Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Month: April 2024

Acquittal

The court found that the eyewitnesses were tutored by the police, which undermined the prosecution’s case – The absence of independent eyewitness testimony further weakened the case – The court acquitted the appellants due to the substantial doubt raised about the prosecution’s case and ordered an inquiry into the police’s conduct – The appellants had already served over 10 years of incarceration.

Apr 7, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANIKANDAN — Appellant Vs. STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal…

Bail Declined

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 336 and 427 – Murder – Cancellation of Bail — The Supreme Court found the High Court’s orders lacked detailed consideration of facts, especially given the severity of the crime and the specific naming of the respondents in the FIR – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders, cancelled the bail granted to the respondents, and directed them to surrender to custody

Apr 7, 2024 sclaw

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

Stamp Act State Laws

Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 – Section 9 – Refund of stamp duty paid for an increase in share capital – The Supreme Court examined whether Form No. 5 is an “instrument” under the Stamp Act and if the notice of increased share capital materially alters the Articles of Association, requiring fresh stamp duty – The Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that the Articles of Association are the only instruments liable for stamp duty and that the maximum cap applies as a one-time measure – The appellants were directed to refund the stamp duty with interest.

Apr 7, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale,…

Constitution Election Laws

– The Appellant claimed ‘Mochi’ caste, which was validated and granted by the Scrutiny Committee – The Respondents’ argument that a reserved category in one state cannot be granted reservation in another state has no relevance in this case, as the Appellant’s claim was based on her forefathers’ genealogical caste history – The Scrutiny Committee verified the Appellant’s claim as applicable to Maharashtra – Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the instant appeals stand allowed.

Apr 7, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAVNEET KAUR HARBHAJANSING KUNDLES @ NAVNEET KAUR RAVI RANA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari…

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Court emphasized the importance of timely litigation and found no sufficient cause to condone the extensive delay – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision not to condone the delay – The respondent was entitled to the decree’s benefits without further legal delays.

Apr 3, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 262 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY (D) THROUGH HIS LR — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha…

Cheque Dishonour

“Civil vs. Criminal Standards: Supreme Court Overturns Dishonoured Cheque Conviction” – Supreme Court noted the difference in standards of proof in civil and criminal proceedings and emphasized that the criminal court should not be bound by the civil court’s decree in this case – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the criminal proceedings, and ordered the return of damages imposed by the lower courts to the appellant.

Apr 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREM RAJ — Appellant Vs. POONAMMA MENON AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Bail Granted

“Sanjay Singh Granted Bail on Conditions: Top Court Rejects Precedent Setting in Money Laundering Case” – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed that Sanjay Singh be released on bail, with the terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court – The Order clarifies that this concession should not be treated as a precedent – Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

Apr 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SANJAY SINGH — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ. ) Criminal…

Tenders

Tender – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the independent committee’s findings and the previous cancellation of the tender. It held that the respondents acted in collusion to misuse the court’s process – The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order, allowed the appeal with costs, and clarified that HIMUDA could initiate a fresh tender process following due legal procedures.

Apr 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LEVEL 9 BIZ PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Bela M.…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw