Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Property Matters

Corporate Property Matters

Rajasthan Industrial Areas Allotment Rules, 1959 – Rules 11A and 12 – Allotment of industrial land – There has been an uninterrupted and subsisting relationship of lessor and lessee between the State Government and either J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (JKSL) or Respondent No. 1, in the context of LIA, Kota. From the first lease deed executed in 1967, till date, the State Government has maintained the position of lessor

Apr 24, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BISHAMBHAR PRASAD — Appellant Vs. M/S ARFAT PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, JJ. )…

Property Matters State Laws

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – Sections 118 and 121 – Partition – When a decision is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118 on the question as to the property to be divided and the mode of partition, the rights and status of the parties stand decided and the partition is deemed to have completed – At this stage, such decision is required to be treated as the “decree”

Apr 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JHABBAR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AN OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JAGTAR SINGH S/O DARSHAN SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and…

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.…

Property Matters

HELD on the principle of restitution to the facts of the case on hand, SCOI is of the opinion that this is a fit case to apply the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit and the principle of restitution and to direct Shri Naresh Kempanna and Col. Mohinder Khaira to return the amount and deposit the same with this Court with 9% interest from the date on which the payment is received by them.

Mar 26, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHUPINDER SINGH — Appellant Vs. UNITECH LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) I.A. Nos. 88960…

Constitution Housing Property Matters

Chandigarh Administration shall not sanction any plan of a building which ex facie appears to be a modus operandi to convert a single dwelling unit into three different apartments occupied by three strangers; and no Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or agreement or settlement amongst co­owners of a residential unit shall be registered nor shall it be enforceable in law for the purpose of bifurcation or division of a single residential unit into floor­ wise apartments –

Jan 12, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and B.V.…

Property Matters

Allotments of flats – the entire controversy can be set at rest on the understanding that 844 members of the Respondent-Society shall be provided with apartments, admeasuring about 1800 square feet, as stated by NOIDA in its affidavit filed pursuant to the order dated 23.8.2021 passed by this Court

Sep 22, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA) — Appellant Vs. KENDRIYA KARAMCHARI SEHKARI G.N. SAMITI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit,…

Property Matters

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) – Once the land stood vested with the Government compensation paid no justification for the appellants to claim deemed possession of the subject land in question and even if they are in physical possession, no right could be claimed in reference to the subject land by the appellants.

Sep 12, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH GOPALBHAI PANCHABHAI ZALAVADIA (DEAD) THR LRS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S.…

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