Month: April 2024

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

2024:INSC:292 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. — Appellant Vs. DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

2024 INSC 295 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHUPATBHAI BACHUBHAI CHAVDA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

2024 INSC 294 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUBHASH @ SUBANNA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and…

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

2024 INSC 296 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHAKALI SUJATHA — Appellant Vs. THE BRANCH MANAGER, FUTURE GENERALI INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with 34 and 120B – Murder – The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the discovery of the body was solely based on the appellants’ statements and that the chain of evidence was incomplete – The Court applied the principles for circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must fully establish the guilt and exclude all other hypotheses – The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

2024 INSC 299 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAVISHANKAR TANDON — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 201 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Murder – Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender – How much of information received from accused may be proved – The Court found the circumstances not conclusive and not consistent only with the hypothesis of the appellant’s guilt – The Court applied the principles for circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must fully establish the conclusion of guilt and exclude other hypotheses – The appellant’s conviction was not sustained due to doubts about the prosecution’s story and the failure to prove all circumstances forming the chain of evidence – Acquittal.

2024 INSC 298 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARUN SHANKAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,…

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Sections 13(4) and 17 – The Court emphasized that the High Court should not entertain petitions under Article 226 when an effective alternative remedy is available, especially in financial recovery matters – The Court reiterated the principle that confirmed auction sales can only be interfered with in cases of fraud or collusion, which were not present in this case – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had erred in its decision, and the rights of the auction purchaser should be upheld following the confirmed sale and registration of the property – Appeal Allowed.

2024 INSC 297 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PHR INVENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY — Appellant Vs. UCO BANK AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Rajesh Bindal…

Consumer Law – Housing – Delay in deleivery of Flat – The appellants, homebuyers, paid 90% of the total sale consideration for a flat, but the respondent-developer failed to deliver possession by the scheduled date, leading to a consumer dispute – The Supreme Court found that the Commission erred in allowing the respondent-developer to charge the said interest and quashed that part of the order – The Court directed the respondent-developer to convey the outstanding amount to the appellants within two months, and upon payment, to hand over possession of the flat immediately.

2024 INSC 300 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PIONEER URBAN LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R.…

Easements Act, 1882 – Sections 4, 13 and 15 – Easements of necessity and quasi-easements – The court reasons that the Appellant ‘s failed to prove uninterrupted use of the road for over 20 years and that there is an alternative way to access their land – The court examines the Indian Easements Act, 1882, and relevant case law to determine the absence of easementary rights by prescription, necessity, or agreement – The court concludes that the Appellant ‘s have not acquired any easementary rights over the disputed road and upholds the decisions of the appellate courts and the High Court.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANISHA MAHENDRA GALA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHALINI BHAGWAN AVATRAMANI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prashant Kumar Mishra,…

The main issues revolve around the revision of pay scales, allowances, and the comparability of the employer’s units for wage determination – unal to re-examine the case afresh within six months – The Court found that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and making independent factual determinations – The Court referenced several cases to establish the scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction and the industry-cum-region test for wage revision

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE VVF LTD. EMPLOYEES UNION — Appellant Vs. M/S. VVF INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar,…

You missed