Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Limitation

Limitation

Companies Act, 1956 – Sections 433, 434, 433(e) and 434(1)(c) – Winding up Petition – Trigger of limitation – A winding up proceeding is a proceeding ‘in rem’ and not a recovery proceeding, the trigger of limitation, so far as the winding up petition is concerned, would be the date of default.

Sep 29, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH JIGNESH SHAH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, R. Subhash Reddy and Surya…

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963, Art. 58–Limitation–Cause of action–Mere existence of a wrong entry in the revenue records does not, in law, give rise to a cause of action within the meaning of Article 58 of the Act. — Cause of action for the purposes of Article 58 of the Act accrues only when the right asserted in the suit is infringed or there is atleast a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right–Therefore, the mere existence of an adverse entry into the revenue record cannot give rise to cause of action.

Nov 15, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 307 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam Civil Appeal No.5339 of 2002 Daya…

Limitation

Adverse Possession—Permissive possession over the property howsoever long never becomes adverse to the interest of real owner at any point of time Adverse Possession—The limitation of 12 years begins when the possession of the defendants would become adverse to that of the plaintiffs -Adverse Possession—Proof of—Tax receipt, Chaukidari receipt and Khatian extract—These documents at the most depict the possession of the defendants and not their adverse possession.                                

Nov 1, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 2316 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1520 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                                                            Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Civil Appeal…

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