Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Top Tags

Latest Post

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 394 read with Section 397 – Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery – The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 394 and 397 of the IPC, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine, based on the recovery of stolen items and identification by the complainant – The appeal challenges the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s appeal against the trial court’s conviction and sentence – The appellant contested the identification of the stolen items and the legality of the disclosure statement used to convict him – The State supported the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the recovery of stolen items and the identification process – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered release, citing insufficient evidence to affirm guilt – The Court’s reasoning focused on the improper proof of the disclosure memo and the questionable identification of the stolen items by the complainant – The conclusion was that the prosecution failed to connect the appellant with the crime conclusively. 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– The appellant argues for the application of the substituted rule, which imposes a lower penalty, as the old rule was repealed – The State contends that the old rule should apply to transactions from 2009-10, despite the substitution – The Supreme Court accepted the appellant’s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. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 236 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 190, 193 and 200 – The appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India against the Ex-Directors of M/s. SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. for offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The primary issue is whether the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013 has jurisdiction to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings and that offences under the Code should be tried by the Special Court – The respondents contended that the High Court’s judgment was correct and that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code – The Court reasoned that the reference to the Special Court in Section 236(1) of the Code is a ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not a ‘legislation by reference’, meaning subsequent amendments to the Companies Act do not affect the Code – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine that the case is one of ‘legislation by incorporation’ – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. The judicial opinion emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the distinction between ‘legislation by incorporation’ and ‘legislation by reference’ in determining jurisdiction. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(2) and 302 read with Section 149 – The appellants were convicted for the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court, reversing their earlier acquittal by the trial court – The main issue was the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and the admissibility of evidence, such as the FIR and recovery of weapons – The appellants argued that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal, contending that the eyewitnesses were unreliable and the FIR was a post-investigation document – The State contended that the eyewitness testimonies were credible and the FIR was lodged promptly without undue delay – The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, acquitted the appellants, and discharged their bail bonds – The Court found inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts and issues with the FIR and recovery of weapons – The Court applied principles regarding the appellate court’s power in appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the need for the High Court to find perversity or illegality in the trial court’s judgment to reverse an acquittal – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s judgment was flawed and restored the trial court’s acquittal of the appellants. EVM and VVPAT – Reliability – The petitioners challenged the reliability of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) systems, suspecting potential manipulation and demanding transparency in the voting process – The core issues revolved around the integrity of EVMs, the adequacy of VVPAT verification, and the fundamental right of voters to know their votes are correctly recorded and counted – Petitioner argued for a return to paper ballots, provision of VVPAT slips to voters, or 100% counting of VVPAT slips alongside electronic counts, citing concerns over EVM transparency and voter confidence – The Election Commission of India (ECI) defended the EVMs’ success in ensuring free, fair, and transparent elections, highlighting technological safeguards against tampering and the benefits over paper ballots – The Court upheld the current EVM and VVPAT system, dismissing the petitions and suggesting improvements for transparency without disrupting the ongoing electoral process – The Court relied on past precedents, the ECI’s robust procedures, and the absence of cogent material evidence against EVMs to reject the petitions – The judgment referenced constitutional provisions, electoral laws, and previous rulings to support the ECI’s position and the current electoral practices – The Supreme Court concluded that the EVMs and VVPAT systems are reliable, and the petitions were dismissed based on the lack of substantial evidence against the current electoral process.
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 394 read with Section 397 – Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery – The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 394 and 397 of the IPC, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine, based on the recovery of stolen items and identification by the complainant – The appeal challenges the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s appeal against the trial court’s conviction and sentence – The appellant contested the identification of the stolen items and the legality of the disclosure statement used to convict him – The State supported the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the recovery of stolen items and the identification process – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered release, citing insufficient evidence to affirm guilt – The Court’s reasoning focused on the improper proof of the disclosure memo and the questionable identification of the stolen items by the complainant – The conclusion was that the prosecution failed to connect the appellant with the crime conclusively.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
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
