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.
Customs & Excise

Relief was granted to the petitioners on the basis of the judgment reported as State of U.P. v. Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co. – There is no advertence to Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co.’s case – That case, as said before stands pro tanto overruled.It could not have been the basis to grant relief to the respondents by the High Court – Appeal allowed.

May 13, 2017 sclaw

  (1999) 8 SCC 137 : (2000) 117 STC 420 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (JUDICIAL), SALES TAX AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KHERIA BROTHERS AND ANOTHER — Respondent…

Acquittal

it is well-settled that there must be a chain of circumstances and this solitary circumstance cannot be said to form a chain so as to fasten guilt upon the accused and on the basis of the same, irresistible conclusion, which is incompatible with the innocence of the accused cannot be drawn – Appeal allowed.

May 13, 2017 sclaw

  (2004) 11 SCC 391 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH C.T. PONNAPPA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : H. K. Sema, J; B. N.…

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