Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Corporate

Corporate

Competition Act, 2002 – Sections 2(u) 3 and 4 read with Section 19(1)(a) – Complaint – Lottery business can continue to be regulated by the Regulation Act – If in the tendering process there is an element of anti-competition which would require investigation by the CCI, that cannot be prevented under the pretext of the lottery business being res extra commercium, more so when the State Government decides to deal in lotteries.

Jan 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…

Corporate

Trade Marks Act, 1999 – 29 and 30 – Infringement of the trade mark – Permanent injunction – When the trade mark of the defendant is identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and that the goods or services of the defendant are identical with the goods or services covered by registered trade mark, the Court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public

Jan 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RENAISSANCE HOTEL HOLDINGS INC. — Appellant Vs. B. VIJAYA SAI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V.…

Corporate

Companies Act, 2013 – Sections 243, 237(b), 433, 433(a), 433(g), 433(h), 433(i) and 439(1)(f) – Winding up – If the conduct of the affairs of the company in a fraudulent manner is a continuing process, the right to apply winding up becomes recurring: – Main departure of the 2013 Act from the statutory regime of the 1956 Act, is the specific inclusion of fraud, directly as one of the circumstances in which a company could be wound up –

Jan 19, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ANTRIX CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. )…

Corporate

Companies Act, 1956 – Section 531 – Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 – Section 45-MB – Suit for Interest on delayed payment on Bonds -the plaintiffs, like the Shakespearean character of Shylock, have raised the demand “I’ll have my bond. Speak not against my bond.” – Holder of the Bond has received their ‘pound of flesh’, but they seem to want more – Additional sum is not merited as SIBCO has already received their just entitlement and burdening the defendant with any further amount towards interest would be akin to Shylockian extraction of blood from the defendant.

Jan 3, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. M/S. SIBCO INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh…

Corporate

Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 – Section 30 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Appeal against the order of Recovery Officer – Limitation – Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable to the appeal against the order of Recovery Officer as provided under Section 30 of the Act, 1993.

Nov 28, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AVNEESH CHANDAN GADGIL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna,…

Corporate

Held, Merely having an explicit clause may not be sufficient to make time the essence of the contract – As the contract was spread over a long tenure, the intention of the parties to provide for extensions surely reinforces the fact that timely performance was necessary – Contractual clauses having extension procedure and imposition of liquidated damages, are good indicators that ‘time was not the essence of the contract’

Nov 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WELSPUN SPECIALTY SOLUTIONS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS REMI METALS GUJARAT LIMITED) — Appellant Vs. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED — Respondent ( Before…

Corporate

Perusal of clause 17 of the 1992 deed would reveal that the partners have right to expel an erring partner/partners on the grounds specified therein. The 1995 Deed does not have any conflicting provision. The clauses in the 1992 Deed, which are not superseded by the 1995 Deed, would still continue to operate. The trial court has given sound reasons, while upholding the expulsion of the plaintiffs. We see no reason to interfere with the same, the appeal is partly allowed.

Oct 30, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH V. ANANTHA RAJU AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. T.M. NARASIMHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R.…

Corporate

Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 – Sections 16 and 17 – Deemed authorization -it is held that entities which had received authorization from States, had to seek authorization under the PNGRB Act, in terms of Section 17(2), and in compliance with the conditions spelt out under the CGD Regulations – Role of the State in granting NOC is only supportive or collaborative, in terms of the Central Government’s policy, of 2006, and cannot confer any advantage to any entity, which has to seek and be granted specific authorization in terms of the PNGRB Act on the merits of its application.

Oct 3, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ADANI GAS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Hrishikesh…

Corporate

Copyright Rules, 2013 – Rule 29(4) – An exercise of judicial re-drafting of Rule 29(4) was unwarranted, particularly at the interlocutory stage – High Court was also of the view that the second proviso may be resorted to as a matter of routine, instead of as an exception and that the ex post facto reporting should be enlarged to a period of fifteen days (instead of a period of twenty four hours). Such an exercise was impermissible since it would substitute a statutory rule made in exercise of the power of delegated legislation with a new regime and provision which the High Court considers more practicable

Oct 3, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. NEXT RADIO LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna, 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