Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: January 2024

I P C

The court found the prosecution’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for kidnapping, attempted murder, and robbery, but had doubts about the evidence’s sufficiency to prove the intention of demanding ransom. The court acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 364A of the IPC while upholding their convictions for other offences.

Jan 11, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEERAJ SHARMA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.…

Cr P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376 and 506 – Rape – Quashing of FIR – The appellant’s main argument was that the prosecution against him was an abuse of process of law – consensual relationship – the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and quashed the FIR against the appellant – Appeal Allowed

Jan 11, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJEET SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Cheque Bounce – Default in payment of agreed amount – Violation of undertaking given before the High Court and further violated the condition contained in the order granting extension of time to comply – Order cancelling the order of suspension of sentence and bail is upheld.

Jan 11, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SATISH P. BHATT — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

Registration Act

Registration Act, 1908 – Section 47 – Time from which registered document operates – Sale operated from the date of execution of the original sale deed, despite the alteration made before registration without the buyer’s consent – This was because the full consideration was paid on the date of execution, and Section 47 of the Registration Act applies to make the sale deed operate from that date.

Jan 11, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANWAR RAJ SINGH (D) TH. LRS. — Appellant Vs. GEJO. (D) TH.LRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj…

Constitution Service

Article 229 of the Constitution does not grant the Chief Justice the power to make rules regarding the post-retiral benefits of former judges – The State Government has the legislative power to make laws regarding the post-retiral benefits of its employees, including former High Court judges.

Jan 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS —…

Corporate SEBI

“The SEBI, and the investigative agencies of the Union government, shall probe into whether the loss suffered by Indian investors due to the conduct of the Hindenburg research and any other entities in taking short position involved any infraction of law, and if so, suitable action shall be taken.”

Jan 3, 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…

Service Matters
Service

The appellant had filled in 08.12.1997 as his date of birth, while his actual date of birth is 18.12.1997 – SCOI allowed the appeal, holding that the error in the application form was a trivial error and did not justify the cancellation of the appellant’s candidature: – The Supreme Court’s reasoning is based on the following principles: a. De minimis non curat lex – The law does not concern itself with trifles. b. Candidacy cancellation for trivial errors is not justified. c. No prejudice caused to the state due to the error.

Jan 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VASHIST NARAYAN KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. )…

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