Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Corporate

Corporate SEBI

Whether a stock broker has to obtain a certificate of registration from SEBI for each of the stock exchanges where he operates or whether a single certificate of registration from SEBI is sufficient – contention repelled – HELD the applicant was to be admitted as member of different stock exchanges as per their own bye-laws, rules and regulations

Oct 15, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE MEMBERS ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and…

Corporate

Companies Act, 1956 – Sections 3 and 560(5) – Striking off name of company – Defunct company – As per the last balance sheet filed for the year 2002­2003, the paid up share capital of the Company in question was Rs.7,000/­ – such acompany defunct company caanot be restored after 16 years stiking of name.

Oct 8, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH NIRENDRA NATH KAR — Appellant Vs. GOPAL NAVIN BHAI DAVE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Corporate

SEBI Act, 1992 Sections 2 (ha), 15 Z – HELD would be that the sale by the respondent, of the shares held by him in company would not fall within the mischief of insider trading, as it was somewhat similar to a distress sale, made before the information could have a positive impact on the price of the shares, the appeal is dismissed.

Sep 24, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. ABHIJIT RAJAN — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…

Corporate

Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 – Section 50-B – Port-due on vessels not discharging or taking in cargo – When a Vessel enters a port but does not discharge or take in any cargo or passengers, she is charged with port dues at a rate to be determined by the Authority, which, in any event, should not exceed half the rate with which she otherwise would be chargeable.

Sep 22, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M/S NKD MARITIME LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MUMBAI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira…

Corporate

Companies Act, 1956 – Section 430 – Civil Court’s jurisdiction – Nothing in the Companies Act 2013 or any other law for the time being in force vests either the National Company Law Tribunal or the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal with the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a challenge to the RBI Circular – Hence, the bar in Section 430 is not attracted.

Sep 4, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. RAJKUMAR NAGPAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant…

Corporate

Transparency in expenses – Intent behind specifying total expense ratio and the performance disclosure for mutual funds is to bring greater transparency in expenses and to not confer any right on the mutual fund distributors to claim expenses under clause (b) to Regulation 41(2), which pertains to the procedure and manner of winding up.

Aug 16, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH FRANKLIN TEMPLETON TRUSTEE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. AMRUTA GARG AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer…

Corporate

SEBI – Appellate Tribunal is an appellate forum and not the authority empowered to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 15-H or suo moto issue directions under Section 11, 11B or 11(4)(d) of the Act. It can uphold or set aside the direction issued, or modify and substitute the direction issued under Regulation 44 of the Takeover Regulations 1997 read with Sections 11, 11B and 11(4)(d) of the Act.

Jul 24, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. SUNIL KRISHNA KHAITAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M.…

Corporate

Securities market deals with the wealth of investors – Any such manipulation is liable to cause serious detriment to investors’ wealth – HELD has prohibited the appellant from participating in its proprietary account for a specified period, leaving it open to the appellant to continue operation in their broking account.

Jun 26, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH MBL AND COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Bela…

Corporate

Depositories Act, 1996 – As per the 1996 Regulations, the pledgor/pawnor is not entitled to sell the pledged/pawned securities – the pawnor under the Contract Act and the common law has the right to redeem the pledged goods till ‘actual sale’ – Sale by the pawnee to self does not defeat the right of redemption of the pawnor – It may amount to conversion in law

May 16, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. VENKATESWARLU KARI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. )…

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