Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Labour Cases

Labour Cases

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 – Section 1(6) – Demand notice – Sub-section (6) of Section 1 therefore, shall be applicable even with respect to those establishments, established prior to 31.03.1989/20.10.1989 and the ESI Act shall be applicable irrespective of the number of persons employed or notwithstanding that the number of persons employed at any time falls below the limit specified by or under the ESI Act.

Jan 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE ESI CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. M/S. RADHIKA THEATRE — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Labour Cases

Back wages – Merely because the reinstatement order was under challenge and there was a stay of the order of reinstatement during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, it cannot be a ground to deny the wages to the employee when ultimately the order of reinstatement came to be confirmed and attained the finality.

Dec 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH D.N. KRISHNAPPA — Appellant Vs. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Labour Cases

Prohibition of employment of contract labour – In the absence of any notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act and in the absence of any allegations and/or findings that the contract was sham and camouflage, both the Industrial Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed a serious error in reinstating the contesting respondents

Dec 10, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAMCHARAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.…

Labour Cases

High Court ought to have considered the writ petition preferred by the workman on merits and ought to have given some findings on the order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the 33(C) (2) application – Order passed by High Court is quashed and set aside – Matter is remitted back to the High Court.

Aug 14, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M/S MITRA S.P. (P) LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DHIREN KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Labour Cases

Minimum Wages – when the earlier notification was issued after following the due procedure as required under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, 1948, the same procedure ought to have been followed even while varying and/or modifying the notification – Hence, the notification could not have been modified by such an Errata Notification

May 15, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH GOMANTAK MAZDOOR SANGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GOA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

Labour Cases

Territorial jurisdiction – Preliminary issue – When the issue touches the question of territorial jurisdiction, as far as possible the same shall have to be decided first as preliminary issue – Labour Court did not commit any error in deciding the issue with respect to the territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue in the first instance.

Apr 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V.G. JAGDISHAN — Appellant Vs. M/S. INDOFOS INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Labour Cases

It is a fundamental principle of law that a party who is in enjoyment of an interim order, is bound to lose the benefit of such interim order when the ultimate outcome of the case goes against him. HELD in view of the efflux of time and taking into account the fact that few employees are now no more, we direct the Management not to effect any recovery, if payment has already been made to any of the respondents or their families.

Apr 11, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RAJESH CHANDRA SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta…

You missed

Stamp Act State Laws

“Supreme Court Clarifies State’s Power to Levy Stamp Duty on Insurance Policies” Stamp Act, 1899 – Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 – Power to levy and collect stamp duty – The primary issues are the legislative competence of the State to levy stamp duty on insurance policies and the applicability of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 or the 1998 Act – LIC contends that the state lacks legislative competence to impose stamp duty on insurance policies and challenges the demand for stamp duty payment for policies issued using stamps purchased from Maharashtra – The State of Rajasthan argues that it has the power to collect stamp duty on insurance policies under Entry 44 of List III, as per the rate prescribed by the Parliament under Entry 91 of List I – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the High Court’s judgment, and affirmed the state’s power to levy stamp duty. However, it directed that the state shall not demand and collect the stamp duty as per the orders dated between 1993-94 and 2001-02 – The Court reasoned that the state has the legislative competence to impose and collect stamp duty on insurance policies, and the 1952 Act applies to the case – The Court analyzed the constitutional provisions and previous judgments to conclude that the state can impose stamp duty using rates prescribed by the Parliament – The Supreme Court concluded that while the state’s power to levy stamp duty is upheld, the specific demands for stamp duty payment in this case were set aside due to the circumstances presented.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
I P C

“Supreme Court Overturns Lower Courts, Orders Trial for Alleged Marriage Fraud and Conspiracy (IPC Sections 420 & 120-B)” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420 read with Section 120-B – The appellant challenged lower courts’ orders regarding the summoning of respondents for alleged dishonest inducement in a marriage – The appellant claimed he was deceived into marrying a married respondent and that all respondents conspired to induce him into marriage and leave him with a significant sum of money – The respondents argued that there was no concealment or cheating, as all facts were disclosed to the appellant from the beginning – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and Sessions Court, and restored the Magistrate’s order for the respondents to face trial – The court found that a prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the respondents, and the lower courts’ approach was not legally sustainable – The court concluded that the respondents should face trial for the alleged offences, and the case will be decided on its merits based on the evidence presented by the parties.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Specific Relief Act

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 6 – Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property – The appellants, owner of the property, allegedly evicted the respondent illegally and by force – The main issue was the maintainability of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the illegal dispossession – The appellants contended voluntary handover of possession and challenged the maintainability of the suit – The respondent filed a suit within six months of dispossession under Section 6 of the Act – The Trial Court decreed in favor of the respondent, and the High Court dismissed the appellant’s revision – The High Court concurred with the Trial Court on the illegal dispossession and maintainability of the suit – The appeal was dismissed based on concurrent findings and evidence on record – The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
I P C

“Conspiracy Theory Revived: Supreme Court Orders Trial in Forged Documents Case Involving Government Land” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 120(B) and 34 – The case involves allegations of a conspiracy to illegally transfer government land using forged documents – The respondents, along with others, are accused of manipulating judicial processes and revenue records to acquire government lands – The primary issue is whether the High Court was correct in quashing the order taking cognizance against the respondents, given the evidence of a conspiracy and manipulation of documents – The State argues that the High Court overlooked circumstantial evidence of a broader conspiracy and failed to appreciate the severity of the offences, which could undermine public trust in land administration – The respondents challenged the order of cognizance, arguing insufficient evidence directly implicating them in the conspiracy – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and directed the trial to proceed against the respondents – The Court found that the High Court’s decision was based on an incomplete assessment of facts and that a detailed trial is necessary to fully unravel the extent of the alleged conspiracy – The Court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of evidence and witnesses by the Trial Court to determine the actual harm caused to the public exchequer – The Supreme Court concluded that the case should not be dismissed at the preliminary stage and must be examined judiciously in a trial setting to ensure the integrity of ongoing investigations and judicial processes.

May 5, 2024 sclaw