possession of the land or whether the respondents, who claim to have been in possession since 1944, have acquired title through adverse possession – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the decree of the First Appellate Court in favor of the plaintiff appellant – The Court held that the plaintiff appellant was the rightful owner of the land and that the defendant respondents’ possession was not adverse.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRIJ NARAYAN SHUKLA (D) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. SUDESH KUMAR ALIAS SURESH KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Bail Declined

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – – Default Bail – High Court also fell in error in not taking into consideration the reasons given under section 43D(2) (b) were clearly made out and explained in the extension letter dated 07.11.2020 giving the details of the progress of the investigation as also the reasons for detaining the respondent. The Public Prosecutor had mentioned in the request that major investigation of the case had been completed and the draft chargesheet had been prepared. However, for want of remaining sanctions and FSL report some more time was required for completing the investigation. – Bail declined

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. RAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET @LOVELY — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ…

Consumer

Consumer Law – Policy – Supreme Court held that the date of issuance of the policy would be the relevant date for all the purposes and not the date of proposal or the date of issuance of the receipt – The appeals were accordingly allowed and the orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission were set aside.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JAYA WADHWANI — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

Evidence Act

Evidence Act – Sections 40-43 – Once information is given by an accused, the same information cannot be used, even if voluntarily made by a co-accused who is in custody. Section 27 of the Evidence Act does apply to joint disclosures, but this is not one such case.[14] This was precisely the reason given by the trial court to acquit the co-accused. Even if Section 8 of the Evidence Act is to apply, it would not have been possible to convict the co-accused.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL — Appellant Vs. STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S. V. N.…

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1956 – Section 63 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Property Dispute – The plaintiffs claimed that the property belonged to them through an oral partition among the sons of the original owner and was bequeathed to them by ‘A’ through a will – Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, finding that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the oral partition and the will.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDHIRAN — Appellant Vs. MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

I B C

Set-off is not permitted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) -NCLAT reasoned that the debts between Airtel and Aircel arose from separate transactions and were not connected in a way that would justify set-off – The NCLAT ultimately rejected Airtel’s claim for set-off, finding that it was not permitted under the IBC in the context of Aircel’s corporate insolvency resolution proceedings. This decision reflects the importance of protecting the fairness and efficiency of the insolvency resolution process under the IBC.

Jan 11, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. VIJAYKUMAR V. IYER AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.…

I B C

The NCLAT upheld the CoC’s decision to distribute the proceeds on a pro-rata basis and dismissed the appellant’s appeal – Overall, the NCLAT’s decision balanced the interests of the dissenting financial creditor (DBS Bank) with the need for a fair and equitable distribution of proceeds under the resolution plan.

Jan 11, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DBS BANK LIMITED SINGAPORE — Appellant Vs. RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.…

Service

The state argued the forgery was serious misconduct and made appointments illegal – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and ruled that the appellants were entitled to continue in their service – The court found no evidence of wrongdoing by the Appellants and directed the State to pay the appellants’ salaries with arrears and continue their service.

Jan 11, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RADHEY SHYAM YADAV AND ANOTHER ETC — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan,…

Property Matters

Land Dispute – Declaration of title and possession over a property -The doctrine of merger applied, meaning lower courts’ judgments merged with the High Court’s judgment. The respondents’ argument that the High Court committed a bona fide error was rejected, and the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment in the second round. The First Appellate Court’s judgment was restored.

Jan 11, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MARY PUSHPAM — Appellant Vs. TELVI CURUSUMARY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

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

Month: January 2024

You missed