Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Corporate

Corporate

Advocates—Disposal of Complaint—After transfer of a disciplinary proceedings to Bar Council of India from the State Bar Council after one year of filing complaint; BCI cannot sent it back to the State Bar Council with the direction to decide the controversy within stipulated time.

May 17, 2017 sclaw

2017(2) Law Herald (P&H) 929 (SC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 829 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Civil…

Civil Cases Corporate

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 – Section – 11, 36 – Introduction of New Telecommunication Policy – Whether appellant is liable to pay Access Deficit Charges to BSNL for the period commencing from 14.11.2004 to 26.8.2005 in respect of its service provided under its brand name “WALKY”

May 10, 2017 sclaw

  (2008) 2 CompLJ 405 : (2008) 5 JT 657 : (2008) 6 SCALE 523 : (2008) 10 SCC 556 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA TATA TELESERVICES LTD. — Appellant Vs.…

Corporate

Contract Act, 1872 – Section 126 – Bank guarantee – Enforcement of – Works contract – Bank guarantee has to be read in conjunction with terms of contract – Failure to furnish extended terms of bank guarantee – State not obliged to file suit for a specific performance requiring contractor to furnish guarantee

May 9, 2017 sclaw

  AIR 1999 SC 3466 : (2000) 10 SCC 503 : (1999) AIRSCW 3452 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA MAKHARIA BROTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND AND OTHERS — Respondent…

Corporate

A lawyer, no doubt has a duty towards his client to do his best in his interest but within the parameters of law – He at the same time is equally responsible to assist the court fairly on the exact and latest position of law to his knowledge – His right to debate in the court is no licence to sidetrack the issue and mislead or pressurise the court to act in a particular manner – If he does so, it amounts of his misconduct attracting the wrath of disciplinary provisions of the Advocates Act.

May 6, 2017 sclaw

  AIR 2001 SC 457 : (2000) 3 JT 505 Supp : (2000) 8 SCALE 76 : (2001) 2 SCC 221 : (2000) 5 SCR 345 Supp : (2001) 1…

You missed

Arbitration Constitution

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.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

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.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
I P C

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.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

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.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw