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.
2024 INSC 373 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH T.R. VIJAYARAMAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar…
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.
2024 INSC 375 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MOHAN LAL — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.…
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.
2024 INSC 372 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHENDRA NATH SORAL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RAVINDRA NATH SORAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and…
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.
2024I NSC3 79 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. RANBEER BOSE AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ANITA DAS AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep…
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.
2024 INSC 378 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMITA SHRIVASTAVA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…
Pre-emption Suit – The case revolves around a dispute over land in Haryana, where a pre-emption suit was filed and decreed, requiring a deposit of Rs. 9,214 minus 1/5th already deposited. The appellants deposited Rs. 7,600 instead of Rs. 7,614 due to a calculation error. The main issue was whether the appellants should suffer for a minor deficit due to a bona fide error and if the court can extend the time for deposit in such cases. The appellants argued that the error was not intentional and even the court ordered the deposit of 7,600. The respondents argued that the appellants failed to comply with the decree’s terms and did not provide sufficient reason for the delay in depositing the correct amount. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, permitting the appellants to deposit the deficit of 14 and directed them to pay Rs. 1,00,000 to the respondents for prolonged litigation. The court concluded that parties should not suffer due to errors in judicial proceedings and granted relief to the appellants.
2024 INSC 374 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANIHYA @ KANHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. — Appellant Vs. SUKHI RAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and…
Transfer of Property Act, 1882- Sections 41 and 52 – Sale deed executed during the pendency of a suit for permanent injunction is invalid under the principle of lis pendens – The court held that the doctrine of lis pendens applies to maintain status quo and prevent multiple proceedings by parties in different forums – The court further clarified that even if Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable in its strict sense, the principles of lis pendens, which are based on justice, equity, and good conscience, would certainly be applicable – The court set aside the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and directed the defendant to accept the balance sale consideration and execute the agreement to sell in favor of the plaintiff within three months from the date of the judgment.
2024 INSC 377 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHANDER BHAN (D) THROUGH LR SHER SINGH — Appellant Vs. MUKHTIAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia…
“Acquittal in Murder Case: Prosecution Fails to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with 149 – Murder – Acquittal – The court found that the prosecution failed to provide reliable evidence linking the appellants to the crime, and the testimony of eyewitnesses was inconsistent and contradictory – The court also noted that the theory of “last seen together” was not sufficient to establish guilt, as the deceased was seen in the company of other individuals after being seen with the accused – The court set aside the convictions of the appellants and ordered their release, unless their custody was required for some other offences.
2024 INSC 376 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALAUDDIN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and…
Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules, 1992 – Rule 6(h) – House Rent Allowance (HRA) – The appellant, a retired Inspector(Telecom) in Jammu and Kashmir Police, was charged with unauthorized House Rent Allowance (HRA) drawals and asked to repay Rs.3,96,814/-.- The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to HRA while sharing government accommodation allotted to his retired father – The appellant argued that the quarter was allotted to his father, a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, and he only occasionally shared it, thus he should not be charged HRA – The State contended that the appellant was not entitled to HRA as per Rule 6(h)(i) and (ii) because he shared rent-free accommodation allotted to his father – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision and the recovery notice – The Court found no application for Rule 6(h)(iv) in the appellant’s case and held that clauses 6(h)(i) and (ii) covered the controversy – The Court reasoned that since the appellant shared accommodation with a retired government servant, he was not entitled to claim HRA – The appeal is dismissed as devoid of force, and the recovery notice was justified in the eyes of the law
2024 INSC 365 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R.K. MUNSHI — Appellant Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…
”High Threshold Not Met: Supreme Court Blocks Trial of Additional Accused in Murder Case” Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 319 and 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Issuing of the summons – The appeals concern a summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the appellants to face trial for an offence under Section 302 IPC, based on a High Court decision dated 04.04.2023 – The main issue is the sufficiency of material against the appellants prompting the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C – The appellants argue that they were incorrectly named in the FIR and subsequent statements due to a longstanding family enmity, and there is no strong evidence against them – The State contends that even if the trial against existing accused has abated, there is no bar in summoning the appellants to start the trial afresh – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the summoning order, and the High Court’s judgment dismissing the Section 482 petition – The Court found that the evidence against the appellants was not strong enough to meet the higher degree of satisfaction required for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C – The Court referenced the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for strong and cogent evidence – The Court concluded that the Trial Court erred in issuing the summons, and the High Court should have quashed the order under Section 482 Cr.P.C – The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.
2024 INSC 366 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANKAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…