Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: March 2024

Service Matters
Service

All-India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 – Rules 5(1) and 9(7B) – Court concluded that the High Court erred in setting aside the CAT Order and directed the Accepting Authority to decide on the underlying representation within 60 days – The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines and the restraint to be exercised by the judiciary in administrative matters involving specialized expertise.

Mar 22, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF HARYANA — Appellant Vs. ASHOK KHEMKA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Constitution

State Bank of India (SBI) was directed to disclose details of Electoral Bonds purchased and redeemed, including purchaser names and bond denominations – The Election Commission of India (ECI) was ordered to publish the disclosed information on its website by a specific deadline – SBI sought an extension for compliance, which was denied, and the Court warned of contempt proceedings if the directions were not followed.

Mar 22, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH STATE BANK OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Sanjiv…

Customs & Excise

Court directed the Commissioner to work out remedies for the cases of goods under Section 15(1)(c) of the Customs Act within a specified timeframe – The Court sustained the demand for customs duty and interest on certain cases while upholding the penalty imposed on the appellant for unauthorized removal of imported goods – The impugned order of the CESTAT was modified accordingly, and the appeal was allowed in part.

Mar 22, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. BISCO LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. )…

Acquittal POCSO

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Supreme Court found significant discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, including the victim’s, casting doubt on the prosecution’s version of events – Due to these inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, setting aside their convictions and sentences – The judgment emphasizes the importance of credible evidence and the consequences of accusations on the lives of individuals, highlighting the need for careful examination of testimonies in sexual harassment cases.

Mar 12, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NIRMAL PREMKUMAR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Dipankar Datta, K.V. Viswanathan and Sandeep…

Property Matters

Land Dispute – Appeal Against High Court Order – The appellant challenges the High Court’s decision to quash a resolution for land allocation for a new primary school – The dispute involves land needed for a highway project, leading to the demolition and proposed relocation of a school – Respondents filed multiple writ petitions, with the latest being dismissed due to concealment of previous petitions and lack of notice to parties – The Supreme Court finds the High Court’s order arbitrary and sets it aside, allowing the appeal and the school’s construction on the disputed land.

Mar 12, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNEETA DEVI — Appellant Vs. AVINASH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s). of…

Food Safety and Standards Act

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 – Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Section 52 – Misbranding – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but considered the new Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which provides for a lesser penalty for misbranding, leading to a reduction in the sentence – Appellant no.2’s sentence was converted to a fine, and appellant no.1’s fine was upheld – The appeal was partly allowed.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S A.K. SARKAR AND COMPANY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia…

Constitution

Allegations were based on WhatsApp status messages that were considered to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, specifically regarding the abrogation of Article 370 and Independence Day of Pakistan – The Court analyzed the intention behind the messages, referencing past judgments and the importance of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution – The Court quashed the FIR, stating that the appellant’s messages were an expression of protest within his rights, and continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the process of law

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAVED AHMAD HAJAM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, 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