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 394 read with Section 397 – Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery – The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 394 and 397 of the IPC, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine, based on the recovery of stolen items and identification by the complainant – The appeal challenges the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s appeal against the trial court’s conviction and sentence – The appellant contested the identification of the stolen items and the legality of the disclosure statement used to convict him – The State supported the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the recovery of stolen items and the identification process – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered release, citing insufficient evidence to affirm guilt – The Court’s reasoning focused on the improper proof of the disclosure memo and the questionable identification of the stolen items by the complainant – The conclusion was that the prosecution failed to connect the appellant with the crime conclusively.
Acquittal
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 394 read with Section 397 – Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery – The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 394 and 397 of the IPC, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine, based on the recovery of stolen items and identification by the complainant – The appeal challenges the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s appeal against the trial court’s conviction and sentence – The appellant contested the identification of the stolen items and the legality of the disclosure statement used to convict him – The State supported the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the recovery of stolen items and the identification process – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered release, citing insufficient evidence to affirm guilt – The Court’s reasoning focused on the improper proof of the disclosure memo and the questionable identification of the stolen items by the complainant – The conclusion was that the prosecution failed to connect the appellant with the crime conclusively.
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.
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.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 236 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 190, 193 and 200 – The appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India against the Ex-Directors of M/s. SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. for offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The primary issue is whether the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013 has jurisdiction to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings and that offences under the Code should be tried by the Special Court – The respondents contended that the High Court’s judgment was correct and that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code – The Court reasoned that the reference to the Special Court in Section 236(1) of the Code is a ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not a ‘legislation by reference’, meaning subsequent amendments to the Companies Act do not affect the Code – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine that the case is one of ‘legislation by incorporation’ – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. The judicial opinion emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the distinction between ‘legislation by incorporation’ and ‘legislation by reference’ in determining jurisdiction.
I B C
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 236 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 190, 193 and 200 – The appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India against the Ex-Directors of M/s. SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. for offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The primary issue is whether the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013 has jurisdiction to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings and that offences under the Code should be tried by the Special Court – The respondents contended that the High Court’s judgment was correct and that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code – The Court reasoned that the reference to the Special Court in Section 236(1) of the Code is a ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not a ‘legislation by reference’, meaning subsequent amendments to the Companies Act do not affect the Code – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine that the case is one of ‘legislation by incorporation’ – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. The judicial opinion emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the distinction between ‘legislation by incorporation’ and ‘legislation by reference’ in determining jurisdiction.
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(2) and 302 read with Section 149 – The appellants were convicted for the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court, reversing their earlier acquittal by the trial court – The main issue was the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and the admissibility of evidence, such as the FIR and recovery of weapons – The appellants argued that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal, contending that the eyewitnesses were unreliable and the FIR was a post-investigation document – The State contended that the eyewitness testimonies were credible and the FIR was lodged promptly without undue delay – The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, acquitted the appellants, and discharged their bail bonds – The Court found inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts and issues with the FIR and recovery of weapons – The Court applied principles regarding the appellate court’s power in appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the need for the High Court to find perversity or illegality in the trial court’s judgment to reverse an acquittal – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s judgment was flawed and restored the trial court’s acquittal of the appellants.
Acquittal
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(2) and 302 read with Section 149 – The appellants were convicted for the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court, reversing their earlier acquittal by the trial court – The main issue was the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and the admissibility of evidence, such as the FIR and recovery of weapons – The appellants argued that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal, contending that the eyewitnesses were unreliable and the FIR was a post-investigation document – The State contended that the eyewitness testimonies were credible and the FIR was lodged promptly without undue delay – The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, acquitted the appellants, and discharged their bail bonds – The Court found inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts and issues with the FIR and recovery of weapons – The Court applied principles regarding the appellate court’s power in appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the need for the High Court to find perversity or illegality in the trial court’s judgment to reverse an acquittal – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s judgment was flawed and restored the trial court’s acquittal of the appellants.
I P C

