Supreme Court of India Judgements

46820 Judgements hosted as on 28/07/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

we are of the view that the order of status quo passed by the trial court was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. We are not entering into the merits of the matter as it may influence the trial court. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 30.06.2022 maintaining the order of the trial court in order to advance justice between the parties. Abkari Act, 1077 – Section 8 – Carrying 5 litres of illicit arrack – Conviction based solely on testimony of official witnesses – Delay in investigation – Testimonies of official witnesses can not be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined – Mere urging that delay casts a suspicion on the investigation, without any evidence being led in furtherance thereof, cannot be sustained Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 105, 106, 107 and 108 – Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 17 and 49 – Unregistered deed of lease for immovable property – In the absence of a registered instrument, the courts are not precluded from determining the factum of tenancy from other evidence on record as well as the purpose of tenancy In the present case, factum of creation of tenancy has been established – But the purpose of tenancy, so as to attract the six months’ notice period under Section 106 of the 1882 Act cannot be established by such evidence as in such a situation, registration of the deed would have been mandatory Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Writ jurisdiction — Violation of Fundamental Rights — A writ petition under Article 32 requires a prima facie case of violation or imminent threat of violation of a Fundamental Right, with specific pleadings and prayers for relief. Vague allegations of arbitrariness or violation of natural justice without specific impact on Fundamental Rights are insufficient to maintain the petition. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 — Applicability — Plea of juvenility raised for the first time before the Supreme Court — Permissible at any stage, even after disposal of the case, as held in various judgments of the Supreme Court.-— Determination of Age — Inquiry report confirmed the appellant was a juvenile (16 years, 2 months, 3 days) at the time of the commission of the offence.
we are of the view that the order of status quo passed by the trial court was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. We are not entering into the merits of the matter as it may influence the trial court. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 30.06.2022 maintaining the order of the trial court in order to advance justice between the parties.
C P C
we are of the view that the order of status quo passed by the trial court was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. We are not entering into the merits of the matter as it may influence the trial court. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 30.06.2022 maintaining the order of the trial court in order to advance justice between the parties.
Abkari Act, 1077 – Section 8 – Carrying 5 litres of illicit arrack – Conviction based solely on testimony of official witnesses – Delay in investigation – Testimonies of official witnesses can not be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined – Mere urging that delay casts a suspicion on the investigation, without any evidence being led in furtherance thereof, cannot be sustained
I P C
Abkari Act, 1077 – Section 8 – Carrying 5 litres of illicit arrack – Conviction based solely on testimony of official witnesses – Delay in investigation – Testimonies of official witnesses can not be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined – Mere urging that delay casts a suspicion on the investigation, without any evidence being led in furtherance thereof, cannot be sustained
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 105, 106, 107 and 108 – Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 17 and 49 – Unregistered deed of lease for immovable property – In the absence of a registered instrument, the courts are not precluded from determining the factum of tenancy from other evidence on record as well as the purpose of tenancy In the present case, factum of creation of tenancy has been established – But the purpose of tenancy, so as to attract the six months’ notice period under Section 106 of the 1882 Act cannot be established by such evidence as in such a situation, registration of the deed would have been mandatory
Property Matters Transfer Of Property Act
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 105, 106, 107 and 108 – Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 17 and 49 – Unregistered deed of lease for immovable property – In the absence of a registered instrument, the courts are not precluded from determining the factum of tenancy from other evidence on record as well as the purpose of tenancy In the present case, factum of creation of tenancy has been established – But the purpose of tenancy, so as to attract the six months’ notice period under Section 106 of the 1882 Act cannot be established by such evidence as in such a situation, registration of the deed would have been mandatory
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Writ jurisdiction — Violation of Fundamental Rights — A writ petition under Article 32 requires a prima facie case of violation or imminent threat of violation of a Fundamental Right, with specific pleadings and prayers for relief. Vague allegations of arbitrariness or violation of natural justice without specific impact on Fundamental Rights are insufficient to maintain the petition.
Constitution
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Writ jurisdiction — Violation of Fundamental Rights — A writ petition under Article 32 requires a prima facie case of violation or imminent threat of violation of a Fundamental Right, with specific pleadings and prayers for relief. Vague allegations of arbitrariness or violation of natural justice without specific impact on Fundamental Rights are insufficient to maintain the petition.
Specific Relief Act

Refund of earnest/advance money requires specific pleading under S. 22(2) Specific Relief Act, even if specific performance is refused; forfeiture of earnest money is generally permissible upon purchaser’s default. Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills v. Tata Air Craft Ltd., (1969) 3 SCC 522 — Principles reiterated.; Videocon Properties Ltd. v. Bhalchandra Laboratories, (2004) 3 SCC 711 — Followed. ; Satish Batra v. Sudhir Rawal, (2013) 1 SCC 345 — Followed and applied. ; Central Bank of India v. Shanmugavelu, (2024) 6 SCC 641 — Followed.; Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Dass, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 49 — Distinguished regarding earnest money; Applied regarding penalty.; Maula Bux v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 554 — Distinguished regarding earnest money; Applied regarding penalty.; Kailash Nath Associates v. DDA, (2015) 4 SCC 136 — Considered and distinguished on facts.; Godrej Projects Development Ltd. v. Anil Karlekar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 222 — Cited.

May 4, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 617 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.R. SURESH Vs. R. POORNIMA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 5822…

You missed

C P C

we are of the view that the order of status quo passed by the trial court was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. We are not entering into the merits of the matter as it may influence the trial court. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 30.06.2022 maintaining the order of the trial court in order to advance justice between the parties.

Jul 28, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Abkari Act, 1077 – Section 8 – Carrying 5 litres of illicit arrack – Conviction based solely on testimony of official witnesses – Delay in investigation – Testimonies of official witnesses can not be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined – Mere urging that delay casts a suspicion on the investigation, without any evidence being led in furtherance thereof, cannot be sustained

Jul 28, 2025 sclaw
Property Matters Transfer Of Property Act

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 105, 106, 107 and 108 – Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 17 and 49 – Unregistered deed of lease for immovable property – In the absence of a registered instrument, the courts are not precluded from determining the factum of tenancy from other evidence on record as well as the purpose of tenancy In the present case, factum of creation of tenancy has been established – But the purpose of tenancy, so as to attract the six months’ notice period under Section 106 of the 1882 Act cannot be established by such evidence as in such a situation, registration of the deed would have been mandatory

Jul 28, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Writ jurisdiction — Violation of Fundamental Rights — A writ petition under Article 32 requires a prima facie case of violation or imminent threat of violation of a Fundamental Right, with specific pleadings and prayers for relief. Vague allegations of arbitrariness or violation of natural justice without specific impact on Fundamental Rights are insufficient to maintain the petition.

Jul 28, 2025 sclaw