ive

Latest Cases

(21) NOY VALLESINA ENGINEERING SPA, (NOW KNOWN AS NOY AMBIENTE S.P.A) Vs. JINDAL DRUGS LIMITED AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 26-11-2020
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 50 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13(1) - Foreign award - Enforcement of - A further appeal by a party aggrieved by an order of enforcement, even under the later enacted Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is not maintainable - Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, being a general provision vis-à-vis arbitration relating to appeals arising out of commercial disputes, would obviously not apply to cases covered by Section 50 of the Arbitratio

(22) M/S TAMIL NADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-11-2020
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 40(a)(iib) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - VAT expenditure is not allowable as deduction - When the vires of Section 40(a)(iib) of the Income Tax Act were challenged, which can be decided by the High Court alone in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court ought to have decided the issue with regard to vires of Section 40(a)(iib) on merits, irrespective of the fact whether the matter was sub judice before the Income Tax

(23) JATINDERVEER ARORA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB RESPONDENT [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-11-2020
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 406 - Supreme Court Rules - Order 39 - Transfer of Trial - Power of - Transfer of trial from one state to another would inevitably reflect on the credibility of the State's judiciary - Except for compelling factors and clear situation of deprivation of fair justice, the transfer power should not be invoked - Present bunch of cases are not perceived to be amongst such exceptional categories - Petition dismissed.

(24) DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE AND OTHERS Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR DUBEY [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-11-2020
Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 - Rules 146.2 and 153 - Gross neglect of duty with respect to theft of railway property - A police officer in the Railway Protection Force is required to maintain a high standard of integrity in the discharge of his official functions - In this case, the charges proved against the Respondent "were of neglect of duty" which resulted in pecuniary loss to the Railways - Respondent was a Sub-Inspector in the Railway Police discharging an office of trust and confi

(25) TEJ BAHADUR Vs. SHRI NARENDRA MODI [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 24-11-2020
Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 33(3) - Nomination paper - A person to make claim that he was duly nominated, his nomination paper must comply with statutory requirements which govern the filing of nomination papers and not otherwise

(26) CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND VICE CHAIRMAN GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD Vs. ASIATIC STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 24-11-2020
Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 64 and 65 - Termination of contract - Refund of interest - Conduct of the Board betrays a callous and indifferent attitude, which in effect is that if Respondent wished for its money to be returned, it had to approach the court - This was despite its knowledge that at least three other identically placed entities had asked for return of money and, upon approaching the court, were refunded the amounts given by them promptly - In view of these facts, nothing prevented

(27) B. K. RAVICHANDRA AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 24-11-2020
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 21, 265 and 300-A - Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952 - Suit for possession - History of the right to property show that though its pre-eminence as a fundamental right has been undermined, nevertheless, the essence of the rule of law protects it - Evolving jurisprudence of this court also underlines that it is a valuable right ensuring guaranteed freedoms and economic liberty phrasing of Article 300-A is determinative and its

(28) VENKATESAN BALASUBRAMANIYAN Vs. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, D.R.I. BANGALORE [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-11-2020
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 167(2) and 439 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 - Sections 22, 28 and 29 - Possession and transportation of narcotic substance - Combined complaint - Bail - It is true that two offences, one at Hyderabad and another case at Bangalore - A combined complaint taking care of both the offences was filed before the Special Court, Omerga as noted above wherein offences committed by the accused were also inquired and dealt with - The

(29) RUSODAY SECURITIES LIMITED Vs. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-11-2020
National Securities Clearing Corporation Limited Rules - Rule 8(2) - Termination of Membership - As per the general scheme of regulation of a trading/clearing member, it is settled position that a member whose membership has been terminated or who has been expelled is not absolved from fulfilling his contractual or other obligations in any manner.

(30) OMANAKKUTTAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-11-2020
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 34, 324, 326 and 308 - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon - Modification of sentence - Incident occurred on 13.01.2002 and the 3rd appellant herein has already served more than two years of sentence - It is a fit case to modify the sentence and reduce the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- each for offence under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC and for conviction under Section 326 IPC - Compensation awarded for the offence under Section 308 read with Sec

(31) M/S KALEDONIA JUTE AND FIBRES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. M/S AXIS NIRMAN AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-11-2020
Companies Act, 2013 (substituted under IBC) - Section 434 - Transfer of certain pending proceedings - Section 434in entirety purports to deal with the transfer of proceedings pending either before the Board of Company Law Administration or before the Company Court (the High Court or the District Court) - Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) deals with the right of appeal to the High Court against any decision of the Company Law Board and hence Clause (b) is actually a misfit in the scheme of Sect

(32) JAYANTILAL VERMA Vs. STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH) [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-11-2020
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 302 and 34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 313 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 106 and 134 - Murder of wife - Conviction and sentence - Appeal against - Most important aspect is where the death was caused and the body found - It was in the precincts of the house of the appellant herein where there were only family members staying - High Court also found that the location of the house and the surrounding buildings was such that there was no possi

(33) RAM SHARAN MAURYA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 18-11-2020
Recruitment of 'Shiksha Mitras' (Assistant Teachers) in primary schools - Fixation of cut off marks - Power of State Government - If the Government has the power to fix minimum qualifying marks 'from time to time', there is nothing in the Rules which can detract from the exercise of such power even after the examination is over - Fixation of cut off at 65-60%, even after the examination was over, cannot be said to be impermissible - Government was well within its rights to fix such cut off.

(34) SUBHASH KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-11-2020
Bihar Education Service - Relegating of petitioner after serving as member of the Bihar Administrative service for almost 15 years to Bihar Education Service without affording an opportunity of hearing to him in alleged compliance of the order - Order impugned could not have been passed by the respondents without affording him an opportunity of hearing and is in violation of the principles of natural justice - Respondents were not at all justified in passing of the order impugned which was neith

(35) M/S FERTICO MARKETING AND INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS ETC. Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER ETC. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-11-2020
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - Sections 5 and 6 - Extension of powers and jurisdiction of special police establishment to other areas - Consent of State Government to exercise of powers and jurisdiction - Though Section 5 enables the Central Government to extend the powers and jurisdiction of Members of the DSPE beyond the Union Territories to a State, the same is not permissible unless, a State grants its consent for such an extension within the area of State concerned under Sec

(36) KIRPA RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS Vs. SURENDRA DEO GAUR AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-11-2020
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Section 100(1) - Second Appeal - Substantial question of law - Sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the Code contemplates that an appeal shall lie to the High Court if it is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law - Substantial question of law is required to be precisely stated in the memorandum of appeal - If the High Court is satisfied that such substantial question of law is involved, it is required to formulate that question - Appeal has

(37) UMC TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-11-2020
Tender - Termination of - Notice for blacklisting - Mere existence of a clause in the Bid Document, which mentions blacklisting as a bar against eligibility, cannot satisfy the mandatory requirement of a clear mention of the proposed action in the show cause notice - Corporation's notice is completely silent about blacklisting and as such, it could not have led the appellant to infer that such an action could be taken by the Corporation in pursuance of this notice. Had the Corporation expressed

(38) RATTAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. NIRMAL GILL AND OTHERS ETC. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-11-2020
A. Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 17 - Effect of fraud or mistake - For invoking Section 17 of the 1963 Act, two ingredients have to be pleaded and duly proved - One is existence of a fraud and the other is discovery of such fraud - In the present case, since the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of fraud, there is no occasion for its discovery. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be extended the benefit under the said provision.

(39) ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 11-11-2020
Grant of the interim bail - High Court was in error in rejecting the applications for the grant of interim bail - This Court order and direct that Arnab Goswami, Feroz Mohammad Shaikh and Neetish Sarda shall be released on interim bail, subject to each of them executing a personal bond in the amount of Rs 50,000 to be executed before the Jail Superintendent - They are, however, directed to cooperate in the investigation and shall not make any attempt to interfere with the ongoing investigation o

(40) VETINDIA PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-11-2020
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Sections 9, 23, 25 and 26 - Misbranded drugs - Order of blacklisting - Petition dismissed by High Court only on the ground of delay, as having been preferred ten years later - Appeal against - Contention of the respondents that they have acted in accordance with the provisions of the Drugs Act pursuant to the report of the analyst for misbranded product under Section 9 is devoid of substance and merits no consideration - It is not the case of the respondents that