(IPC) – Sections 299, 302 and 304 – Murder – Appeal against conviction and sentence -it is held that the accused conviction under Section 302 IPC was not appropriate – Section 304 IPC  Code provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (under Section 299 IPC). In the facts of the present case, this court is of the opinion that the accused should be convicted for the offence punishable under the first part of Section 304 IPC, as he had the intention of causing such bodily harm, to the deceased, as was likely to result in his death, as it did.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD. RAFIQ @ KALLU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.…

C P C

C P C – Order XI Rule 1 (4) and Order XI Rule 1 (5) applicable to the commercial suit shall be applicable only with respect to the documents which were in plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint. Therefore, the rigour of establishing the reasonable cause in non disclosure along with plaint may not arise in the case where the additional documents sought to be produced/relied upon are discovered subsequent to the filing of the plaint.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN — Appellant Vs. VINAY KUMAR G.B. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil…

Environment

N G T – It is the authorities who recommended approval in respect of only 24 hectares – Insofar as the mandatory distance from the water body is concerned, the authorities upon survey had found that the mandatory distance of 0.25 km is maintained – Tribunal has grossly erred in arriving at a finding that the appellant had reduced the area to 24 hectares only in order to avoid the rigours of public hearing and further that there was no distance of 0.25 km between the proposed mining area and the Singotham Lake – Appeal allowed.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DHRUVA ENTERPRISES — Appellant Vs. C. SRINIVASULU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 12A – Withdrawal of application admitted under section 7, 9 or 10 – Adjudicating Authority is entitled to withdraw the application admitted under Section 7 or Section 9 or Section 10, on an application made by the applicant with the approval of 90% voting share of the CoC.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH K.N. RAJAKUMAR — Appellant Vs. V. NAGARAJAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – HELD if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAGENDRA SAH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Acquittal

Abetment of Suicide – Harassment -Mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC – High Court as well as the learned trial Court have committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC – Appeal allowed.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VELLADURAI — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal…

Municipal Laws

Demolition of building – Damages – Finding of the High Court that the building was demolished without giving clear three days’ notice is partly correct – Once the order was passed by the Corporation on 5.1.1995 and was put on the means of communication, the date of actual receipt of notice is insignificant as the receipt could be delayed by the recipient, though there is no such attempt or finding. Rupees 5 Lakhs as compensation granted.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABDUL KHUDDUS — Appellant Vs. H.M. CHANDIRAMANI (DEAD) THR LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…

Arbitration

A and C Act, 1996 – Ss 9(1) and 9(3) – Arbitration agreement – Of course it hardly need be mentioned that even if an application under Section 9 had been entertained before the constitution of the Tribunal, the Court always has the discretion to direct the parties to approach the Arbitral Tribunal, if necessary by passing a limited order of interim protection, particularly when there has been a long time gap between hearings and the application has for all practical purposes, to be heard afresh, or the hearing has just commenced and is likely to consume a lot of time – High Court has rightly directed the Commercial Court to proceed to complete the adjudication.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARCELOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ESSAR BULK TERMINAL LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.…

I B C

As per Section 61(2) of the IB Code, the appeal was required to be preferred within a period of thirty days – Therefore, the limitation period prescribed to prefer an appeal was 30 days. However, as per the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Code, the Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal, but such period shall not exceed 15 days. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction at all to condone the delay exceeding 15 days from the period of 30 days, as contemplated under Section 61(2) of the IB Code.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL SPOT EXCHANGE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MR. ANIL KOHLI, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL FOR DUNAR FOODS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

Matrimonial

Divorce – Husband and wife have been living separately for more than 16 years – Marriage between the parties is emotionally dead and there is no point in persuading them to live together any more – Therefore, this is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India – Marriage between the parties is dissolved.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUBHRANSU SARKAR — Appellant Vs. INDRANI SARKAR (NEE DAS) — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 394 read with Section 397 – Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery – The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 394 and 397 of the IPC, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine, based on the recovery of stolen items and identification by the complainant – The appeal challenges the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s appeal against the trial court’s conviction and sentence – The appellant contested the identification of the stolen items and the legality of the disclosure statement used to convict him – The State supported the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the recovery of stolen items and the identification process – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered release, citing insufficient evidence to affirm guilt – The Court’s reasoning focused on the improper proof of the disclosure memo and the questionable identification of the stolen items by the complainant – The conclusion was that the prosecution failed to connect the appellant with the crime conclusively.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
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
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 236 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 190, 193 and 200 – The appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India against the Ex-Directors of M/s. SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. for offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The primary issue is whether the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013 has jurisdiction to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings and that offences under the Code should be tried by the Special Court – The respondents contended that the High Court’s judgment was correct and that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code – The Court reasoned that the reference to the Special Court in Section 236(1) of the Code is a ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not a ‘legislation by reference’, meaning subsequent amendments to the Companies Act do not affect the Code – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine that the case is one of ‘legislation by incorporation’ – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. The judicial opinion emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the distinction between ‘legislation by incorporation’ and ‘legislation by reference’ in determining jurisdiction.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(2) and 302 read with Section 149 – The appellants were convicted for the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court, reversing their earlier acquittal by the trial court – The main issue was the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and the admissibility of evidence, such as the FIR and recovery of weapons – The appellants argued that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal, contending that the eyewitnesses were unreliable and the FIR was a post-investigation document – The State contended that the eyewitness testimonies were credible and the FIR was lodged promptly without undue delay – The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, acquitted the appellants, and discharged their bail bonds – The Court found inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts and issues with the FIR and recovery of weapons – The Court applied principles regarding the appellate court’s power in appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the need for the High Court to find perversity or illegality in the trial court’s judgment to reverse an acquittal – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s judgment was flawed and restored the trial court’s acquittal of the appellants.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw