Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Property Matters

Property Matters

Land Dispute – Declaration of title and possession over a property -The doctrine of merger applied, meaning lower courts’ judgments merged with the High Court’s judgment. The respondents’ argument that the High Court committed a bona fide error was rejected, and the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment in the second round. The First Appellate Court’s judgment was restored.

Jan 11, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MARY PUSHPAM — Appellant Vs. TELVI CURUSUMARY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

C P C Property Matters

Partition Suit – In case any property in possession of any of the co-sharers comes to his share it can very well be protected – Demolition of the already constructed buildings may not be in the interest of any of the parties as the same can be considered at the time of passing of final decree, with reference to the construction, authorised by the local authority.

Nov 12, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S MULTICON BUILDERS — Appellant Vs. SUMANDEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Property Matters

In terms of the Town Planning Scheme, notified on 01.08.1994 and subsequent circulars, the claim of any occupant of the property is required to be considered for rehabilitation or for payment of compensation – Appellants are still in possession of the property, which is stated to be coming in the alignment of 60 feet T.D. Road – Appeal can be disposed of with a direction to the Corporation to consider the claim of the appellants in terms of the Town Planning Scheme either for rehabilitation or payment of compensation.

Nov 12, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAFFAR ALI NAWAB ALI CHAUDHARI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and…

Joint Family Property Property Matters Will & Succession

A combined reading of Section 15(1)(a) and Section 16 of the Act would make it manifest that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve, firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband. Therefore, the plaintiff being the widow of the pre-deceased son does not have the first right or entitlement to receive any share in the share of her mother-inlaw.

Nov 12, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SACHIDHANANDAM SINCE DEAD THROUGH HIS LRS. — Appellant Vs. E. VANAJA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Hima Kohli and Prashant…

Property Matters

Allotment of plot – Public auction – Defaults and failure to pay installment/balance payment – Earnest money paid by the respondent will be forfeited and will not be refunded – Rs.4,15,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifteen thousand only), less the earnest money deposited by Respondent, will be refunded to him with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from 01.01.2001

Oct 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. S. PARAMJEET SINGH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil…

Property Matters Transfer Of Property Act

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Actionable claim – In terms of Section 3 of the TPA, actionable claim means (a) claim to an unsecured debt (other than a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property, hypothecation or pledge (b) beneficial interest in a movable property – Both these are recognised as enforceable – Other claims, however, do not fall within the expression “actionable claim”.

Oct 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. — Appellant Vs. HDFC BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar…

Banking Property Matters SARFAESI

(SARFAESI) – Section 13(8) – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 60 – Redemption of mortgage – Failure on the part of the borrower in tendering the entire dues including the charges, interest, costs etc. before the publication of the auction notice as required by Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, would also sufficiently constitute extinguishment of right of redemption of mortgage

Oct 1, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CELIR LLP — Appellant Vs. BAFNA MOTORS (MUMBAI) PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and J.B.…

Property Matters

Dispute over the allocation of a residential plot to Mr. ‘K’ and subsequent attempts to cancel the sale deed – Arbitration -‘K’ successors challenged this decision in a writ petition, and the High Court ruled in their favor, finding that the society had failed to provide evidence of the alleged violations – The society appealed this decision, but this Court concluded that their appeal lacked merit and dismissed it.

Sep 12, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PURUSHOTTAM BAGH SAHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD. — Appellant Vs. SRI SHOBHAN PAL SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…

Property Matters

By issuing the Resumption Notice, the Tahsildar admitted Writ Petitioners possession of the petition land. It is evident from the record that even before initiating proceedings for recovery, the possession of allotted land of an extent of acres 42.870 decimals is stated to have been given to IDCO by the State. It is also not clear whether the assignment in any manner overlaps with the petition land assigned to Vice Admiral Ganesh Prasad Panda. The State assumed the power of re-entry of the land settled on a higher pedestal and that the resumption of land in favour of the State as automatic – Appeal dismissed

Aug 27, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA, IDCO TOWER, JANAPATH, BHUBANESWAR, DISTRICT KHURDA, ODISHA — Appellant Vs. LATE SURGEON VICE ADMIRAL GP PANDA…

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