|
Advanced Search Options
Indian Laws - Supreme Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 9999 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2021 (4) TMI 319 - SUPREME COURT
Transfer of shares - pre-emptive right to purchase of shares - consideration of agreements which contains arbitration clause - HELD THAT:- It is obvious that whether the MoU has been novated by the SHA dated 12.04.1996 requires a detailed consideration of the clauses of the two Agreements, together with the surrounding circumstances in which these Agreements were entered into, and a full consideration of the law on the subject. None of this can be done given the limited jurisdiction of a court under Section 11 of the 1996 Act - Detailed arguments on whether an agreement which contains an arbitration clause has or has not been novated cannot possibly be decided in exercise of a limited prima facie review as to whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties. Also, this case does not fall within the category of cases which ousts....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 318 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of Guidelines issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) - specified number (Cap) of tax audit assignments - Seeking for transfer of several writ petitions pending in the Kerala High Court, Madras High Court and Calcutta High Court - validity of Chapter VI of Guidelines No.1CA(7)/02/2008 dated 08.08.2008 - disposal of writ petition on early date - HELD THAT:- The fact that this Court on 03.04.1991 had dismissed the Transfer Petition Nos.614-615 of 1990 observing that the concerned High Courts may dispose of the writ petition on early date cannot be treated any kind of bar in transferring the writ petition in the present batch of cases. At the time when the earlier transfer petition was dismissed, conflicting judgments on subject in issue by different High Courts had not come. Cap on the number of audits - HE....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT
Smuggling - Heroin - sentence of 15 years R.I. with fine of ₹ 2 Lakhs and in default to undergo further one year R.I. - HELD THAT:- In the present case the appellant - original accused was found to be in possession of 1 kg heroin which is four times more than the minimum of commercial quantity. 250 gm and above of Narcotic substance/drug is a commercial quantity as per the NDPS Act. The minimum sentence provided under Section 21 of the Act is 10 years R.I. So far as the commercial quantity is concerned, it may be upto 20 years R.I. Therefore, the minimum sentence for commercial quantity shall not be less than 10 years, which may extend to 20 years with fine which shall not be less than ₹ 1 lakh but which may extend to ₹ 2 lakhs. Section 32B of the Act provides for factors to be taken into account for imposing higher than....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 1144 - SUPREME COURT
Sale of Electoral Bonds under the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 - Scheme allows the donors of political parties to maintain anonymity - seeking direction to all national and regional political parties to mandatorily disclose complete details about their income, expenditure, donations and funding as well as full details of the donors - HELD THAT:- It is not correct to say that the RBI was opposed to the Scheme in principle. RBI’s objection was to the issue of bonds in scrip form rather than in demat form. What RBI wanted to achieve was, in their own words, the twin advantage of (i) providing anonymity to the contributor; and (ii) ensuring that consideration for transfers is through banking channels and not cash or other means. In fact RBI called Electoral Bonds as “an enduring reform, consistent with the Government’s digiti....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 612 - SUPREME COURT
Period of limitation for appointment of Arbitrator - Seeking reimbursement on account of price variation - HELD THAT:- So far as the applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act to the applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act is concerned, it is clear that the demand for arbitration in the present case was made by the letter dated 07.11.2006. This demand was reiterated by a letter dated 13.01.2007, which letter itself informed the Appellant that appointment of an arbitrator would have to be made within 30 days. At the very latest, therefore, on the facts of this case, time began to run on and from 12.02.2007. The Appellant’s laconic letter dated 23.01.2007, which stated that the matter was under consideration, was within the 30-day period. On and from 12.02.2007, when no arbitrator was appointed, the cause of actio....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 447 - SUPREME COURT
Period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - whether the Court may refuse to make the reference under Section 11 where the claims are ex facie time-barred? - HELD THAT:- It is now fairly well-settled that the limitation for filing an application under Section 11 would arise upon the failure to make the appointment of the arbitrator within a period of 30 days’ from issuance of the notice invoking arbitration. In other words, an application under Section 11 can be filed only after a notice of arbitration in respect of the particular claim(s) / dispute(s) to be referred to arbitration [as contemplated by Section 21 of the Act] is made, and there is failure to make the appointment - The period of limitation for filing a petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator/s can....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 383 - SUPREME COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - acquittal of the accused - appellant accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication in the case however, did not lead any evidence in defence - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the appellant has only recorded her statement under Section 313 of the Code, and has not adduced any evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheques were issued for consideration. Once the facts came on record remained unrebutted and supported with the evidence on record with no substantive evidence of defence of the appellant to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the complaint against her, no error has been committed by the High Court in the impugned judgment, and the appellant has been rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and needs no interference of this Court. The object of ....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 382 - SUPREME COURT
Seeking for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties - Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - HELD THAT:- Since, the CFSL did not express an opinion either way, it became incumbent upon the learned Single Judge to determine as to whether the Agreement dated 7th July, 2014 could have been entered into given the surrounding circumstances of the case. As Shri Divan rightly points out, there are no negotiations which lead upto the 7th July, 2014 Agreement that are on record. Secondly, negotiations that take place take place only after 7th July, 2014 in which a draft agreement is deliberated upon between the same parties. It would stretch incredulity to state that on the same subject matter negotiations and a draft agreement would be spoken about after a final signed agreement has....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 381 - SUPREME COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - scope of the term "other association of individuals" in case of a joint liability of two or more persons - applicability of Section 141 of the NI Act - discharge of legal liability or not - whether the appellant herein, original accused No. 2 can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w Section 141 of the NI Act? - HELD THAT:- A person who is the signatory to the cheque and the cheque is drawn by that person on an account maintained by him and the cheque has been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability and the said cheque has been returned by the bank unpaid, such person can be said to have committed an offence. Section 138 of the NI Act does not speak about the joint liability. Even in case of a joint liability, in case of individual persons, a per....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 245 - SUPREME COURT
Seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator - international commercial arbitration or not - Jurisdiction to appoint arbitrator - Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - association or body of individuals under Section 2(1)(f)(iii) and not under Section 2(1)(f)(i) - whether the requirements of sub-clause (i) to Section 2(1)(f) have been met, in which case it is unnecessary to go to sub-clause (iii), as under Section 2(1)(f), “at least one of the parties” must fall under sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 2(1)(f)? - HELD THAT:- The respondents have themselves applied to become distributors of Amway products in India as a sole proprietorship concern under the relevant forms issued by the appellant, read with the Code of Ethics. In ASHOK TRANSPORT AGENCY VERSUS AWADHESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER [1998 (3) TMI 701 - SUPR....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 137 - SUPREME COURT
Arbitral Award - Time Limitation for filing petition - whether the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 would commence from the date on which the draft award dated 27.04.2018 was circulated to the parties, or the date on which the signed copy of the award was provided? HELD THAT:- In an arbitral tribunal comprising of a panel of three members, if one of the members gives a dissenting opinion, it must be delivered contemporaneously on the same date as the final award, and not on a subsequent date, as the tribunal becomes functus officio upon the passing of the final award. The period for rendering the award and dissenting opinion must be within the period prescribed by Section 29A of the Act. There is only one date recognised by law i.e. the date on which a signed copy of the final award is received by the parties,....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - insufficient funds - validity of FIR by the Accused against the complainant - contractual dispute - the private respondent-complainant has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which is pending before the learned Magistrate, the impugned FIR is lodged with the same allegations - HELD THAT:- As per Section 210 Cr.P.C., when in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, i.e., in a complaint case, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by the Magistrate, it appears to the Magistrate that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. It also provi....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 771 - SUPREME COURT
Right to be appointed / function as Chairperson Intellectual Property Appellate Board, till a new chairperson of Board is appointed - The applicant seeks extension of the term of the incumbent Chairperson of the board - Crossing the age limit of 65 years - Trademarks Act, 1999 - HELD THAT:- Section 84 (2) of the TM Act no doubt states that a bench of the board shall consist of a judicial and a technical member. However, it is “subject to other provisions” of the TM Act. Section 84(3) commences with a non obstante clause and stipulates, by Section 84(3)(a) that a chairperson may, “in addition to discharging the functions of the Judicial Member or Technical Member of the Bench to which he is appointed, discharge the functions of the Judicial Member or, as the case may be, the Technical Member, of any other Bench.” Th....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 568 - SUPREME COURT
