Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Constitution

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…

Constitution

Refund of excess price paid over the notified price in e-auction – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the appellant and directed the respondent to pay the refund amount with interest @ 12% per annum for the relevant periods, within two months, failing which the officers concerned would be personally liable.

Mar 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. DOMCO SMOKELESS FUELS PVT. LTD — Appellant Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,…

Constitution

Implement Community Kitchens to combat hunger, malnutrition and starvation in the country – Court has also reiterated that the scope of judicial review in examining policy matters is very limited, and the Courts cannot direct the States to implement a particular policy or scheme on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available – The Court has disposed of the writ petition with these observations.

Mar 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANUN DHAWAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…

Constitution Election Laws

Chandigarh Mayor Election: Supreme Court quashed the election result and declared the appellant as the validly elected candidate for the post of Mayor – It also issued a notice to the presiding officer to show cause why criminal proceedings should not be initiated against him under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

Mar 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KULDEEP KUMAR — Appellant Vs. — Respondent U.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., J B Pardiwala and Manoj…

Constitution

Electoral Bond Scheme, the proviso to Section 29C(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (as amended by Section 137 of Finance Act 2017), Section 182(3) of the Companies Act (as amended by Section 154 of the Finance Act 2017), and Section 13A(b) (as amended by Section 11 of Finance Act 2017) are violative of Article 19(1)(a) and unconstitutional

Feb 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.,…

Constitution Land Acquisition

In the facts and circumstances noted and more particularly the fact that the appellant still claims to be in possession of the land under acquisition, writ petition preferred by the appellant should have been heard and decided on merits – Matter is remitted to the High Court of Uttarakhand

Feb 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH J.N. PURI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (NOW STATE OF UTTARAKHAND) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep…

Constitution Matrimonial

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India is clearly permissible to do ‘complete justice’ to a ’cause or matter’ and this Court can pass an order or decree which a family court, trial court or High Court can pass and when such power is exercised, the question or issue of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction does not arise

Feb 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASHCHANDRA JOSHI — Appellant Vs. KUNTAL PRAKASHCHANDRA JOSHI @ KUNTAL VISANJI SHAH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.…

Constitution Cr P C

Mandatorily mention in a application for grant of bail: 1. Details and copies of order(s) passed in the earlier bail application(s) filed by the petitioner which have been already decided. 2. Details of any bail application(s) filed by the petitioner, which is pending either in any court, below the court in question or the higher court, and if none is pending, a clear statement to that effect has to be made 3. The registry of the court should also annex a pending bail application(s) in the crime case in question -4. It should be the duty of the Investigating Officer/any officer assisting the State Counsel in court to apprise him of the order(s), if any, passed by the court with reference to different bail applications or other proceedings in the same crime case

Jan 21, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KUSHA DURUKA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ODISHA — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Constitution Cr P C

CHANDRABABU NAIDU -As we have expressed opinions taking different views on the interpretation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as also its applicability to the appellant in the subject-case, we refer the matter to the Honble the Chief Justice of India. The Registry to place the papers before the Honble the Chief Justice of India so that appropriate decision can be taken for the constitution of a Larger Bench in this case for adjudication on the point on which contrary opinions have been expressed by us.

Jan 18, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARA CHANDRABABU NAIDU Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 394 read with Section 397 – Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery – The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 394 and 397 of the IPC, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine, based on the recovery of stolen items and identification by the complainant – The appeal challenges the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s appeal against the trial court’s conviction and sentence – The appellant contested the identification of the stolen items and the legality of the disclosure statement used to convict him – The State supported the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the recovery of stolen items and the identification process – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered release, citing insufficient evidence to affirm guilt – The Court’s reasoning focused on the improper proof of the disclosure memo and the questionable identification of the stolen items by the complainant – The conclusion was that the prosecution failed to connect the appellant with the crime conclusively.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
State Laws

M.P. Excise Act, 1915 – The case involves the applicability of a rule for imposing penalties related to the liquor license period of 2009-10 and whether the old or substituted rule should apply – The main issue is whether the penalty should be based on the rule in place during the violation (2009-10) or the substituted rule from 2011, which reduced the penalty – The appellant argues for the application of the substituted rule, which imposes a lower penalty, as the old rule was repealed – The State contends that the old rule should apply to transactions from 2009-10, despite the substitution – The Supreme Court accepted the appellant’s contention, applying the substituted rule to pending proceedings – The Court reasoned that the purpose of the amendment was to balance the offence and penalty, and not applying the substituted rule would not serve public interest – The Court distinguished between the effects of repeal and substitution of rules, emphasizing that the substituted rule should apply from the date of substitution – The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court’s judgment, and the penalty was determined based on the substituted rule from 2011.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 236 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 190, 193 and 200 – The appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India against the Ex-Directors of M/s. SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. for offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The primary issue is whether the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013 has jurisdiction to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings and that offences under the Code should be tried by the Special Court – The respondents contended that the High Court’s judgment was correct and that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code – The Court reasoned that the reference to the Special Court in Section 236(1) of the Code is a ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not a ‘legislation by reference’, meaning subsequent amendments to the Companies Act do not affect the Code – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine that the case is one of ‘legislation by incorporation’ – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. The judicial opinion emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the distinction between ‘legislation by incorporation’ and ‘legislation by reference’ in determining jurisdiction.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(2) and 302 read with Section 149 – The appellants were convicted for the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court, reversing their earlier acquittal by the trial court – The main issue was the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and the admissibility of evidence, such as the FIR and recovery of weapons – The appellants argued that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal, contending that the eyewitnesses were unreliable and the FIR was a post-investigation document – The State contended that the eyewitness testimonies were credible and the FIR was lodged promptly without undue delay – The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, acquitted the appellants, and discharged their bail bonds – The Court found inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts and issues with the FIR and recovery of weapons – The Court applied principles regarding the appellate court’s power in appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the need for the High Court to find perversity or illegality in the trial court’s judgment to reverse an acquittal – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s judgment was flawed and restored the trial court’s acquittal of the appellants.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw