Supreme Court of India Judgements

46640 Judgements hosted as on 10/10/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: March 2024

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 153A, 500, 501, 504, 34 and 120B – Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace – – The primary issue is whether the allegations in the FIR disclose any cognizable offence justifying the continuation of the investigation – The Court refers to precedents to determine the absence of necessary ingredients for the alleged offences and the applicability of the principles for quashing criminal proceedings – The Court quashes the FIR and all proceedings against the appellant, citing the absence of necessary ingredients for the cognizable offences alleged.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHIV PRASAD SEMWAL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Arbitration

“Arbitration Clause Dispute Settled: Supreme Court Rules Against Appointing Sole Arbitrator in Weir Construction Contract” – The Court analyzed the applicability of the arbitration clause and found that a general reference to the tender documents does not incorporate the arbitration clause into the contract – The Court discussed the conditions under which an arbitration clause from one document can be incorporated into another contract, emphasizing the need for a specific reference to the arbitration clause – The Court concluded that the arbitration clause does not apply to the contract between NBCC and Zillion and set aside the High Court’s orders, directing that disputes be resolved through civil courts in Delhi.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ZILLION INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil…

Corruption

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 109 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) – The court found that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s orders are not conclusive for the criminal case and that a full trial is necessary to evaluate the evidence – The court analyzed precedents and laws, concluding that findings in tax proceedings do not automatically negate criminal charges for disproportionate assets – The court upheld the charges, stating that the appellants did not provide sufficient grounds to interfere with the order on charge and the framing of charges.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNEET SABHARWAL AND OTHER — Appellant Vs. CBI — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. ….of…

Property Matters

“Family Feud Over Property: Kamla Nagar Goes to One Side, Malcha Marg to the Other” – The court analyzed the Registration Act’s requirements for documenting transfers of property rights and concluded that the lack of registration indicated no settlement existed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment regarding the Kamla Nagar property, restoring the Trial Court’s decision and confirming the appellants’ sole ownership – The decision regarding the Malcha Marg property was upheld, leaving it exclusively to the respondents.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JUGAL KISHORE KHANNA(D) THR LRS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SUDHIR KHANNA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,…

Property Matters

Property Dispute – The case involves disputes over property ownership after the original owner, ‘S’, passed away in 1947 – The Court found no foundation for the plea of adverse possession in the plaintiff’s claim, as the necessary facts were not adequately pleaded or proved – The appeals were dismissed, with the Court upholding the original decrees and granting the appellant time until March 31, 2025, to vacate the property, subject to certain conditions.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. RADHESHYAMLAL — Appellant Vs. V SANDHYA AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Civil…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 354D, 376(2)(n), 504 and 506 read with 34 – Supreme Court found inconsistencies in the appellant’s statements and lack of evidence for the alleged forced abortion at Nursing Home – The Court referenced previous judgments to establish that consent vitiated by a false promise of marriage does not constitute rape under Section 375 of IPC unless the promise was proven to be false at inception – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the legal process and result in miscarriage of justice.

Mar 23, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MS. X — Appellant Vs. MR. A AND OTHERS ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Rajesh Bindal and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No……of…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 109, 302 and 307 – Murder – Appeal against conviction – Court found inconsistencies in testimonies, lack of independent witnesses, and lapses in the police investigation – The Court discussed the right of private defense and the standards for “interested” versus “independent” witnesses – This Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and directed the release of both appellants, citing reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.

Mar 23, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PERIYASAMY — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol, JJ. )…

Murder

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and IPC – Murder – Conviction and Sentence – Modification of Sentence – Court meticulously examined the circumstantial evidence, confirming the appellant’s guilt and finding no plausible explanation for the events from the appellant – The Court discussed the principles of circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for a complete chain of evidence pointing to the appellant’s guilt – The Court upheld the conviction for murder, house-trespass, and attempted suicide, maintaining the modified sentence of life imprisonment for 30 years without remission

Mar 23, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NAVAS @ MULANAVAS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : B. R. Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. )…

You missed

Cr P C I P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under Section 482 in Cases with Predominantly Civil Character — The court reiterated the principle that criminal cases with overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions, matrimonial relationships, or family disputes, should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves — This principle is applied in the present case, where the dispute involved a loan transaction between the accused persons and the bank, and the parties had settled the matter through the One Time Settlement (OTS).

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw
Service

The main issue is whether the eligibility criteria requiring AICTE approval for diplomas is valid, given the Supreme Court’s previous ruling that universities do not need AICTE approval for technical courses —The petitioners argued that the eligibility criteria were inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling and that they were unfairly excluded from the recruitment process —The respondents contended that the recruitment process was conducted according to the existing rules and that the petitioners were bound by the doctrine of acquiescence —The Supreme Court directed the Bihar Technical Service Commission to prepare a fresh select list of meritorious candidates, considering the previous High Court order and the AICTE’s stance —The Court found that changing the eligibility criteria after the selection process was completed was impermissible and that the petitioners had a legitimate right to be considered — The appeals were disposed of with directions to prepare a revised select list within three months, ensuring that eligible candidates are considered fairly.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw
Direct Taxation Income Tax

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 139(5) — Revised Income Tax Return — The appellant filed multiple revised returns for the assessment year 1989-90, which were not considered due to being barred by limitation —Whether the assessing officer can consider claims made in a revised return filed after the time limit prescribed by Section 139(5) of the Act — The appellant argued that the assessing officer should consider the claim for deduction of deferred revenue expenditure, even if the revised return was filed late —The respondent contended that the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to consider claims made in a time-barred revised return —The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that the assessing officer cannot consider claims in a time-barred revised return —The Court emphasized that the assessing officer’s jurisdiction is limited by the time constraints set in Section 139(5) —The Court referred to previous judgments, including Wipro Finance Ltd. and Goetze (India) Ltd., to support its decision —The appeal was dismissed, affirming that claims in a time-barred revised return cannot be considered by the assessing officer.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Coal Mining Bid — Rejection of — Eligibility criteria — Appellants challenged the rejection of its technical bid by Respondent-BCCL for a coal mining project, while the bid of Respondent No. 8 was accepted despite non-compliance with mandatory requirements —Whether BCCL was justified in rejecting the appellant’s bid and accepting the bid of Respondent No. 8, which did not meet the eligibility criteria — Appellant argues that the rejection was arbitrary and discriminatory — The appellant complied with all requirements, while Respondent No. 8 was allowed to submit missing documents later — BCCL argues that the appellant’s bid was non-compliant due to issues with the Power of Attorney — The Tender Committee could seek shortfall documents but not replace them —The Supreme Court found BCCL’s actions arbitrary and illegal, setting aside the rejection of the appellant’s bid and the acceptance of Respondent No. 8’s bid — The appellant’s Power of Attorney was valid and notarized before submission — BCCL’s acceptance of Respondent No. 8’s bid despite non-compliance was unjustified —Government bodies must act fairly and transparently in awarding contracts — The decision-making process must be free from arbitrariness and bias —The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside BCCL’s decision and any subsequent agreements, and directed BCCL to initiate a fresh tender process.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw