Supreme Court of India Judgements

46610 Judgements hosted as on 29/08/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

The flat was purchased for the personal use of one of its directors and his family — The appellant created confusion by double allotment of the flat and unfairly forfeited the deposited amount —The NCDRC ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the appellant to refund the deposited amount with interest — The Supreme Court upheld this decision —The respondent was considered a consumer as the flat was for personal use — The appellant’s actions were deemed deficient and unfair due to the double allotment and premature cancellation — Anticipatory bail — Cancellation of — The appellant had his anticipatory bail cancelled without notice due to failure to plant saplings —Whether the cancellation of anticipatory bail without notice was justified The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting additional time to plant 500 trees —The anticipatory bail granted to is revived, and he must deposit the cost of saplings with the Forest authorities. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420 and 34 — Nature of Offence —The Court’s decision to grant bail in a case involving Sections 420 and 34 IPC indicates that while these sections pertain to serious offenses (cheating and criminal conspiracy, respectively), bail may still be granted if the circumstances of the case, such as the nature of the transaction and the relationship between the parties, warrant it. Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) — PPA between Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, and the Hirehalli Solar Power Project LLP — The respondent sought an extension of the scheduled commissioning date (SCD) under the force majeure clause of the PPA due to delays in obtaining necessary approvals and licenses —The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) rejected the force majeure claim, but the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) reversed the decision, finding that the delay was not attributable to the respondent and that the force majeure clause was applicable — The Supreme Court agreed with the APTEL’s findings and dismissed the appeals — The court also rejected the appellant’s contention that the APTEL’s direction to pay late payment surcharge to the respondent was unjustified, as it was rooted in the PPA and in furtherance of the intention of the parties. Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 — Sections 45(1) — Application of Proviso to Section 45(1) — The Supreme Court clarified that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, which grants special treatment to certain categories of accused including women, should be applied without automatically denying bail based on the accused’s social or political status — The Court emphasized that the provision is intended to protect vulnerable individuals, including women, who may be misused in criminal activities Bail granted- The Court clarified the interpretation of its previous judgment in Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 6 SCC 401, which discussed the sensitivity required in dealing with bail applications of women and vulnerable individuals under the PMLA — The Court clarified that Saumya Chaurasia did not limit the application of the proviso to Section 45(1) to only “vulnerable women” but emphasized the need for courts to be sensitive and sympathetic towards all categories of persons mentioned in the provision, including women of all backgrounds.
Consumer

The flat was purchased for the personal use of one of its directors and his family — The appellant created confusion by double allotment of the flat and unfairly forfeited the deposited amount —The NCDRC ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the appellant to refund the deposited amount with interest — The Supreme Court upheld this decision —The respondent was considered a consumer as the flat was for personal use — The appellant’s actions were deemed deficient and unfair due to the double allotment and premature cancellation —

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Anticipatory bail — Cancellation of — The appellant had his anticipatory bail cancelled without notice due to failure to plant saplings —Whether the cancellation of anticipatory bail without notice was justified The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting additional time to plant 500 trees —The anticipatory bail granted to is revived, and he must deposit the cost of saplings with the Forest authorities.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
The flat was purchased for the personal use of one of its directors and his family — The appellant created confusion by double allotment of the flat and unfairly forfeited the deposited amount —The NCDRC ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the appellant to refund the deposited amount with interest — The Supreme Court upheld this decision —The respondent was considered a consumer as the flat was for personal use — The appellant’s actions were deemed deficient and unfair due to the double allotment and premature cancellation —
Consumer
The flat was purchased for the personal use of one of its directors and his family — The appellant created confusion by double allotment of the flat and unfairly forfeited the deposited amount —The NCDRC ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the appellant to refund the deposited amount with interest — The Supreme Court upheld this decision —The respondent was considered a consumer as the flat was for personal use — The appellant’s actions were deemed deficient and unfair due to the double allotment and premature cancellation —
Anticipatory bail — Cancellation of — The appellant had his anticipatory bail cancelled without notice due to failure to plant saplings —Whether the cancellation of anticipatory bail without notice was justified The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting additional time to plant 500 trees —The anticipatory bail granted to is revived, and he must deposit the cost of saplings with the Forest authorities.
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted
Anticipatory bail — Cancellation of — The appellant had his anticipatory bail cancelled without notice due to failure to plant saplings —Whether the cancellation of anticipatory bail without notice was justified The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting additional time to plant 500 trees —The anticipatory bail granted to is revived, and he must deposit the cost of saplings with the Forest authorities.
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420 and 34 — Nature of Offence —The Court’s decision to grant bail in a case involving Sections 420 and 34 IPC indicates that while these sections pertain to serious offenses (cheating and criminal conspiracy, respectively), bail may still be granted if the circumstances of the case, such as the nature of the transaction and the relationship between the parties, warrant it.
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420 and 34 — Nature of Offence —The Court’s decision to grant bail in a case involving Sections 420 and 34 IPC indicates that while these sections pertain to serious offenses (cheating and criminal conspiracy, respectively), bail may still be granted if the circumstances of the case, such as the nature of the transaction and the relationship between the parties, warrant it.
Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) — PPA between Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, and the Hirehalli Solar Power Project LLP — The respondent sought an extension of the scheduled commissioning date (SCD) under the force majeure clause of the PPA due to delays in obtaining necessary approvals and licenses —The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) rejected the force majeure claim, but the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) reversed the decision, finding that the delay was not attributable to the respondent and that the force majeure clause was applicable — The Supreme Court agreed with the APTEL’s findings and dismissed the appeals — The court also rejected the appellant’s contention that the APTEL’s direction to pay late payment surcharge to the respondent was unjustified, as it was rooted in the PPA and in furtherance of the intention of the parties.
Tenders & Contracts
Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) — PPA between Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, and the Hirehalli Solar Power Project LLP — The respondent sought an extension of the scheduled commissioning date (SCD) under the force majeure clause of the PPA due to delays in obtaining necessary approvals and licenses —The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) rejected the force majeure claim, but the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) reversed the decision, finding that the delay was not attributable to the respondent and that the force majeure clause was applicable — The Supreme Court agreed with the APTEL’s findings and dismissed the appeals — The court also rejected the appellant’s contention that the APTEL’s direction to pay late payment surcharge to the respondent was unjustified, as it was rooted in the PPA and in furtherance of the intention of the parties.
National Highways Authority Act Tenders & Contracts

