Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: March 2024

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 306 – Abetment of Suicide – The Supreme Court reiterated that to constitute abetment, there must be a positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide – The Supreme Court also stated that mere allegation of harassment without any direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide would not amount to abetment

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KUMAR @ SHIVA KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal…

Arbitration Limitation

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – The court allows the petition and appoints a former judge of the Supreme Court as the sole arbitrator – The court also suggests that the Parliament should consider bringing an amendment to the Act, 1996 prescribing a specific period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11 of the Act, 1996

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. M/S APTECH LTD — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala and…

Uncategorized

Amendment of Plaint – Amendment of the plaint in a suit for partition of ancestral property -The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court, holding that the amendment was not permissible as it would change the nature and character of the suit, cause prejudice to the appellant, and was barred by limitation and res judicata -The Court relied on the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 and Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the precedents of this Court (M. Revanna v. Anjanamma (Dead) by legal representatives and others, (2019) 4 SCC 332 ) on the scope and limitations of amendment of pleadings and challenge to compromise decrees.

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BASAVARAJ — Appellant Vs. INDIRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 2886 of…

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 – The first defendant denied selling the property to the plaintiff and asserted that her father had executed a will dated 23.03.1977 in favour of her son ‘M’ (the second defendant), who was the rightful owner of the property -Court held that the Will was duly proved by the evidence of the scribe and the attestors and that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was invalid as the legatee under the will, ‘M’ was not a party to it.

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAVITRI BAI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SAVITRI BAI — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Constitution

Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra & Anr (2002) 4 SCC 388 – This landmark case established the concept of curative petitions and the requirements for filing them – We do not think any case has been made out by the appellant for invoking the curative jurisdiction to take relook into the appellants case. Hence, we refrain from entertaining the curative petitions. We do not think any purpose would be served in sending the matter back to the Chamber Judge for instructions in the given circumstances.

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S BRAHMAPUTRA CONCRETE PIPE INDUSTRIES ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose…

Rent

“Court-Approved Agreement Reached in Eviction Case Involving Religious Endowment Property” Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Section 78 – Order of Ejectment – The tenants were declared as encroachers under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and the High Court ordered them to vacate the premises – The tenants challenged the order in the before this Court – Amicable Resolution

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. BALASUBRAMANI ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent (…

Rent

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1995 – Ejectment – Landlords and the tenant of a bungalow in Delhi – Dispute is about the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises – The High Court of Delhi remanded the matter to the Rent Controller for adjudication under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1995 – The tenant is occupying the demised premises at a monthly rental of Rs.3,328/- since 1972 – Settlement Terms

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SWAMI GOVERDHAN RANGACHARIJI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S. A.J. PRINTERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Petition…

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