Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 — Section 7(1) — Land Dispute — The case involves a land dispute where appellant were directed to vacate or compensate for land in Bangalore, originally requisitioned in 1941 and partially acquired in 1973 — The main issues were the rightful ownership and compensation for the land, and whether the petitioners’ delay in filing the writ petition affected their claim — The petitioners argued they were entitled to rental compensation from 1973 and the return of the unacquired land, claiming the land was not being used by the Defence department — Respondent contended that the petitioners had suppressed key facts, including the sale of part of the land, and that the petition was filed after an unreasonable delay —The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, dismissing the writ petition due to the petitioners’ suppression of facts and the delay in filing the petition — The Court emphasized the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and noted the petitioners’ deliberate suppression of relevant facts — The Court cited principles of equity and the necessity for petitioners to disclose all relevant facts, highlighting that the petitioners’ conduct amounted to an abuse of process — The writ petition was dismissed, and the Court refrained from imposing punitive costs on the petitioners despite their conduct
2024 INSC 728 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HMT LTD. — Appellant Vs. SMT. RUKMINI AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 307 — Attempt to Murder — The complainant was abused and beaten by the accused, leading to an FIR under various IPC sections —Whether the injuries sustained by the complainant justify framing charges under Section 307 IPC — Petitioner argues that the injuries and the act of throttling indicate an intention to kill, warranting charges under Section 307 IPC — Respondent states that the injuries were minor, and the medical report did not conclusively support the charge of attempt to murder —The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, directing the trial court to frame charges under Section 307 IPC —The intent to kill can be inferred from the circumstances and the doctor’s report suggesting the possibility of throttling —The extent of injuries is irrelevant if the intent to cause death is present, as per established legal precedents —The trial court must proceed with charges under Section 307 IPC, and the trial should be expedited.
2024 INSC 731 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHOYEB RAJA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol,…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 323, 302, 364, 449, 450, 380/34 and 120-B —Abduction and Murder — Seven accused were charged, with five initially convicted and two acquitted — The High Court later convicted all seven —Whether the High Court’s reversal of acquittal and conviction of all accused was justified based on the evidence — Petitioners argue that no motive for A-6 and A-7, unreliable witness testimonies, discrepancies in the time of death, and lack of proof of deceased’s residence — Prosecution contends that consistent witness testimonies, sufficient evidence of motive, and proper appreciation of evidence by the High Court — The Supreme Court acquitted all seven accused, finding the High Court’s reversal of acquittal unjustified and the evidence insufficient —Doubts about witness credibility, lack of direct evidence, and improper exclusion of some testimonies by the High Court —The High Court failed to meet the higher threshold required to reverse an acquittal, and the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt —The convictions were set aside, and all accused were acquitted.
2024 INSC 735 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIJAY SINGH @ VIJAY KR. SHARMA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 148, 302, and 307 — The appellants, armed with weapons, attacked the victims, resulting in serious injuries — The prosecution’s case is supported by eyewitness testimonies and medico-legal evidence —Whether the appellants acted with common intention to kill and if the absence of independent witnesses affects the prosecution’s case — The appellants claimed self-defense and alleged false implication due to a prior FIR filed by A-4’s daughter — The prosecution argued that the appellants had a common intention to kill, supported by consistent eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence —The High Court’s decision finding the appellants guilty under sections 148, 302, and 307, IPC read with section 34 is upheld —The court emphasized the reliability of injured eyewitnesses and the formation of common intention even moments before the act — The appeal is dismissed, affirming the High Court’s judgment.
2024 INSC 738 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALJINDER SINGH @ LADOO AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 — Cruelty — The complainant filed an FIR against her in-laws under various sections of the IPC, alleging cruelty and dowry demands — The appellants sought to quash the FIR and chargesheet — Whether the FIR and chargesheet should be quashed due to lack of specific allegations and the existence of a civil dispute — Appellants argue that the FIR is vague, lacks material particulars, and is an abuse of the criminal process — The allegations are general and relate to a civil property dispute — Respondent contends that rhe High Court found a prima facie case of cruelty and specific allegations against each appellant — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and chargesheet, finding the allegations vague and the proceedings an abuse of the criminal process —The Court noted the lack of specific details in the allegations and the existence of a contentious civil dispute between the complainant’s husband and his family — The Court emphasized the need for careful examination of allegations in cases where the FIR appears to be motivated by ulterior motives —The appeal was allowed, and the FIR and chargesheet were quashed.
2024 INSC 737 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAILASHBEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 3 — Appellant was a Transport Minister in Tamil Nadu and is accused of collecting money for job opportunities in the Transport Department — Multiple FIRs were filed against him, leading to his arrest and judicial custody —The main issue is whether the appellant should be granted bail in connection with the alleged offence under the PMLA —The appellant’s counsel argued that the evidence against him is not substantial, and he has already been in custody for over 14 months — They also cited a similar case (Manish Sisodia) to support their bail plea —The Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that there is strong evidence against the appellant, including incriminating documents and large cash deposits — They expressed concerns about the appellant influencing witnesses if released on bail —The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant, considering the prolonged incarceration and the unlikely completion of the trial in the near future — The court imposed stringent conditions for bail — The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted bail with specific conditions to ensure he does not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
2024 INSC 739 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V. SENTHIL BALAJI — Appellant Vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S Oka and…
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 —
2024 INSC 629 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OMKAR REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. KUSHALRAJ LAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…
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.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH EZHILARASAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R.…
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.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DILHARAN LAL DEWANGAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.…
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.
2024 INSC 631 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. HIREHALLI SOLAR POWER PROJECT LLP AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam…