Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: March 2024

Accident

Motor Accident Claims – The Supreme Court re-assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 35,000/- per month and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 38,81,500/- with interest @8% per annum to the appellants – The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the High Court and restored that of the Tribunal partially.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VETHAMBAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 376(2)(n) and 506 – Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR, holding that the complainant was a mature and intelligent woman who consented to the relations with the appellant during the subsistence of her earlier marriage – The Court also relied on a similar case, Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), where the accused was not held guilty of rape on false promise of marriage.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH XXXX — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Anticipatory Bail Bail Declined

High Court did not consider the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, the circumstances peculiar to the respondent, and the larger interest of the public or the State – The Court also notes that the respondent failed in his fundamental duty as a police officer and the possibility of his influencing the witnesses and the investigation was high – The Court holds that the respondent is not entitled to anticipatory bail and directs him to apply for regular bail if arrested.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF JHARKHAND — Appellant Vs. SANDEEP KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No……of…

Food Safety and Standards Act

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Section 3(1)(j) – The Supreme Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as it was filed by an interested party with a personal motive – The Supreme Court also held that there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the board’s decision to procure cardamom from local sources in view of the urgency and the transparency – The Supreme Court directed the State Government to destroy the existing stock of prasadam in an appropriate manner.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD — Appellant Vs. AYYAPPA SPICES AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. )…

C P C

The court dismissed the appeal and held that the filing of the suit for asserting the rights of the plaintiffs/respondents did not amount to contempt of court – The court distinguished the case of Skipper Construction and observed that the facts were totally different – The court also stated that its observations were only restricted to the maintainability of the contempt proceedings and would have no bearing on the merits of the suit.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S SHAH ENTERPRISES THR. PADMABEN MANSUKHBHAI MODI — Appellant Vs. VAIJAYANTIBEN RANJITSINGH SAWANT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Rajesh Bindal…

Dying Declaration

The main legal issues are whether the dying declaration is reliable, voluntary and free from tutoring, and whether it can be the sole basis of conviction without any corroboration – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Pappi @ Mashkoor based on the dying declaration, which was found to be cogent, trustworthy and consistent – However, the Court acquitted ‘N1’ and ‘N2 as the dying declaration did not attribute any specific role to them.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAEEM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1978…

State Laws

Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 – Section 2(v), 3 and 4 – Whether “ghee” is a “product of livestock” under the Act and if the government notification regarding “ghee” followed proper procedure – The court upheld that “ghee” is indeed a “product of livestock” and the 1994 government notification was valid – The court ruled that market fees must be paid for “ghee” from 1994 to 2009, with provisions for installment payments.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANGAM MILK PRODUCER COMPANY LTD. — Appellant Vs. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and S.V.N. Bhatti,…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law – Recruitment Process – Public Employment – Merely because a recruitment agency is not in a position to satisfy the Court, a relief cannot be extended to a candidate deprived as it will have a cascading effect not only on the said recruitment, but also to numerous others as well.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE TELANGANA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RECRUITMENT BOARD — Appellant Vs. SALUVADI SUMALATHA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A. S. Bopanna and M.…

Corporate SEBI

Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 – Sections 3(2) and 3(3) – Attachment of Property – Properties of the person notified under Section 3(2) would stand attached automatically with effect from the date of notification by virtue of Section 3(3).

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUMAN L. SHAH — Appellant Vs. THE CUSTODIAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil…

Juvenile Justice

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 94 – Juvenile – Determination of Age – In the order of priorities, the date of birth certificate from the school stands at the highest pedestal whereas ossification test has been kept at the last rung to be considered, only in the absence of the criteria Nos. 1 and 2, i.e. in absence of both certificate from school and birth certificate issued by a Corporation/Municipal Authority/Panchayat.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINOD KATARA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s).…

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