National Highways Act, 1956 — National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 — The Court concluded that it would be impossible to return the collected toll/fee to the road users, and any order modifying the interim order would be detrimental and harmful to the road users as additional amounts would have to be collected to make up for the cost of the highway — Therefore, the Court allowed the present appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court — The Court also directed that the amount lying deposited in the nationalized bank along with interest may now be utilized by NHAI and would be treated as toll/fee collected from the users, and it would be accounted towards the actual cost to be recovered.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 556 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ARVIND KUMAR THAKUR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…

Banking Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 143A — Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court regarding the interpretation of Section 143A of the Act 1881 — The High Court had held that an authorized signatory of a company is not a “drawer” of a cheque within the meaning of Section 143A of the NI Act —The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the NI Act and the legal precedents on the subject, and concluded that the primary liability for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act lies with the company itself, and the company’s management is only subsequently and vicariously liable — Therefore, it is only the company that is to be considered as the “drawer” of the cheque.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 551 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRI GURUDATTA SUGARS MARKETING PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. PRITHVIRAJ SAYAJIRAO DESHMUKH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law — Pension — Pension entitlement — The court clarified that only those UPSRTC employees who were absorbed from the State Government and held permanent posts prior to their absorption in the UPSRTC are entitled to pension — This means that employees who were not holding any pensionable post prior to their deputation or absorption in the corporation are not entitled to pension.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UP ROADWAYS RETIRED OFFICIALS AND OFFICERS ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant…

Consumer

Consumer Law — Housing — Delay in delivery of possession of the Flat — Appellants purchased a flat from a developer but faced significant delays in receiving possession — They filed a complaint seeking a refund and interest — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) partly allowed the complaint, ordering the developer to refund the full amount paid along with interest at 9% per annum — On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the refund order but increased the interest rate to 12% per annum from the date of deposit until the refund. The court also dismissed other claims for compensation.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 557 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIDYA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…

Advocates Act Constitution

Advocates Act, 1961 — 24(1)(f) — Enrolment fees and miscellaneous charges levied by State Bar Councils (SBCs) for the admission of advocates — The petitioner challenges the SBCs’ practice of charging fees in excess of the statutory limit prescribed in Section 24(1)(f) of the Act, 1961 —Whether SBCs can charge enrolment fees beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act? — Whether the SBCs’ practice of charging additional fees violates the Constitution? — The enrolment fees charged by SBCs exceed the statutory limit prescribed in Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act —The additional fees charged by SBCs violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution — The Court held that Section 24(1)(f) prescribes the enrolment fee, and SBCs cannot charge additional fees beyond this limit —The court reasoned that charging excessive fees creates entry barriers for marginalized and economically weaker sections, violating the principle of substantive equality — The court clarified that all fees charged at the time of enrolment must be construed as part of the enrolment fee and cannot exceed the statutory limit.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

024 INSC 558 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GAURAV KUMAR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI. and…

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 239AA(4) —Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Section 3(3)(b)(i) — The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Delhi Lieutenant Governor’s power to nominate persons with special knowledge in municipal administration to the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) — The court held that the power of nomination under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, as amended in 1993, is a statutory duty vested in the Lieutenant Governor and not the executive power of the Government of NCT Delhi — The court also clarified that the Lieutenant Governor is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in exercising this power — The court added two principles to the relations between the Union and NCT Delhi, stating that the power of nomination was incorporated to reflect the constitutional changes in the NCT Delhi’s structure and that the Lieutenant Governor is intended to act as per the mandate of the statute, not guided by the Council of Ministers’ advice.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 578 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya…

Accident

Motor Accident Claims — Accurate Disability assessment — Supreme Court addressed the issue of compensation for a motor accident victim who sustained injuries to both hands requiring surgery and resulting in permanent disability — The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) initially awarded Rs.5,38,872/- as compensation, considering a 25% disability — The insurance company appealed, and the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.4,74,072/-, adjusting the disability percentage to 20% — The Supreme Court upon reviewing the medical records and testimony of doctor, who certified a 50% disability, set aside the High Court’s judgment — It restored the Tribunal’s decision, which had assessed a 25% disability — The Court directed the insurance company to deposit the full compensation amount, as determined by the Tribunal — The appeal was thus allowed, emphasizing the importance of accurate disability assessment in determining fair compensation for accident victims.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 598 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAHUL — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and R. Mahadevan, JJ.…

Bail Granted Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12 — Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 201 and 120B — Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 3 — Manish Sisodia’s bail applications were rejected by the High Court of Delhi — He is involved in cases registered by the CBI and ED related to alleged irregularities in Delhi’s Excise Policy for 2021-22 —Whether the appellant is entitled to bail considering the prolonged incarceration and the right to a speedy trial — Petitioner argues that the trial is delayed, and the appellant has been in custody for a long time — The prosecution has not completed the investigation, and the trial is proceeding at a snail’s pace — ED Contends that the appellant is influential and may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses — The trial delay is due to the appellant’s actions — The Supreme Court granted bail to Manish Sisodia, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and noting the prolonged incarceration — The trial has not commenced despite assurances, and the appellant’s prolonged detention violates the right to liberty — The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and bail should not be withheld as punishment — The court also considered the large volume of documents and witnesses involved — The appellant is granted bail with conditions to ensure his presence at trial and prevent tampering with evidence.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 595 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANISH SISODIA — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Criminal…

Acquittal I P C

Distinction Between Assault and Jostling/Struggling — The court distinguished between an assault, which involves an intentional application of force or a threat to apply force, and jostling or struggling that may occur during an attempt to resist arrest or escape — The mere act of jostling or struggling, without evidence of intent to assault or use criminal force, does not constitute an offence under Section 353 IPC. Necessity of Compliance with Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. for Prosecuting under Section 186 IPC —The court held that for prosecuting an offence under Section 186 IPC (obstructing a public servant in the discharge of public functions), it is mandatory to follow the procedure laid down in Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which requires a complaint or report by the public servant concerned or by some other person authorized by him in writing.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 600 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MAHENDRA KUMAR SONKER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ( Before : B.R. Gavai, K. V. Viswanathan and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…

Constitution Contempt

Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 — Sections 3 and 4 — The Indian Medical Association (IMA) filed a writ petition against Patanjali Ayurved Limited, Acharya Balkrishna, and Baba Ramdev for spreading misinformation about modern medicine — Whether Patanjali violated court orders by continuing to make misleading claims about their products’ medicinal efficacy —IMA argued that Patanjali continued to make false claims about their products despite court orders prohibiting such actions — Patanjali and its representatives claimed that any misleading statements were inadvertent and offered apologies — The court found Patanjali in contempt for violating its orders and issued further restrictions on their advertising practices — The court emphasized the importance of upholding the dignity of the judiciary and preventing misleading advertisements —The court referred to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and relevant case law to justify its decision —Patanjali was found in contempt, and further measures were imposed to ensure compliance with court orders.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 605 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IN RE : PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ACHARYA BALKRISHNA AND BABA RAMDEV IN THE MATTER OF : INDIAN…

You missed

Consumer

The flat was purchased for the personal use of one of its directors and his family — The appellant created confusion by double allotment of the flat and unfairly forfeited the deposited amount —The NCDRC ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the appellant to refund the deposited amount with interest — The Supreme Court upheld this decision —The respondent was considered a consumer as the flat was for personal use — The appellant’s actions were deemed deficient and unfair due to the double allotment and premature cancellation —

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Anticipatory bail — Cancellation of — The appellant had his anticipatory bail cancelled without notice due to failure to plant saplings —Whether the cancellation of anticipatory bail without notice was justified The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting additional time to plant 500 trees —The anticipatory bail granted to is revived, and he must deposit the cost of saplings with the Forest authorities.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420 and 34 — Nature of Offence —The Court’s decision to grant bail in a case involving Sections 420 and 34 IPC indicates that while these sections pertain to serious offenses (cheating and criminal conspiracy, respectively), bail may still be granted if the circumstances of the case, such as the nature of the transaction and the relationship between the parties, warrant it.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) — PPA between Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, and the Hirehalli Solar Power Project LLP — The respondent sought an extension of the scheduled commissioning date (SCD) under the force majeure clause of the PPA due to delays in obtaining necessary approvals and licenses —The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) rejected the force majeure claim, but the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) reversed the decision, finding that the delay was not attributable to the respondent and that the force majeure clause was applicable — The Supreme Court agreed with the APTEL’s findings and dismissed the appeals — The court also rejected the appellant’s contention that the APTEL’s direction to pay late payment surcharge to the respondent was unjustified, as it was rooted in the PPA and in furtherance of the intention of the parties.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw