Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: State Laws

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,…

State Laws

Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 47A – Suo motu – Power of – There is nothing in the scheme of the Act which purports to restrict the exercise of suo motu power under Section 47-A, and confines it to cases where knowledge of any illegality or infirmity in the proceedings undertaken by the subordinate officers must be gathered from sources other than through a pending appeal

Jun 28, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS. — Appellant K. BASKARAN — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Indu…

State Laws

Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 – Sections 5 and 5(2)(AA) – General Conditions of Contract – Clause 45.2 – Reimbursement of sales tax – Contractor company is rightfully entitled to claim reimbursement of the amount of sales tax levied on the taxable turnover of the works contracts executed by it.

Jun 7, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF ORISSA — Appellant Vs. B. ENGINEERS & BUILDERS LTD. & ORS. — Respondent ( Before : A.M.Khanwilkar, Indira Banerjee and Dinesh…

State Laws

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 – Section 28(4) – Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 – Sections 4A(1), 15, 15(2) and 15(4) – Permission for development of building or land – Appellants had permitted the Project Proponents to construct housing complex at a location outside the demarcated area for five Townships HELD Project Proponents are also obliged to ensure compliance of ODP/Master Plan and if so complied, the Planning Authority cannot create any impediment – If the State accords approval to the deviation in terms of the FWA itself, the Project Proponents may be competent to carry on such a work – To put it differently, prior approval of the State for deviation from the stipulations and specifications in the FWA is the quintessence. Appeal allowed. d/19.05.2020

May 19, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…

State Laws

West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 2(a) and 2(c) – Eviction proceedings – HELD Lease was in respect of three plots of land which did not contain any building and these plots of land do not satisfy the requirements of definition of “Government premises” within the meaning of Section 2(a) read with Section 2(c) of the Act. – Eviction proceedings initiated by the Corporation against respondent No.1 under the Act was without jurisdiction.

Mar 22, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WEST BENGAL SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. &ORS. — Appellant Vs. M/S. SONA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. &ORS. — Respondent ( Before : S.…

State Laws

Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 – Section 14 – Grant of Lease – Counter-claim – High Court reiterated that it is the State which is the proprietor of all minerals beneath the land – There can be no dispute to the above proposition – HELD Additional evidence brought on record by the State before this Court which has been accepted on record fully support the counter-claim of the defendant – Counter-claim of the defendant-appellant deserves to be allowed and the judgment of courts below is to be modified – Appeal allowed

Mar 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF GOA — Appellant Vs. NARAYAN V. GAONKAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Civil…

State Laws

HELD It appears to us that the absence of a comma is a mistake and in fact according to us, a comma should be read after ‘shamilat’ and before ‘taraf’ in the latter part of the section also – Word ‘shamilat’ has to be read with all four­ ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ – A land can be ‘shamilat deh’ only if it is ‘shamilat taraf’, ‘shamilat patti’, ‘shamilat panna’, or ‘shamilat thola’. In case the word shamilat is missing from any of these four terms, then the land cannot be said to be belonging to a group of people and could never become ‘shamilat deh’ land HELD This Court allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 03.07.2008 and the orders of all the authorities below – Name of the appellant be entered in the column of ownership with the entry ‘shamlat patti’.

Mar 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PATRAM — Appellant Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT KATWAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

State Laws

Chhattisgarh Co-Operative Societies Act I960 – (i) Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 54(3), as special provisions for the appointment of the CEO of Cooperative Banks confer upon them the power to appoint their CEO (ii) However, where a Cooperative Bank is a Central Society within the ambit of Section 49-E(2), the CEO shall be appointed from among the officers of the cadre constituted and maintained under Section 54, where such cadre has been constituted. (iii) Where no cadre has been constituted under Section 54, the CEO of a Cooperative Bank which is a Central Society under Section 49-E(2) shall be appointed with the prior approval of the Registrar as stipulated in Section 49-E(2)(b)(ii).

