Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Limitation

Limitation

Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990, is not governed by the prescription of limitation under Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – In the absence of any particular period of time being prescribed to file an appeal, the same would be governed by the principle of ‘reasonable time’, for which, by virtue of its very nature, no straitjacket formula can be laid down and it is to be determined as per the facts and

Dec 17, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S NORTH EASTERN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S ASHOK PAPER MILL(ASSAM) LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…

Limitation Rent

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Sections 7(1) and 7(2) – Non-payment of arrears of rent – Extension of time – While the Limitation Act may be generally applicable to the proceedings under the Tenancy Act, the restricted proviso under Section 7 of the said Act, providing a time period beyond which no extension can be granted, has to be applicable.

Oct 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEBASISH PAUL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. AMAL BORAL — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Land Acquisition Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Condonation of delay of around 479 days in presentation of an appeal from the decision of the Reference Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – High Court’s decision to condone the delay does not suffer from any error warranting interference, such an exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice-oriented approach by the Courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State – A court of appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the courts below – An appellate power interferes not when the order appealed is not right but only when it is clearly wrong.

Oct 18, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHEO RAJ SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi…

Limitation Specific Performance

Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 54 and Section 9 – Suit for specific performance – Limitation – Article 54 of Part II of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 19637 stipulates the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance as three years from the date fixed for performance, and in alternative when no date is fixed, three years from the date when the plaintiff has notice that performance has been refused – when no time is fixed for performance, the court will have to determine the date on which the plaintiff had notice of refusal on part of the defendant to perform the contract.

Sep 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. VALLIAMMAI — Appellant Vs. K.P. MURALI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Limitation SARFAESI

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 18 – Effect of acknowledgment in writing – Documents relating to acknowledgement claiming benefit of Section 18 were introduced at appellate stage, and such documents being balance sheets and settlement offers, the same could be accepted even at the appellate stage.

Sep 26, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AXIS BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. NAREN SHETH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Adverse Possession Limitation

Adverse possession – A party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is “nec vi, nec clam, nec precario”, that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period.

Aug 12, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JOSEPH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. )…

Arbitration Limitation

Bank guarantee encashed in 2016 requisite amount stood transferred to Government account that was the end of the matter – This “Breaking Point” should be treated as the date at which the cause of action arose – statutory time period cannot be defeated on the ground that the parties were negotiating

May 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S B AND T AG — Appellant Vs. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and J. B.…

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act Limitation

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 150(2) – Clarification regarding waiver of limitation – Revenue to file an appropriate review application for the relief sought in the present application and as and when such review application is filed the same can be heard in the open court.

May 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRINCIPAL COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3 — Appellant Vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.…

Limitation Property Matters Waqf

Waqf Act, 1995 – Section 52 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 27 – Even in regard to a proceeding under the Act be it Section 52 if as on the date the action is taken, the title in the property stood vested with the person in possession by virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation Act then it may not be permissible to ignore the right which had been acquired.

Apr 16, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SABIR ALI KHAN — Appellant Vs. SYED MOHD. AHMAD ALI KHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, 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