Supreme Court of India Judgements

46650 Judgements hosted as on 11/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Evidence Act

Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 32(3) and 32(5) – Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is Relevant -The Court found inconsistencies in the respondents’ arguments and relied on evidence indicating a joint family business – The Court applied the principle of preponderance of probability and the Indian Evidence Act to assess the joint nature of the business – The Supreme Court concluded that the properties were joint family assets and should be partitioned accordingly. Cases Referred

Apr 13, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 283 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VITTHALRAO MAROTIRAO NAVKHARE — Appellant Vs. NANIBAI (DEAD), THROUGH LRS, AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay…

Evidence Act

Evidence Act – Sections 40-43 – Once information is given by an accused, the same information cannot be used, even if voluntarily made by a co-accused who is in custody. Section 27 of the Evidence Act does apply to joint disclosures, but this is not one such case.[14] This was precisely the reason given by the trial court to acquit the co-accused. Even if Section 8 of the Evidence Act is to apply, it would not have been possible to convict the co-accused.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL — Appellant Vs. STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S. V. N.…

Evidence Act Stamp Act

Stamp Act 1899 – Section 35 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65 – Unstamped document – Secondary evidence – If a document that is required to be stamped is not sufficiently stamped, then the position of law is well settled that a copy of such document as secondary evidence cannot be adduced

Dec 2, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIJAY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Evidence Act

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 311 – Evidence Act, 1972 – Section 65B – Re-summon of material witness and permission to produce the report and certificate under Section 65B of the Act – 2008 Bangalore Bomb Blasts Case – Delay of six years in producing the certificate – Certificate under 65-B of the Act can be produced at any stage if the trial is not over

Nov 12, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF KARNATAKA — Appellant Vs. T. NASEER @ NASIR @ THANDIANTAVIDA NASEER @ UMARHAZI @ HAZI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Evidence Act

Certified copy of sale deed – Admissibility – Certified copy given under Section 57 of the Registration Act shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of its original document – Certified copy issued thereunder is not a copy of the original document, but is a copy of the registration entry which is itself a copy of the original and is a public document under Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act and Sub-section (5) thereof, makes it admissible in evidence for proving the contents of its original.

Oct 1, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH APPAIYA — Appellant Vs. ANDIMUTHU@ THANGAPANDI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 14630…

Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 – Ss 4 and 18 – Testimony of a child witness – Before taking the testimony of a minor, it is the responsibility of the Judicial Officer to ask preliminary questions to ensure that the minor can comprehend and respond rationally & record the preliminary questions and answers for review by the Appellate Court to assess the Trial Court’s opinion accurately.

Jul 19, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRADEEP — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Evidence Act Property Matters Registration Act

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 67 – Transfer of ownership – Where a deed of sale had been duly executed and registered, its delivery and payment of consideration have been endorsed thereon it would amount to a full transfer of ownership so as to entitle its purchaser to maintain a suit for possession of the property sold

May 9, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DAMODHAR NARAYAN SAWALE (D) THROUGH LRS. — Appellant Vs. SHRI TEJRAO BAJIRAO MHASKE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T.…

Acquittal Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 – Ss 101 and 106 – Burden of proof – Burden of proof is always with the prosecution – – Section 106 of the Act is an exception to the rule which is Section 101 of the Act, and it comes into play only in a limited sense where the evidence is of a nature which is especially within the knowledge of that person and then the burden of proving that fact shifts upon him that person.

May 9, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINESH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.530…

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