Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: State Laws

State Laws

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 – Kerala Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 – Rule 4 – Restrictions on activities within wetlands -It is open to the Appellant to challenge the order of the Collector dated 30.04.2019 in accordance with law –

Nov 2, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THOMAS LAWRENCE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee,…

State Laws

U P Mining Minerals (Concession) R, 1963 – Rule 40(h) – disruption of mining operations- State of UP states that they are only liable to refund (i) any security deposit; or (ii) advance royalties paid to them, for this obstructed period – the State already consented and recorded in such order .

Nov 2, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh…

State Laws

Rajasthan Pre-Emption Act, 1966 – Section 9 – Loss of right of pre-emption on transfer – A right is available once – whether to take it or leave it to a person having a right of pre-emption – If such person finds it is not worth once, it is not an open right available for all times to come to that person

Oct 18, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAGHUNATH (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. RADHA MOHAN (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and…

State Laws

Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Act 1956 – Section 6(1)(viii) – Nomination – Powers of Diwan – It was not open to the State Government to arrogate the power of nomination to itself or to usurp the powers of the Diwan – Section 6(1)(viii) entrusts that authority to the collective body of members of the Diwan which is entitled to select the four individuals to be nominated to the statutory Board

Aug 20, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SARDAR BAHGINDER SINGH S/O GURUCHARAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. SARDAR MANJIEETH SINGH JAGAN SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya…

State Laws

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Sections 88, 91, 125 and 126 – Deletion of the Public Road from the Town Planning Scheme – HELD land is acquired for the purposes of a Development Scheme, the same vests in the State free from encumbrances – In the absence of any proceedings for acquisition or for purchase, no land belonging to the Appellant Trust could have vested in the State

Aug 7, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARI KRISHNA MANDIR TRUST — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, JJ.…

State Laws

Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax, 1959 – Section 7A – Levy of purchase Tax – Purchase of empty bottles – Course of business of manufacture and sale of Beer and IMFL – Entire scheme of Section 7-A of the Act, nowhere any exception is provided that if a particular commodity or goods would be subjected to sales tax in the event of their sale, they may not be liable to purchase tax

Jun 30, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MOHAN BREWARIES AND DISTRILLERIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh…

State Laws

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands, Act, 1948 – Section 63 – Transfers to non-agriculturists barred – Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 debars an agriculturist from parting with his agricultural land to a non-agriculturist through a “Will”.

Jun 28, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VINODCHANDRA SAKARLAL KAPADIA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra and A.S. Bopanna,…

You missed

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw