Judgments Supreme Court

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/19832/19832_2016_33_1506_21813_Judgement_24-Apr-2020.pdf With this background, the evidence of the prosecution is examined in the present appeals in the following manner: (A) The evidence of last seen (B) Discovery of incriminating facts (C) Demand of Ransom (D) Motive and Conspiracy (E) Corroborative Evidence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLxzczTSVAo&feature=youtu.be https://indiankanoon.org/doc/203322/ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/505614/ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/625529/ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/219441/ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/681713/ https://cjp.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Supreme-Court-Judgement2017-Contempt-of-Court-Justice-Karnan-Case.pdf https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1496509/  Gujarat Magistrate was dragged. Jurisdiction https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1666530/  BCI Chairman contempt https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/11742/11742_2019_32_1501_21869_Judgement_27-Apr-2020.pdf There was a bandh a political party in Kerala. A man died. Gopalan made statement. Pursant to that a criminial case arrested. Same statement made in a newspaper after arrest. Both were made contempt At the time to his statement, no attempt on his party either to influence the judiciary or caruse hindrarance. By the time it was publlished, immenent criminal procee...

National institute of Mental Health and Neuroscience vs. Dr. K.Kalyana;1992 AIR SC 1806 Madhu Bala vs. Suresh Kumar;1997(3)RCR(Criminal)679, Mohd. Yousuf vs. Smt. Afaq Jahan;2006(1)RCR(Criminal)451, T.C. Thangaraj vs. V. Engammal and others; 2011(3) RCR (Criminal)751, Nupur Talwar vs. CBI;2012(3)RCR(Cr.)595, Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of U.P. and others;2015 AIR(SC)1758 Pranab Kumar Mitra vs. The State of West Bengal and another;1959 supp(1) SCR 63 Girish Kumar Suneja vs. C.B.I;2017(3) RCR(CR.) 665 and Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar;2019(2)RCR(CR.)1 

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/13597/13597_2018_8_1501_20002_Judgement_30-Jan-2020.pdf Sunder Babu v. State of T.N., (2009) 14   SCC   244, State of Karnataka v.  M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89,  State   of   Karnataka  v.  L. Muniswamy,   (1977)   2   SCC   699, Vineet   Kumar   and   others versus   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   and   another, (2017)   13   SCC   369,  State   of   Haryana and others versus Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 suppl. (1) SCC 335, https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/42728/42728_2016_15_1502_20427_Judgement_10-Feb-2020.pdf Parbatbhai Aahir & Others versus State of Gujarat & Others. (2017) 9 SCC 641 https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/5947/10/10_part%20iv.pdf http...

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has forced unprecedented measures on the movement of people across the country, thereby also bringing the functioning of courts and tribunals to a grinding halt. Considering the present scenario, where courts have become physically inaccessible, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) on March 23, 2020 took suo-moto cognizance of a petition for extension of limitation and passed an order (“Order”)[1] extending the limitation prescribed either under general law or special laws, whether condonable or not, for filing any petitions, applications, suits, appeals and all other proceedings in all courts and tribunals from March 15, 2020, until passing of further orders. The Supreme Court reasoned that the Order was being passed to “obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country”. The Supreme Court exercised the powers conferre...

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio They claim to have been gravely prejudiced by the conduct of the Navy and the interim order of this Court. The principle of actus curiae neminem gravabet – an act of court should prejudice no one - has been pressed in aid of this submission. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2015/35837/35837_2015_3_1502_21539_Judgement_17-Mar-2020.pdf

Writ petition filed by the respondent seeking the benefit of higher pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996 has been allowed. 17. Shri Misra has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Purshottam Lal and others vs. Union of India and another, (1973) 1 SCC 651. 18. In the above case, this Court has considered a case which was also covered by the Second Pay Commission but benefits were not extended whereas benefits to the similar sister Institutions were extended. This Court, thus, allowed the writ petition and directed the benefit to writ petitioners also with effect from July 1, 1959. The above case has no bearing on the facts of the present case. The sequences and events in the present as noted above are based on different set of facts and the above judgment does not help the respondent in the present case. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/37359/37359_2018_14_1505_21559_Judgement_19-Mar-2020.pdf

CA NO. 2201 OF  2020 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 36170 of 2014) titled WEST BENGAL SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD  & ORS. VERSUS M/S. SONA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. & ORS March 18, 2020 held 26. The   point   for   consideration   before   us   is   when   neither   a building nor a part of the building nor a hut nor a part of the hut nor a seat in a room is let out to a tenant but only bare land is let out to a tenant, can such tenancy be regarded as relating to a “Government premises” to attract the provisions of the Act.   The expression  “includes”  is  used  in  two  places  of  the   definition  of “premises” in Section 2(c) and the expression “includes” which was used for the second time in the said definition without any doubt was included to expand the ambit of “Government premises” so as t...