Seeking Petitioners to undertake a comprehensive and heightened judicial scrutiny regarding the permissibility of the Central Vista Project of the Government of India - challenge is premised on high principles of democratic values as applicable in India and not limited to mere infringement of statutory provisions of the governing enactments - nature of project-being of high political significance and eminence for our democratic republic; and for upholding the "Rule of Law", which is on a higher pedestal than the governance by "Rule by Law" - HELD THAT:- The contentions of the Petitioners and Respondents have been referred in some detail but would not comment on merits. These are complex and esoteric issues which have to be at first stage considered and decided by the specialised authorities like the Heritage Conservati....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT
Condonation of delay in filing an application u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 - appealable order or not - whether a learned single Judge’s order refusing to condone the Appellant’s delay in filing an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is an appealable order under section 37(1)(c) of the said Act? HELD THAT:- The “effect doctrine” referred to in ESSAR CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS NP. RAMA KRISHNA REDDY [2000 (5) TMI 1062 - SUPREME COURT] is statutorily inbuilt in section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 itself. For this purpose, it is necessary to refer to sections 37(1)(a) and 37(2)(a). So far as section 37(1)(a) is concerned, where a party is referred to arbitration under section 8, no appeal lies. This is for the reason that the effect of such order is that the parties must go t....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 505 - SUPREME COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - Jurisdiction - whether the High Court erred in reversing the findings of the trial Court in exercise of its powers under Section 378 of CrPC? - HELD THAT:- It is true that the High Court would not reverse an order of acquittal merely on formation of an opinion different than that of the trial Court. It is also trite in law that the High Court ought to have compelling reasons to tinker with an order of acquittal and no such interference would be warranted when there were to be two possible conclusions. The powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution also do not encompass the reappreciation of entirety of record merely on the premise that the High Court has convicted the appellants for the first time in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. This Court in RAM JAG AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF U.P. [1973....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 504 - SUPREME COURT
Certification of bill as a 'Money Bill' under Article 110(1) of the Constitution - Whether the decision of the Speaker of the House of People ‘House of People’ interchangeably referred as ‘Lok Sabha’ under Article 110(3) of the Constitution, to certify a bill as a 'Money Bill' under Article 110(1) is final and binding, or can be subject to judicial review? - if the decision is subject to judicial review, whether the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 had been correctly certified as a 'Money Bill' under Article 110(1) of the Constitution? HELD THAT:- The issue whether judicial review can be exercised over a decision of the Speaker of the House of People under Article 110(3), arose subsequently before another Constitution Bench in Roje....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 393 - SUPREME COURT
Levy of Charges - Port Trust on a consignment of logs lying within the docks - HELD THAT:- The grievance of the Port Trust against the order of the Division Bench is legitimate. The Port Trust has a statutory lien on the goods, for unpaid charges under the provisions of Sections 58 and 59 of the Act. The decisions of this Court in International Airports Authority of India v. Grand Slam International [1995 (2) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT] and in Om Shankar Biyani v. Board of Trustees of Port of Kolkata [2002 (2) TMI 104 - SUPREME COURT] have authoritatively recognized this principle. The Port Trust was in appeal against the order of the Single Judge directing the release of half the cargo against a payment of ₹ 25 lakhs. The Division Bench in appeal directed the release of the entire cargo against a payment of ₹ 50 lakhs, placing th....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 963 - SUPREME COURT
Grant of Bail - offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 201, 120-B of IPC and Section 5 of the Prize Chits Money Circulation Scheme (Banning Act), 1978 and Section 65 of the IT Act - High Court ruled in his favour by holding that the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 167 as a complete charge sheet was not filed within the prescribed period - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the judgment of this Court in Bashir’s case [1977 (10) TMI 125 - SUPREME COURT] that filing of charge sheet by itself cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail. Bail granted under Section 167 Cr.P.C. can be cancelled on other grounds available in law to the prosecution. Appeal disposed off.
- 2021 (1) TMI 804 - SUPREME COURT
Condonation of delay in filing statements - Booked flats not delivered in time - Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - HELD THAT:- In the present matter, it is an admitted fact that the period of limitation of 30 days to file the written statement had expired on 12.08.2020 and the extended period of 15 days expired on 27.08.2020. This period expired when the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by this Court in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 was continuing - the limitation for filing the written statement in the present proceedings before the National Commission would be deemed to have been extended as it is clear from the order dated 23.03.2020 that the extended period of limitation was applicable to all petitions/ applications/suits/appeals and all other proceedings. As such, the delay of four days in filing the written statements in th....... + More
........
|
