Supreme Court of India Judgements

46448 Judgements hosted as on 05/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Constitution

Constitution

Cannot be said that Article 21 been infringed in the matter–Petitioner not rendered remedy-less merely by denial of interim relief–Case not “the rarest of rare” so as to permit the petitioner to bypass the normal procedure of filing appeal against the order of the Single Judge–SC decline to  interfere with the order passed by  the  Single Judge of   the Delhi  High Court–Court  can grant   the relief   in cases:  where manifest injustice has been done:  or where there is manifest illegality or manifest want of jurisdiction.                   

Nov 11, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 196 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar Special Leave Petition No. 32840…

Constitution

Rent–Enhancement of –Enhanced rent was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable as matter purely contractual and the appellants voluntarily entered into the lease/licence with the respondents–Appellants not entitled to seek redress under Article 226 of the Constitution for any breach of the covenants contained in the lease agreements.

Nov 11, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 190 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar Civil Appeal No. 5158 Of…

Constitution

Forest Land—Unauthorized Construction—Construction was allowed on forest land (Aravalli Hills near Faridabad, Haryana) unauthorizedly by town planning authorities in blatant violation of notification declaring the area as Forest Land—State directed to demolish all the constructions—Developer to pay the investors the invested amount with interest and cost of construction thereon Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900–Unauthorized Construction-Construction was allowed on forest land (Aravalli Hills near Faridabad, Haryana) unauthorizedly by competent authorities and construction was raised in blatant violation of notification dated 10th August 1992 and subsequent order of court prohibiting any kind of construction—Area was declared forest land since 1980 much before said notification—In fact, building plans and sanction plans were approved by concerned authorities—It has caused great irreversible damage to environment and ecology of the area—Badkal lake has dried up and there is water scarcity in the areas—Following directions issued regarding constructions and land sold after date of notification as follows: (i) Developer would refund full amount to land purchaser along with 18% interest p.a. payable entirely by developer; (ii) State of Haryana to demolish all the illegal and unauthorized constructions before 31st December 2018; (iii) Developer and Town Planning Department to bear equally the cost of constructions which are ordered to be demolished—Amount quantified at Rs. 50 lakhs to be paid by 31th Dec 2018; (iv) If anyone who’s construction is demolished and is not satisfied with amount of Rs. 50 lakhs they can claim more by way of civil suit; (v) According to developer they have invested Rs. 50 crores in developing a housing complex—Developer directed to deposit 10% of said amount for rehabilitation of damaged area—Haryana Development & Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, S.23.

Nov 8, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 2422 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1518 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta W.P. (C)No. 4677…

Constitution

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016—Real Estate Project—Home Buyers—However, keeping in view the change of legal status of home buyers and facts and circumstances of the case, while exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution directions issued to start the process under code afresh.

Oct 24, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 2162 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1440   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CHITRA SHARMA — Appellant  Vs.  UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Dipak Misra, CJI.,…

Constitution

Tender Bid—Judicial Review—High Court could not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of the expert consultant on the issues of technical qualifications of a bidder.

Oct 21, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 2098 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1437 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before                                   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogol                                Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi Hon’ble Mr.…

Constitution

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, S.19(l)- Information about offence—As per S.19(l) a person who had an apprehension that an offence under the said Act is likely to be committed or has knowledge that such an offence had been committed would be required to provide such information to the relevant authorities

Oct 7, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SCOI) 1981 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1414 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan Criminal Appeal No(S). 961…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Constitution Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

May 5, 2024 sclaw