Mar 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANAGING DIRECTOR CHHATTISGARH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK MARYADIT — Appellant Vs. ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya…

You missed

Stamp Act State Laws

“Supreme Court Clarifies State’s Power to Levy Stamp Duty on Insurance Policies” Stamp Act, 1899 – Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 – Power to levy and collect stamp duty – The primary issues are the legislative competence of the State to levy stamp duty on insurance policies and the applicability of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 or the 1998 Act – LIC contends that the state lacks legislative competence to impose stamp duty on insurance policies and challenges the demand for stamp duty payment for policies issued using stamps purchased from Maharashtra – The State of Rajasthan argues that it has the power to collect stamp duty on insurance policies under Entry 44 of List III, as per the rate prescribed by the Parliament under Entry 91 of List I – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the High Court’s judgment, and affirmed the state’s power to levy stamp duty. However, it directed that the state shall not demand and collect the stamp duty as per the orders dated between 1993-94 and 2001-02 – The Court reasoned that the state has the legislative competence to impose and collect stamp duty on insurance policies, and the 1952 Act applies to the case – The Court analyzed the constitutional provisions and previous judgments to conclude that the state can impose stamp duty using rates prescribed by the Parliament – The Supreme Court concluded that while the state’s power to levy stamp duty is upheld, the specific demands for stamp duty payment in this case were set aside due to the circumstances presented.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
I P C

“Supreme Court Overturns Lower Courts, Orders Trial for Alleged Marriage Fraud and Conspiracy (IPC Sections 420 & 120-B)” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420 read with Section 120-B – The appellant challenged lower courts’ orders regarding the summoning of respondents for alleged dishonest inducement in a marriage – The appellant claimed he was deceived into marrying a married respondent and that all respondents conspired to induce him into marriage and leave him with a significant sum of money – The respondents argued that there was no concealment or cheating, as all facts were disclosed to the appellant from the beginning – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and Sessions Court, and restored the Magistrate’s order for the respondents to face trial – The court found that a prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the respondents, and the lower courts’ approach was not legally sustainable – The court concluded that the respondents should face trial for the alleged offences, and the case will be decided on its merits based on the evidence presented by the parties.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Specific Relief Act

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 6 – Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property – The appellants, owner of the property, allegedly evicted the respondent illegally and by force – The main issue was the maintainability of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the illegal dispossession – The appellants contended voluntary handover of possession and challenged the maintainability of the suit – The respondent filed a suit within six months of dispossession under Section 6 of the Act – The Trial Court decreed in favor of the respondent, and the High Court dismissed the appellant’s revision – The High Court concurred with the Trial Court on the illegal dispossession and maintainability of the suit – The appeal was dismissed based on concurrent findings and evidence on record – The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
I P C

“Conspiracy Theory Revived: Supreme Court Orders Trial in Forged Documents Case Involving Government Land” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 120(B) and 34 – The case involves allegations of a conspiracy to illegally transfer government land using forged documents – The respondents, along with others, are accused of manipulating judicial processes and revenue records to acquire government lands – The primary issue is whether the High Court was correct in quashing the order taking cognizance against the respondents, given the evidence of a conspiracy and manipulation of documents – The State argues that the High Court overlooked circumstantial evidence of a broader conspiracy and failed to appreciate the severity of the offences, which could undermine public trust in land administration – The respondents challenged the order of cognizance, arguing insufficient evidence directly implicating them in the conspiracy – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and directed the trial to proceed against the respondents – The Court found that the High Court’s decision was based on an incomplete assessment of facts and that a detailed trial is necessary to fully unravel the extent of the alleged conspiracy – The Court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of evidence and witnesses by the Trial Court to determine the actual harm caused to the public exchequer – The Supreme Court concluded that the case should not be dismissed at the preliminary stage and must be examined judiciously in a trial setting to ensure the integrity of ongoing investigations and judicial processes.

May 5, 2024 sclaw