Arbitration Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Appellant supplied paddy — Respondent returned less rice — Dispute over shortfall — Appellate Court set aside arbitral award — Appellant argued award based on evidence — Respondent contended award was erroneous — Supreme Court restored award, emphasizing limited interference under Sections 34 & 37 — Appellate Court exceeded jurisdiction — Arbitral awards should not be interfered with unless violating public policy or fundamental principles — Appeal allowed, arbitral award restored — Respect for finality of arbitral awards.
2024 INSC 742 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S SANMAN RICE MILLS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…
Suit for Specific Performance — Agreement to sell — The respondent-plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land — The appellant-defendant allegedly failed to execute the sale deed despite receiving earnest money — Whether the agreement was valid and enforceable, and whether the respondent-plaintiff was entitled to specific performance or alternative relief —The appellant-defendant claimed the agreement was fraudulent, without consideration, and prepared through misrepresentation — The respondent-plaintiff argued that the agreement was genuine, and the appellant-defendant breached its terms by not executing the sale deed — The trial court, first appellate court, and high court ruled against the appellant-defendant, ordering the refund of earnest money with interest —The Supreme Court found the lower courts’ judgments perverse, noting inconsistencies and lack of evidence supporting the respondent-plaintiff’s claims —The Supreme Court emphasized the need for clear evidence and adherence to legal procedures, highlighting the suspicious nature of the agreement —The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts’ judgments, ruling in favor of the appellant-defendant and dismissing the respondent-plaintiff’s claims.
2024 INSC 744 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAKHA SINGH — Appellant Vs. BALWINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 311, 313 and 173(8) — Case of Murder — Further investigation after the trial had concluded —Whether the High Court was justified in ordering further investigation after the trial had concluded —The appellant argued that the application for further investigation was a disguised attempt to reopen earlier proceedings and that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application after charges were framed —The respondent contended that further investigation was necessary to ensure justice and that new facts and material had emerged —The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order for further investigation, stating it was unwarranted and not in accordance with the law —The Court found that the application for further investigation was filed too late and lacked new evidence that would justify reopening the case —The Court emphasized that further investigation should be ordered sparingly and only in exceptional cases to achieve the ends of justice — The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, dismissed the application for further investigation.
2024 INSC 746 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. VADIVEL — Appellant Vs. K. SHANTHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. )…
Service Law — Seniority in government service should be determined as per the service rules, and the date of initial appointment should be the basis for determining seniority, unless the rules provide otherwise.
2024 INSC 748 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V. VINCENT VELANKANNI — Appellant Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sandeep Mehta and R.…
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation & Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 — Rules 3 and 4 — Timelines in Rules 3 and 4 — The court ruled that the timelines mentioned in Rules 3 & 4 of the 2008 Rules, which provide for the grant of sanction, are mandatory and must be strictly followed — This is because UAPA is a penal legislation, and strict construction must be applied — The court also emphasized that independent review by both the authority recommending sanction and the authority granting sanction is necessary to comply with Section 45 of the UAPA.
2024 INSC 718 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FULESHWAR GOPE — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 15 — Scope of Section 15 — The court clarified that Section 15 of the POCSO Act criminalizes the storage or possession of any child pornographic material involving a child, regardless of whether the accused has the intention to share or transmit the material. The court further distinguished between the three distinct offences punishable under Section 15(1), (2), and (3) of the POCSO Act. Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 67B — Scope of Section 67B — The court held that Section 67B of the IT Act criminalizes the publication, transmission, or creation of any material depicting children in sexually explicit acts or conduct — The court clarified that the act of merely viewing or downloading child pornography, without any intention to publish, transmit, or create such material, does not fall within the purview of Section 67B of the IT Act.
2024 INSC 716 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. S. HARISH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya…
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 13(1) and 13(1)(d) — The respondent, an Income Tax officer, was denied promotion due to pending criminal charges and a sealed cover procedure was adopted — Whether the mere grant of prosecution sanction constitutes pending criminal charges, justifying the sealed cover procedure — Petitioner argue that the prosecution sanction implies pending criminal charges, warranting the sealed cover procedure — Respondent states that no criminal charges were pending at the time of the DPC meeting, making the sealed cover procedure unjustified —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, rejecting the sealed cover procedure as the charge sheet was filed after the DPC meeting —The prosecution for criminal charges is considered pending only after a charge sheet is issued — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was found fit for promotion.
2024 INSC 729 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DOLY LOYI — Respondent ( Before : Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan, JJ.…
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 — Section 4 — The appellants sought a declaration and injunction in a civil suit — The defendants requested impounding of six documents related to property transactions, claiming they were not duly stamped — Whether the appellants are liable to pay stamp duty and penalty on agreements to sell executed prior to the sale deed —The appellants argued that since the sale deed was registered and stamp duty paid, the prior agreements did not require separate stamping —The respondents contended that the agreements included a clause about the transfer of physical possession, necessitating stamp duty —The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision to impound the documents and send them for adjudication of stamp duty and penalty —The court emphasized that the agreements to sell were separate transactions requiring individual stamp duty, as they included clauses for possession transfer —The court referred to Section 4 and Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I, concluding that the agreements were conveyances requiring stamp duty — The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were directed to pay the appropriate stamp duty and penalty on the impounded documents.
2024 INSC 730 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHYAMSUNDAR RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PUSHPABAI NILKANTH PATIL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 304 Part I — Murder — Alteration of Sentence — The main issue was whether the appellants’ conviction under Section 302 IPC was justified or if it should be altered to a lesser offense — The appellants argued that there was a delay in lodging the FIR, contradictions in witness testimonies, and that the injuries sustained by the appellants were not explained by the prosecution —The respondent-State maintained that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the conviction and sentence were justified —The Supreme Court altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Part-I of Section 304 IPC, sentencing the appellants to the period already undergone —The Court found that the incident occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation and that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the appellants —The Court concluded that the case fell under Part-I of Section 304 IPC due to the lack of premeditation and the sudden nature of the fight —The appeals were partly allowed, and the appellants were ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
2024 INSC 727 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNIL @ SONU ETC. — Appellant Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan,…
Genuineness of Will and Partition Suit — The Court emphasizes that in a partition suit where a Will is challenged, the genuineness of the Will must be determined as a necessary step to resolve the dispute over the property — Delays in deciding this issue should be minimized to prevent multiplicity of litigation.
2024 INSC 726 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINESH GOYAL @ PAPPU — Appellant Vs. SUMAN AGARWAL (BINDAL) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay…