Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - 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

Constitution Service

Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges as the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link of the accused’s disclosure leading to the discovery of skeletal remains under Section 27 and the DNA evidence was also found to be inconclusive due to lack of proper collection of samples. – Proof of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 — Voluntariness and Uninfluenced Nature — The Court reiterates that the information provided by an accused under Section 27 must be voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 54 and 59 — Buttondar knife — Specific Intent Required — The court clarifies that mere possession of a knife covered by a notification like the DAD Notification is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the Arms Act — There must be specific intent to use it for the prohibited purposes such as “manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test.” – The prosecution must clearly allege and prove the intent of the accused to use the weapon for the specified prohibited purposes — Absence of such allegation in the charge-sheet renders the proceedings defective.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw