SAME SEX MARRIAGE – Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH SUPRIYO @ SUPRIYA CHAKRABORTY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Sanjay Kishan…
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) – Sections 138 and 139 – Dishonour of cheque – Appeal against acquittal – Rebuttal of rebuttal – Once the presumption under Section 139 was given effect to, the Courts ought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque was, indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The entire focus would then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the activation of the presumption has the effect of shifting the evidential burden on the accused. The nature of inquiry would then be to see whether the accused has discharged his onus of rebutting the presumption. If he fails to do so, the Court can straightaway proceed to convict him – Order of acquittal set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH JAIN — Appellant Vs. AJAY SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Aravind Kumar and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. of 2023…
Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Condonation of delay of around 479 days in presentation of an appeal from the decision of the Reference Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – High Court’s decision to condone the delay does not suffer from any error warranting interference, such an exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice-oriented approach by the Courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State – A court of appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the courts below – An appellate power interferes not when the order appealed is not right but only when it is clearly wrong.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHEO RAJ SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi…
A medical termination of the pregnancy cannot be permitted because it has crossed the statutory limit of twenty-four weeks – Neither of the two reports submitted by the Medical Boards indicates that a termination is immediately necessary to save the life of the petitioner, in terms of Section 5 – If a medical termination were to be conducted at this stage, the doctors would be faced with a viable foetus – Delivery will be conducted by AIIMS at the appropriate time – Union Government has undertaken to pay all the medical costs for the delivery and incidental to it.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH X — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., J B Pardiwala and Manoj…
Dismissal of candidature as Assistant Engineer he was colour blind – Colour vision deficiency is neither impairment of vision and in that sense falling within the disability spectrum calling for treatment under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 nor is it of such condition as to bar sufficiently qualified persons’ entitlement to be employed in an organization that can accommodate educational attainments and talents – HELD Corporation is directed to appoint and continue the appellant in its service, as AE (Electrical) at the appropriate stage of the grade of pay, from the date he was terminated from service, or his appointment was cancelled
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHAMED IBRAHIM — Appellant Vs. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ.…
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 35ABB – Expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services – Payment of entry fee as well as the variable annual licence fee paid by the respondents-assessees to the DoT under the Policy of 1999 are capital in nature and may be amortised in accordance with Section 35ABB of the Act – Consequence of non-payment would result in ouster of the licensee from the trade – Thus, this is a payment which is intrinsic to the existence of the licence as well as trade itself. Such a payment has to be treated or characterized as capital only.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH C.I.T., DELHI — Appellant Vs. BHARTI HEXACOM LTD. — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(S). 11128,…
Advocates Act, 1961 – Sections 16 and 23(5) – – Classification of advocates and the mechanism to grant seniority to advocates is not based on any arbitrary, artificial or evasive grounds – Such a classification is a creation of the legislature, and there is a general presumption of constitutionality, and the burden is on the petitioners to show that there is a clear transgression of the constitutional principles – something which they have miserably failed to discharge
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.T. Ravikumar and…
Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 86(1)(a) read with Section 62 – Recovery of deductions of monthly tariff – Dispute inter se the parties is in the nature of a contractual dispute – Normally, costs must go with the succeeding party in case of a contractual dispute – This is more so where one party repeatedly seeks to evade the rigors of the orders
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NABHA POWER LIMITED — Appellant Vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar,…
In a suit filed for partition, the courts must endeavour to comprehensively adjudicate and decide the right entitlement and share of the parties in the same proceeding and must avoid multiplicity of proceedings or relegating parties to a fresh round of litigation – Partial adjudication in the circumstance of the case is erroneous and ought to have been avoided – Matter remitted to Learned Single Judge of High Court
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIKRANT KAPILA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PANKAJA PANDA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil…
Dishonour of cheque – Quashing of complaint – Merely because somebody is managing the affairs of the company, per se, he would not become in charge of the conduct of the business of the company or the person responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company – Person liable is in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company – Complaint quashed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SIBY THOMAS — Appellant Vs. M/S. SOMANY CERAMICS LTD. — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…