Supreme Court of India Judgements

46448 Judgements hosted as on 05/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions. Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP. Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts. West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order. Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 – Sections 70(2) and 95(1) – Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak(Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005 – Rule 7A – Appointment – Denial of – Appellant was denied appointment as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III despite passing the selection exam and the High Court’s ruling in her favor – The main issue was the State Government’s refusal to appoint the appellant based on amended rules, which were applied retrospectively – The appellant argued that the denial of appointment was illegal and arbitrary, and that she fulfilled all qualifications for the post – The State contended that the appellant was not eligible for appointment due to the retrospective application of Rule 7-A – The Supreme Court directed the appellant’s appointment to an equivalent post, without back wages but with compensation for the arbitrary denial of her rightful claim – The Court found the State’s actions to be mala fide and arbitrary, as they denied the appellant’s legitimate claim despite multiple court orders – Referencing the case of Manoj Kumar v. Union of India, the Court emphasized the duty to provide restitution for arbitrary actions – The Court allowed the appeals, ordered the appellant’s appointment, and granted compensation, highlighting the need for restitutive relief.
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.
I P C
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.
Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.
Limitation
Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.
Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Property Matters
Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.
Constitution Municipal Laws
West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.
Land Acquisition

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 97, Order 21 Rule 99, Order 7 Rule 11, Order 21 Rule 25 and Order 21 Rule 35(3) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 – Delivery of possession by police help to the decree holder cannot be granted and stands vitiated in absence of any orders by the Court for providing such police assistance. In peculiar circumstances delivery of land not interfered with

Oct 21, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OM PARKASH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. AMAR SINGH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil…

Cr P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B 418, 420, 448 and 380 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 156(3) and 482 – Forgery and fabricationWhere the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose any offence and make out a case against the accused, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings.

Oct 21, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. SRIKANTH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Direct Taxation

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 – Sections 50, 51, 59, 55, 85 and 86 – Declaration of undisclosed foreign asset -The penal provisions under Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act would come into play only when an assessee has failed to take benefit of Section 59 and neither disclosed assets covered by the Black Money Act nor paid the tax and penalty thereon. As such, we find that the High Court was not right in holding that, by the notification/order impugned before it, the penal provisions were made retrospectively applicable.

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GAUTAM KHAITAN — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M. R. Shah and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law – Promotion – Tribunal was right in holding that no prejudice is caused to the Appellant by applying Navy Order. Violation of every provision does not furnish a ground for the Court to interfere unless the affected person demonstrates prejudice caused to him by such violation – Appeals dismissed.

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURGEON REAR ADMIRAL MANISHA JAIPRAKASH — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta,…

Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 11A and 33(2)(b) – Misconduct – Order of dismissal – Domestic enquiry -The Labour Court or Tribunal, therefore, while holding enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) cannot invoke the adjudicatory powers vested in them under Section 10(i)(c) and (d) of the Act nor can they in the process of formation of their prima facie view under Section 33(2)(b), dwell upon the proportionality of punishment, as erroneously done in the instant case, for such a power can be exercised by the Labour Court or Tribunal only under Section 11A of the Act – Appeal allowed.

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JOHN D’SOUZA — Appellant Vs. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Surya Kant, JJ. ) Civil…

State Laws

Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale and transfer of Plots) (First Amendment) Rules, 2008 – Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale and Transfer of Plots) Rules, 1999 – Rule 3(iii) and (iv) – Where the old dealers are to be allotted shops if they can satisfy the concerned authority, be it the market committee or the board that a particular condition could not be met for a short period due to reasons beyond the control of the dealer, then even though he may not be in strict compliance of the rules, the power of relaxation must be read into the Rules.

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WALAITI RAM CHARAN DASS AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose,…

Cr P C

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Sections 3, 5 and 20-A, 20­A(1) – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25(1B)(a) and 27 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 154 and 154(1) – Recovery of arms – The bar under Section 20­A(1) of TADA Act applies to information recorded under Section 154 of CrPC. This bar will not apply to a rukka or a communication sent by the police official to the District Superintendent of Police seeking his sanction. Otherwise, there could be no communication seeking sanction, which could not have been the purpose of TADA Act.

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EBHA ARJUN JADEJA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 118(a) and 138 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Dishonour of cheque – Appeal against acquittal – it is presumed that the cheques in question were drawn for consideration and the holder of the cheques i.e., the appellant received the same in discharge of an existing debt. The onus, thereafter, shifts on the accused-appellant to establish a probable defence so as to rebut such a presumption, which onus has not been discharged by the respondent.

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UTTAM RAM — Appellant Vs. DEVINDER SINGH HUDAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 161, 164, 319 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 376(2) – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 5 and 6 – Sexual harassment – Order of summoning – The statement of the child so as to involve a person wearing spectacles as an accused does not inspire confidence disclosing more than prima facie to make him to stand trial of the offences. Therefore, This Court hold that the order of summoning the appellant under Section 319 of the Code is not legal

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANI PUSHPAKJOSHI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Criminal…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Constitution Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

May 5, 2024 sclaw