Covid 19 is a severe crisis for entire entire including India. Lockdown has created unprecedented situation for all nations. It is not limited to health of the citizen but economic health of the nation. Entire Europe and USA could not face the challenged imposed by the Coronovirus originated from China. India's timely decision to lockdown the entire country has limited the speed of the spread of virus, however it is a matter of debate that whether there was a proper planning and preparedness before 24th March 2020 when the lockdown of entire nation for 21 days was began.  Our federal structure allows the central government to play the role of facilitator to the state governments. The center orientated constitution allows the central government to have final says in the economic matters so far the nation as whole is concern. Governments and institutions all over the world including India have now admitted on records that coming months and years are severe challenge in the...

CA NO.9350-9351 OF 2019 titled (arising out of SLP (C)NOS.29261-29262 OF 2019) titled  FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VERSUS BRIHANMUMBAI MAHANAGAR PALIKA & ORS.dated 19.03.2020 This appeal has been filed by the Food Corporation of India challenging the judgment dated 05.05.2016 of Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2672 of 2001 by which judgment the writ petition filed by the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as “FCI”) challenging the demand made by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai of property tax has been dismissed. Godowns in questions were constructed by the Central Government after completion of the acquisition in the year 1964.  17. Before proceeding further, we may notice the factum of ownership of the property including the godowns thereon.  34. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition laid down by this Court in Food Corporation of India vs. Municipal Committee, Jalalabad (supra) and by the Constitution...

CA No. 4594 OF 2010 titled SHANKAR SAKHARAM KENJALE (DIED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS NARAYAN KRISHNA GADE AND ANOTHER dated April 17, 2020 14. It is well-settled that the right of redemption under a mortgage  deed can come to an end or be extinguished only by a process known to law, i.e., either by way of a contract between the parties to such effect, by a merger, or by a statutory provision that debars the mortgagor from redeeming the mortgage. In other words, a mortgagee who has entered into possession of the mortgaged property will have to give up such possession when a suit for redemption is filed, unless he is able to establish that the right of redemption has come to an end as per law. This emanates from the legal principle applicable to all mortgages – “Once a mortgage, always a mortgage” A bare reading of this provision indicates that if a mortgagee, by availing himself of his position as a mortgagee, gains an advantage which would be in derogation...

CA No.3240 OF 2011 titled  Pravakar Mallick & Anr Versus The State of Orissa & Ors dated April 17, 2020. held that 12. ..........."The advocate for State specifically admitted that the Govt. has not issued any executive order or has passed any legislation. The Government Resolution dated 20.03.2002 is issued merely based on the instructions issued by the Government of India, without examining the adequacy of representation in posts. As is evident from the order of the High Court, the State in its counter affidavit has taken the stand that there is no necessity for bringing out any law to extend the benefit of seniority for those who are promoted in reserved vacancies. Government Resolution dated 20.03.2002 can neither be termed as law made in exercise of enabling power of the State under Article 16(4A), nor does it satisfy the parameters laid down in the various decisions of this Court. The Resolution has no legal basis . The Seniority/Gradation List dated 16.05.2001 ...

CA No.2813 OF 2017 tilted Chander Mohan Negi & Ors. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors dated April 17, 2020 held The Division Bench has allowed the Letters Patent Appeals on various grounds, viz.: Though the appointments were made during the year 2001 and 2003, writ petitions were filed belatedly in the year 2012 and 2013 and the writ petitioners in C.W.P.No.3303 of 2012 were not even qualified when the appointments were made; No one has questioned the selection of teachers under the Schemes at the relevant point of time, writ petitions were filed after 11 years of their appointment and the writ petitioners have not filed any rejoinder controverting the plea of the State as stated in para 11 of the reply filed in the writ petition and the State had made such appointments by framing the policies when the qualified teachers were not available for making appointments, such appointments made under various schemes cannot be termed as illegal; In view of the long servic...

