Easements Act, 1882 – Sections 4, 13 and 15 – Easements of necessity and quasi-easements – The court reasons that the Appellant ‘s failed to prove uninterrupted use of the road for over 20 years and that there is an alternative way to access their land – The court examines the Indian Easements Act, 1882, and relevant case law to determine the absence of easementary rights by prescription, necessity, or agreement – The court concludes that the Appellant ‘s have not acquired any easementary rights over the disputed road and upholds the decisions of the appellate courts and the High Court.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANISHA MAHENDRA GALA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHALINI BHAGWAN AVATRAMANI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prashant Kumar Mishra,…
The main issues revolve around the revision of pay scales, allowances, and the comparability of the employer’s units for wage determination – unal to re-examine the case afresh within six months – The Court found that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and making independent factual determinations – The Court referenced several cases to establish the scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction and the industry-cum-region test for wage revision
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE VVF LTD. EMPLOYEES UNION — Appellant Vs. M/S. VVF INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar,…
Suit for Partition – The Court found that ‘C’ remarriage extinguished her rights to her first husband’s property, and she could not pass on any title to the plaintiff – The Court applied the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856, and relevant case law to determine the impact of Chiruthey’s remarriage on her property rights – The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff could not inherit the property through ‘C’, as her rights were nullified upon remarriage, and the deeds did not confer valid title.
2024 INSC 287 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KIZHAKKE VATTAKANDIYIL MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. THIYYURKUNNATH MEETHAL JANAKI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose…
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Acquittal -The High Court’s judgment, which upheld the acquittal, was based on the absence of valid documentary evidence of any enforceable debt or liability – Both appellate courts found no evidence of an “enforceable debt or other liability,” which is crucial for the petitioner’s case under Section 138 – The courts applied the principle of balance of probabilities and concluded that the respondent’s defence was plausible – The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, finding no perversity in the appellate courts’ findings and no point of law warranting interference.
2024 INSC 288 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S RAJCO STEEL ENTERPRISES — Appellant Vs. KAVITA SARAFF AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar,…
Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 100(1)(d)(iv) – The Court discussed the definition of ‘owner’ under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, to determine the impact of non-disclosure – The Court concluded that non-disclosure of the vehicles did not amount to undue influence and that Kri’s wealth declaration was not significantly affected by the non-disclosed assets – The final decision on the appeals is pending.
2024 INSC 289 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KARIKHO KRI — Appellant Vs. NUNEY TAYANG AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. )…
Motor Accident Claim – Enhancment of Compensation -The court found errors in the tribunal’s assessment of disability and income, leading to an increase in compensation for loss of future income and other damages – The court relied on precedents that emphasize the importance of adequate compensation for physical and emotional suffering caused by accidents – The appeal was allowed, enhancing the total compensation to Rs.2,42,120/- with directions for the insurance company to pay the balance amount with interest.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AABID KHAN — Appellant Vs. DINESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No….of 2024…
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 29 read with 20(b)(ii)(c) and 25, 67, 41 to 44 – The court discussed the applicability of Section 67 statements and the compliance with Sections 41 to 44 of the NDPS Act – By virtue of the decision in Tofan Singh, the benefit is to be granted to the appellants herein in regard to the inadmissibility of their statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act 1985 – These appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as that of the Trial Court – The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them by giving benefit of doubt.
2024:INSC:290 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. NAJMUNISHA SOLE APPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2319 OF 2009 AND ABDUL HAMID CHANDMIYA ALIAS LADOO BAPU SOLE APPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 9 Rule 7 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 –The Court found no satisfactory explanation for the delay, noting the appellant’s negligence and inconsistency in statements – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the lower courts and refusing to condone the inordinate delay.
2024 INSC 281 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.B. LAL (KRISHNA BAHADUR LAL) — Appellant Vs. GYANENDRA PRATAP AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna…
Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 – Sections 83(1)(a), 100(1)(b) and 100(1)(d)(i) – False declaration of educational qualifications and suppression of financial information – The court examined the legal requirements for an Election Petition under the RP Act and concluded that the respondent’s petition lacked concise statements of material facts and full particulars of alleged corrupt practices – The court dismissed the Election Petition, finding it deficient in terms of the mandatory requirements of material facts and particulars needed to constitute a cause of action.
2024 INSC 282 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KARIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA — Appellant Vs. AMINUL HAQUE LASKAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Bela M.…
Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 32(3) and 32(5) – Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is Relevant -The Court found inconsistencies in the respondents’ arguments and relied on evidence indicating a joint family business – The Court applied the principle of preponderance of probability and the Indian Evidence Act to assess the joint nature of the business – The Supreme Court concluded that the properties were joint family assets and should be partitioned accordingly. Cases Referred
2024 INSC 283 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VITTHALRAO MAROTIRAO NAVKHARE — Appellant Vs. NANIBAI (DEAD), THROUGH LRS, AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay…