Citizenship Act, 1955 — Sections 5(1)(b) and 8(2) — Grant of Indian Citizenship — Respondent born in Singapore in 1999 to Indian parents who later renounced their Indian citizenship, applied to resume Indian citizenship in 2017 —Whether respondent is entitled to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) and if he qualifies as a person of Indian origin under Section 5(1)(b) — Petitioner argued he is entitled to Indian citizenship based on his grandparents’ birth in undivided India and his parents’ birth in independent India — The Union of India contended that respondent’s parents lost Indian citizenship upon acquiring Singapore citizenship, making respondent ineligible under the cited sections — The Supreme Court ruled that respondent is not entitled to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) or Section 5(1)(b) — The court found that respondent’s parents ceased to be Indian citizens by operation of law when they acquired Singapore citizenship, and thus Section 8(2) does not apply — The court emphasized the plain language of the Citizenship Act, stating that equitable considerations cannot override statutory provisions — The appeal by the Union of India was allowed — However respondent may apply for citizenship under Section 5(1)(f).
2024 INSC 792 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. PRANAV SRINIVASAN — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ.…
Bank Loan — Auction — Solatium — Co-operative Bank, granted a business loan of Rs. 25,00,000 to respondents 1, 2, 5, and 6 — Upon default, the bank initiated recovery proceedings before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who awarded Rs. 21,92,942 with interest to the bank — The borrowers’ property was auctioned, with the appellant offering the highest bid of Rs. 81,20,000 — A sale confirmation certificate was issued, but the 1st and 2nd respondents challenged the auction in the Karnataka High Court — The court set aside the auction, noting that the borrowers had deposited Rs. 25,61,400 within three months of the writ petition and ordered the bank to refund the auction amount along with 5% additional compensation to the appellant — The appellant argued that the 5% solatium was inadequate and sought interest for being deprived of the auction amount since July 2019 — The court found merit in the appellant’s claim, ruling that the 4th respondent bank, which initiated the auction, must pay the appellant interest at 6% per annum on the Rs. 81,20,000 from 21st July 2019 until the refund — The court modified the earlier judgments, setting aside the 5% compensation and directing the bank to pay interest.
2024 INSC 793 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SALIL R. UCHIL — Appellant Vs. VISHU KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,…
Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act 2008 — Sections 3 and 31 — The Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) challenged judgments of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) regarding tariff determination for aeronautical services — Whether AERA, a quasi-judicial body, can file an appeal against TDSAT’s judgment — AERA argued that it has the right to appeal under Section 31 of the AERA Act — The respondents contended that AERA, being a quasi-judicial body, cannot appeal against TDSAT’s decisions — The Supreme Court examined the maintainability of AERA’s appeals and the nature of its functions — The court analyzed whether tariff determination is an adjudicatory function and the role of quasi-judicial bodies in appeals — The court discussed the principles of natural justice, the distinction between quasi-judicial and regulatory functions, and relevant case law — The judgment clarified the scope of AERA’s powers and the legal framework governing its appeals.
2024 INSC 791 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AIRPORTS ECONOMIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under Section 482 in Cases with Predominantly Civil Character — The court reiterated the principle that criminal cases with overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions, matrimonial relationships, or family disputes, should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves — This principle is applied in the present case, where the dispute involved a loan transaction between the accused persons and the bank, and the parties had settled the matter through the One Time Settlement (OTS).
2024 INSC 750 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. BHARTHI DEVI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…
The main issue is whether the eligibility criteria requiring AICTE approval for diplomas is valid, given the Supreme Court’s previous ruling that universities do not need AICTE approval for technical courses —The petitioners argued that the eligibility criteria were inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling and that they were unfairly excluded from the recruitment process —The respondents contended that the recruitment process was conducted according to the existing rules and that the petitioners were bound by the doctrine of acquiescence —The Supreme Court directed the Bihar Technical Service Commission to prepare a fresh select list of meritorious candidates, considering the previous High Court order and the AICTE’s stance —The Court found that changing the eligibility criteria after the selection process was completed was impermissible and that the petitioners had a legitimate right to be considered — The appeals were disposed of with directions to prepare a revised select list within three months, ensuring that eligible candidates are considered fairly.
2024 INSC 763 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHASHI BHUSHAN PRASAD SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi…
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 139(5) — Revised Income Tax Return — The appellant filed multiple revised returns for the assessment year 1989-90, which were not considered due to being barred by limitation —Whether the assessing officer can consider claims made in a revised return filed after the time limit prescribed by Section 139(5) of the Act — The appellant argued that the assessing officer should consider the claim for deduction of deferred revenue expenditure, even if the revised return was filed late —The respondent contended that the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to consider claims made in a time-barred revised return —The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that the assessing officer cannot consider claims in a time-barred revised return —The Court emphasized that the assessing officer’s jurisdiction is limited by the time constraints set in Section 139(5) —The Court referred to previous judgments, including Wipro Finance Ltd. and Goetze (India) Ltd., to support its decision —The appeal was dismissed, affirming that claims in a time-barred revised return cannot be considered by the assessing officer.
2024 INSC 760 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS — Appellant Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, CHENNAI — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S Oka…
Coal Mining Bid — Rejection of — Eligibility criteria — Appellants challenged the rejection of its technical bid by Respondent-BCCL for a coal mining project, while the bid of Respondent No. 8 was accepted despite non-compliance with mandatory requirements —Whether BCCL was justified in rejecting the appellant’s bid and accepting the bid of Respondent No. 8, which did not meet the eligibility criteria — Appellant argues that the rejection was arbitrary and discriminatory — The appellant complied with all requirements, while Respondent No. 8 was allowed to submit missing documents later — BCCL argues that the appellant’s bid was non-compliant due to issues with the Power of Attorney — The Tender Committee could seek shortfall documents but not replace them —The Supreme Court found BCCL’s actions arbitrary and illegal, setting aside the rejection of the appellant’s bid and the acceptance of Respondent No. 8’s bid — The appellant’s Power of Attorney was valid and notarized before submission — BCCL’s acceptance of Respondent No. 8’s bid despite non-compliance was unjustified —Government bodies must act fairly and transparently in awarding contracts — The decision-making process must be free from arbitrariness and bias —The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside BCCL’s decision and any subsequent agreements, and directed BCCL to initiate a fresh tender process.
2024 INSC 757 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANSHIDHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) read with Section 11(9) —Dispute over a contractual agreement — The main issue is whether the contract was breached and if so, what remedies are available —The petitioner argues that the respondent failed to fulfill their obligations under the contract —The respondent contends that they met all contractual requirements and that any issues were due to the petitioner’s actions —The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the respondent breached the contract —The court based its decision on the evidence presented, which showed that the respondent did not meet the contractual terms —The court applied principles of contract law, focusing on the obligations and duties outlined in the agreement —The court awarded damages to the petitioner and ordered the respondent to fulfill their contractual obligations.
2024 INSC 710 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AJAY MADHUSUDAN PATEL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JYOTRINDRA S. PATEL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…
In view of the said Notice/Circular dated 30.12.2022 and in furtherance of the afore-stated order passed by the Coordinate Bench, it is directed that the Advocates on-Record may mark the appearances of only those Advocates who are authorized to appear and argue the case on the particular day of hearing. Such names shall be given by the Advocate on Record on each day of hearing of the case as instructed in the Notice. If there is any change in the name of the arguing Advocate, it shall be duty of the concerned Advocate-on-Record to inform the concerned Court Master in advance or at the time of hearing of the case. The concerned Officers/Court Masters shall act accordingly.
2024 INSC 708 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHAGWAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 420 — Passports Act, 1967 — Section 12(2) — The appellant was convicted for abetting the issuance of a second passport to a person already possessing a passport — The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted appellant due to insufficient evidence proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt — Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires each circumstance to be proven beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstances taken together should lead to an irresistible inference of guilt — Under Section 12(2), the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the accused knowingly furnished false information or suppressed material information with the intent to secure a passport or travel document — The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, and acquitted appellant of the offences alleged against her.
2024 INSC 721 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YOGARANI — Appellant Vs. STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Aravind Kumar, JJ.…