CA No.6835/2009 Titled Gurcharan Singh & Ors v/s Angrez Kaur & Ans dated 19.03.2020 held Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major and Others, (1995) 5 SCC 709. In Bhoop Singh (supra), this Court laid down following in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18:- “16. We have to view the reach of clause (vi), which is an exception to sub-section (1), bearing all the aforesaid in mind. We would think that the exception en grafted is meant to cover that decree or order of a court, including a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise, which declares the pre-existing right and does not by itself create new right, title or interest in praesenti in immovable property of the value of Rs 100 or upwards. Any other view would find the mischief of avoidance of registration, which requires payment of stamp duty, embedded in the decree or order. 17. It would, therefore, be the duty of the court to examine in each case whether the parties have pre-existing right to the immovable property, or whe...

CA No. 2170-2171 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.16945-46 of 2018) titled SAJAN V/s V/s State of Maharastra & Ors dat ed 17.03.3030 held  Major General Kapil Mehra and Others vs. Union of India and Another (2015) 2 SCC 262, the Supreme Court held as under:- “36. While determining the market value of the acquired land,normally one-third deduction i.e. 33 1/3% towards development charges is allowed. One-third deduction towards development was allowed in Tehsildar (LA) v. A. Mangala Gowri (1991) 4 SCC 218, Gulzara Singh v. State of Punjab (1993) 4 SCC 245, Santosh Kumari v. State of Haryana (1996) 10 SCC 631, Revenue Divl. Officer and LAO v. Sk. Azam Saheb (2009) 4 SCC 395, A.P. Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy (2010) 12 SCC 707, Ashrafi v. State of Haryana (2013) 5 SCC 527 and Kashmir Singh v. State of Haryana (2014) 2 SCC 165 . 37. Depending on the nature and location of the acquired land,extent of land required to be set apart and expenses involved for developme...

In Epuru Sudhakar and Another v. Govt. of A.P. and Others - 2006 (8) SCC 161 vide paras 34 and 35, the Supreme Court has held as under: “34. The position, therefore, is undeniable that judicial review of the order of the President or the Governor under Article 72 or Article 161, as the case may be, is available and their orders can be impugned on the following grounds: (a) that the order has been passed without application of mind; (b) that the order is mala fide; (c) that the order has been passed on extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations; (d) that relevant materials have been kept out of consideration; (e) that the order suffers from arbitrariness. 35. Two important aspects were also highlighted by learned amicus curiae; one relating to the desirability of indicating reasons in the order granting pardon/remission while the other was an equally more important question relating to power to withdraw the order of granting pardon/remission, if subsequently, materia...

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No 2210 of 2020 (SLP No 9322 of 2019) dated 19.03.2020 titled Shyam Sahni v/s Arjun Prakash & Ors. held that the trial court is empowered to directed the contemnor to deposit his passport during the pendency of the suit in contempt proceedings and thus set aside the order passed by the Division Bench and upheld the order passed by the Single Judge of Delhi High Court in a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction   

A No.2175 OF 2020 @ SLP(C) No.8123 of 2015 titled Bank of Baroda v/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. dated 17.03.2020 “What is the limitation for filing an application for execution of a foreign decree of a reciprocating country in India?” Considering the rival arguments before us, the following issues arise for consideration: (i) Does Section 44-A merely provide for manner of execution of foreign decrees or does it also indicate the period of limitation for filing execution proceedings for the same?   (ii) What is the period of limitation for executing a decree passed by a foreign court (from a reciprocating country)in India? (iii) From which date the period of limitation will run in relation to a foreign decree (passed in a reciprocating country) sought to be executed in India? QUESTION NO.1 At the outset we may note that there is no concept of cause of action in so far as   an   execution  petition   is   concerned. Cause ...

CR.A No. 102 of 2011 titled M. Subramaniam & Ans v/s S Janaki & Ans dated 20.03.2020 observed that Sakiri Vasu v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others (2008) 2 S C C 409 in which it has been inter alia held as under: “11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr P C, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr P C by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr P C before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, acc...

C.A.No.8590 of 2010 tiled Rajathan State Electricty Board Jaipur v/s DY. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ans dated 19.04.2020 has held that "Section 143(1-A) can only be invoked when the lesser amount stated in the return filed by the assesses is a result of an attempt to evade tax lawfully payable by the assesses. In view of the above, we hold that mechanical application of Section 143(1-A) in the facts of the present case was uncalled for. In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court as well as demand of additional tax dated 12.02.1992 as amended on 28.02.1992" This Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gauhati vs. Sati Oil Udyog Limited and another, (2015) 7 S C C 304, had occasion to consider elaborately the provisions of Section 143(1-A), its object and validity. There was a challenge to the retrospective of the provisions of Section 143(1-A) as introduced by Finance Act, 1993. The Gauhati High Court had held ...