Supreme Court of India Judgements

467730 Judgements hosted as on 20/04/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: State Laws

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

2024 INSC 358 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri…

State Laws

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – The case involves the acceptance of Change Reports for the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and Trustees of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, a Public Trust – The High Court invalidated the acceptance and remanded the matters for reconsideration – The main issue was the delay in filing the Change Report for the new Vahiwatdar of the Trust, which was submitted 17 years after the previous Vahiwatdar’s death – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, confirming the acceptance of Change Report Nos. 899 of 2015 and 1177 of 2017, allowing the civil appeals – The Court found that the delay in filing the Change Report was a curable defect and did not impact the legitimacy of the new Vahiwatdar’s assumption of office – The Court emphasized a liberal approach to condonation of delay, citing precedents.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 339 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRI MALLIKARJUN DEVASTHAN, SHELGI — Appellant Vs. SUBHASH MALLIKARJUN BIRAJDAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Sanjay…

State Laws

M.P. Excise Act, 1915 – The case involves the applicability of a rule for imposing penalties related to the liquor license period of 2009-10 and whether the old or substituted rule should apply – The main issue is whether the penalty should be based on the rule in place during the violation (2009-10) or the substituted rule from 2011, which reduced the penalty – The appellant argues for the application of the substituted rule, which imposes a lower penalty, as the old rule was repealed – The State contends that the old rule should apply to transactions from 2009-10, despite the substitution – The Supreme Court accepted the appellant’s contention, applying the substituted rule to pending proceedings – The Court reasoned that the purpose of the amendment was to balance the offence and penalty, and not applying the substituted rule would not serve public interest – The Court distinguished between the effects of repeal and substitution of rules, emphasizing that the substituted rule should apply from the date of substitution – The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court’s judgment, and the penalty was determined based on the substituted rule from 2011.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 327 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PERNOD RICARD INDIA (P) LTD. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam…

State Laws

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 Sections 65(a)(e),81,98(2) and 116(2) and Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 465, 468, 471 and 114 – Court reasoned that the appellant should have approached the criminal court under Section 451 Cr.P.C instead of directly filing a Special Criminal Application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution – The Court applied the doctrine of harmonious construction to interpret Section 98 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act in conjunction with the Cr.P.C – The appeal was dismissed, with the Court stating that the appellant is free to approach the concerned court regarding the custody of the vehicle.

Apr 13, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 285 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KHENGARBHAI LAKHABHAI DAMBHALA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal,…

Stamp Act State Laws

Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 – Section 9 – Refund of stamp duty paid for an increase in share capital – The Supreme Court examined whether Form No. 5 is an “instrument” under the Stamp Act and if the notice of increased share capital materially alters the Articles of Association, requiring fresh stamp duty – The Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that the Articles of Association are the only instruments liable for stamp duty and that the maximum cap applies as a one-time measure – The appellants were directed to refund the stamp duty with interest.

Apr 7, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale,…

State Laws

Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 Sections 5, 11, 11A and 77- Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Section 32 – Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962 – The Tenancy Act’s provisions were still applicable to the subject lands, and the legal heirs of the original Watandar could not have taken lawful possession of the lands – The revisionary order dated 03.05.1982 was invalid, and the Bombay High Court justified it – The tenancy was lawfully subsisting on 01.04.1957, and tenants were entitled to exercise their right of statutory purchase under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act – This right became operational on 27.11.1964, when the Watan lands were regranted to the original Watandar’s heirs.

Mar 23, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BABAN BALAJI MORE (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BABAJI HARI SHELAR (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

State Laws

Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 – Section 2(v), 3 and 4 – Whether “ghee” is a “product of livestock” under the Act and if the government notification regarding “ghee” followed proper procedure – The court upheld that “ghee” is indeed a “product of livestock” and the 1994 government notification was valid – The court ruled that market fees must be paid for “ghee” from 1994 to 2009, with provisions for installment payments.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANGAM MILK PRODUCER COMPANY LTD. — Appellant Vs. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and S.V.N. Bhatti,…

State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Private agreements cannot be enforced in Slum Rehabilitation Schemes as against the statutory mandate of Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) – Slum society or private Developer cannot dictate terms to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and it must act in terms of its own policies and circulars – Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) has to act in terms of its own policies and circulars without allowing private or contractual interests to prevail over public policy especially a policy which is welfare based.

Dec 17, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAYUNKTA SANGARSH SAMITI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia,…

You missed

I P C

Defamation — Imputation in Good Faith for Protection of Interests — Exception 9 to S. 499 IPC engrafts the principle of qualified privilege, stating it is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another, provided it is made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good

Apr 20, 2025 sclaw
Corporate

ESI – The definition of ‘principal employer’ under Section 2(17) is wide and includes not only the owner or occupier of a factory (or head of department in government establishments) but also the managing agent or any person responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment — Designation is immaterial if the person functions as a managing agent or supervises/controls the establishment

Apr 20, 2025 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail

Habitual Offender/Criminal Antecedents — Consideration of Nature of Current Offence — While the criminal antecedents and alleged status of an accused as a habitual offender are extremely relevant factors that ordinarily weigh against the grant of anticipatory bail, the High Court’s discretion in granting such bail may not warrant interference

Apr 20, 2025 sclaw
Circumstantial Evidence I P C

Murder (Filicide) vs. Suicide — In cases based on circumstantial evidence where the question is whether the death was homicidal (filicide) or suicidal, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that points exclusively to the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence

Apr 20, 2025 sclaw