Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: C P C

C P C Stamp Act

Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 — Section 4 — The appellants sought a declaration and injunction in a civil suit — The defendants requested impounding of six documents related to property transactions, claiming they were not duly stamped — Whether the appellants are liable to pay stamp duty and penalty on agreements to sell executed prior to the sale deed —The appellants argued that since the sale deed was registered and stamp duty paid, the prior agreements did not require separate stamping —The respondents contended that the agreements included a clause about the transfer of physical possession, necessitating stamp duty —The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision to impound the documents and send them for adjudication of stamp duty and penalty —The court emphasized that the agreements to sell were separate transactions requiring individual stamp duty, as they included clauses for possession transfer —The court referred to Section 4 and Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I, concluding that the agreements were conveyances requiring stamp duty — The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were directed to pay the appropriate stamp duty and penalty on the impounded documents.

Sep 29, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 730 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHYAMSUNDAR RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PUSHPABAI NILKANTH PATIL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and…

C P C Will & Succession

Genuineness of Will and Partition Suit — The Court emphasizes that in a partition suit where a Will is challenged, the genuineness of the Will must be determined as a necessary step to resolve the dispute over the property — Delays in deciding this issue should be minimized to prevent multiplicity of litigation.

Sep 29, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 726 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINESH GOYAL @ PAPPU — Appellant Vs. SUMAN AGARWAL (BINDAL) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay…

C P C Joint Family Property Partition

Suit for Partition of jointly owned Property — Liability to render accounts — The court held that the defendant Nos. 3(a) and defendant Nos. 15 to 19 are liable to render accounts and contribute rent as assessed by the Trial Court during the course of passing the final decree for the portions in their respective possession The court clarified that being in self-occupation of a property does not absolve a co-sharer from rendering accounts — The defendant No. 3(a) who purchased the property from defendant No. 3 after it had already been vacated by a tenant, was held liable to contribute rent as determined by the Trial Court. Business carried out in the property — The court held that defendant Nos. 15 to 19, who admitted to carrying on their own business in the portion of the property in their possession, are liable to render accounts and contribute rent as determined by the Trial Court.

Jul 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 552 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJINDER KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR USHA — Appellant Vs. GURBHAJAN KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS UPINDER KAUR AND OTHERS — Respondent…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 23 Rule 3 — Validity of Compromise Decrees — The court clarified that for a valid compromise decree, there must be a lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties, which must then be proved to the satisfaction of the court — Mere statements of the parties before the court about such a said compromise cannot satisfy the requirements of Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC. The court held that if an order is not a compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3, then the restrictions imposed under Rule 3A would have no relevance. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 52 — Doctrine of Lis Pendens — The court clarified that the execution of a sale deed during the pendency of a suit does not make the sale deed void ab initio — The purchaser takes the bargain subject to the rights of the plaintiff in the pending suit.

Jul 16, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 527 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMRO DEVI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JULFI RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath…

C P C

Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Section 41 – Second Appeals – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100 – The case revolves around the scope of Section 100 of the CPC and Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, specifically regarding the High Court’s power to re-appreciate evidence in second appeals – The petitioner argues that the High Court’s judgment was within its powers under Section 41 of the Punjab Act, and the Will in question was invalid due to suspicious circumstances – The respondent argues that the First Appellate Court’s findings were correct, the Will was genuine, and the High Court erred in its interference – The Supreme Court reviewed its previous judgment, acknowledging an error based on the legal position in Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors, (2016) 6 SCC 157, and decided to hear the Civil Appeal afresh on merits – The Supreme Court allowed the review petition, recalled its previous judgment, and decided the Civil Appeal on its merits, ultimately dismissing the appeal and upholding the trial court’s judgment.

Jul 5, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 429 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LEHNA SINGH (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. GURNAM SINGH (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram…

C P C I B C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 37 Rule 3(6)(b) — Suit for Recovery — Impact of Moratorium under IBC — The appellants argued that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) should halt the proceedings — However, the High Court rejected this argument, stating that the moratorium only applies to cases where the company is undergoing insolvency proceedings — In this case, the suit was not against a company undergoing insolvency, and therefore, the moratorium did not apply.

Jul 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANISH M RAWTHER @ ANEES MOHAMMED RAWTHER — Appellant Vs. HAFEEZ UR RAHMAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prashant…

C P C

Pre-emption Suit – The case revolves around a dispute over land in Haryana, where a pre-emption suit was filed and decreed, requiring a deposit of Rs. 9,214 minus 1/5th already deposited. The appellants deposited Rs. 7,600 instead of Rs. 7,614 due to a calculation error. The main issue was whether the appellants should suffer for a minor deficit due to a bona fide error and if the court can extend the time for deposit in such cases. The appellants argued that the error was not intentional and even the court ordered the deposit of 7,600. The respondents argued that the appellants failed to comply with the decree’s terms and did not provide sufficient reason for the delay in depositing the correct amount. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, permitting the appellants to deposit the deficit of 14 and directed them to pay Rs. 1,00,000 to the respondents for prolonged litigation. The court concluded that parties should not suffer due to errors in judicial proceedings and granted relief to the appellants.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 374 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANIHYA @ KANHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. — Appellant Vs. SUKHI RAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and…

C P C

“Illegal Construction on Disputed Land: Supreme Court Overturns High Court Order Permitting Compound Wall, Demands Impleading Affected Parties:” Land Dispute – The case involves a dispute over land ownership and the construction of a compound wall, which was permitted by the High Court under police protection without considering the rights of affected third parties – The main issue is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the construction of the compound wall under police protection, and whether necessary parties were impleaded – The petitioners argued that the High Court’s order was illegal due to non-joinder of necessary parties and that the principles of natural justice were not followed – The respondents claimed that no one was prejudiced by the construction of the compound wall and that the rights of adjacent landowners were not adversely affected – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the writ petition, and directed the High Court to decide the case afresh after impleading all necessary parties – The Court found that the High Court ignored the affidavits of government officers indicating that third parties would be affected by the wall’s construction – The Court emphasized that orders based on “Minutes of Order” are not consent orders and must be lawful, considering the rights of all affected parties – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s order was illegal and remanded the case for a fresh decision, with the possibility of demolishing the compound wall if found illegal.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 353 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJAY ISHWAR GHUTE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MEHER K. PATEL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…

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