Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2024 INSC161IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2019 Sita Soren Appellant Versus Union of India Respondent Page 1 of 135 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Table of Contents A. Reference 4 B. Overview of the judgment in PV Narasimha Rao 8 C. Submissions 14 D. Reconsidering PV Narasimha Rao does not violate the principle of stare decisis 22 E. History of parliamentary privilege in India 34 F. Purport of parliamentary privilege in India 44 I. Functional analysis 44 II. Parliamentary privilege as a collective right of the House 54 III. Necessity test to claim and exercise a privilege 60 G. Bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege 65 I. Bribery is not in respect of anything said or any vote given 65 II. The Constitution envisions probity in public life 72 III. Courts and the House exercise parallel jurisdiction over allegations of bribery 76 Page 2 of 135 IV. Delivery of results is irrelevant to the offence of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2024INSC242CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3835 3836 OF2024(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5741 5742 OF2024 [DIARY No.26172 OF2023 AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED Respondent(s) (PREVIOUSLY NAMED HPEIF HOLDINGS1LIMITED) ORDER1 Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. Heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Vikram Nankani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants (Award Debtors). Also heard Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Mr. Darius Khambata, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent (Award Holder).4. The challenge in these appeals is to the order dated 25.04.2023 in the Arbitration Petition No.833 of 2015 and Notice of Motion No.2475 of 2016 respectively whereunder, the High Court has facilitated the enforcement of the final Award dated 27.09.2014 issued in the SIAC Arbitration No.088 of 2012. The appellants objection to enforcement of the foreign Award, in terms of Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC155IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION No.29 OF2023M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS M/S APTECH LTD. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.: For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: - INDEX A. FACTUAL MATRIX .................................................................................... 2 B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER ........................ 15 C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ...................... 18 D. ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 21 i. ISSUE No.1: Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?. If yes, whether the present petition is barred by limitation?. ............................................................. 22 a. When does the right to apply...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC150Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3589 OF2023High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Appellant versus State of U.P. & Ors. Respondents with Special Leave Petition (Crl.) nos.13284-13289 of 2023 and Criminal Appeal..Diary No.49052 of 2023 JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.Table of Contents A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .............................................. 2 I. Directions in Asian Resurfacing ................................. 2 II. Order of reference to Larger Bench ........................... 7 B. SUBMISSIONS ............................................................. 8 C. ANALYSIS .................................................................. 14 I. Object of passing interim orders .............................. 14 II. High Courts power to vacate or modify interim relief .................................................................................. 16 Criminal Appeal No.3589 of 2023 etc. Page 1 of 47 III. Whether a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2024 INSC113IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (C) No.880 of 2017 Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents With Writ Petition (C) No.59 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.975 of 2022 And With Writ Petition (C) No.1132 of 2022 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI A. Background ................................................................................................... 4 i. Corporate Contributions ........................................................................... 5 ii. Curbing black money .............................................................................. 10 iii. Transparency ........................................................................................... 11 iv. Objections of RBI and ECI to the Electoral Bond Scheme .................. 13 v. Electoral Bond Scheme .......................................................................... 18 B. Is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC109IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3854 OF2014VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR. APPELLANT(S) Versus RAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAM (DEAD) RESPONDENT(S) THR.LRs. JUDGMENT [ SANJAY KAROL, J.1. The action that set in motion the instant dispute was in the year 1947, when a mother transferred property inherited at the death of her husband, in one form to her two sons and in another, to her daughter. Some forty-odd years later, the daughters husband filed a suit in respect of such property, in 1993. The Additional District Munsiff1 decided the matter in 1999. The Additional District and Session Judge2 returned a decision on the First Appeal in 2002. The Second Appeal was decided by the High Court3 in 2012. It is against this order and judgment in Second Appeal that the present civil appeal has been preferred. 1 Trial Court 2 First Appellate Court 3 Impugned judgment 1| Civil Appeal No.3854 of 2014 BACKGROUND FACTS2 It would be necessary to advert to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC80IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 235-236 OF2024THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA APPELLANT VERSUS RNS SHANMUGAVELU RESPONDENT JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.: For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts:- INDEX A. FACTUAL MATRIX ............................................................................. 3 B. IMPUGNED ORDER .......................................................................... 13 C. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ............................................ 17 D. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT ......................................... 18 E. ANALYSIS (Points for Determination) .............................................. 19 i) Legislative History and Scheme of the SARFAESI Act ..................... 20 ii) Applicability of Section(s) 73 & 74 of the 1872 Act to Forfeiture under the SARFAESI Rules. ...............................................................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC41IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._______________OF2024(Arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.12289 of 2023) NARA CHANDRABABU NAIDU APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant is aggrieved by initiation of a criminal proceeding against him and his detention in connection with the same by the respondent State through its CID. Allegations have been made against him for commission of offences under 1 Sections 166, 167, 418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 209 and 109 read with Sections 120B, 34 and 37 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 12 and 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said offences are alleged to have been committed between the years 2015 and 2019, during which period he was the Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Initially, a First Informa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC30IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5348-5349 OF2019THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS APPELLANT(S) VERSUS YOGENDERA MOHAN SENGUPTA AND ANOTHER RESPONDENT(S) WITH TRANSFERRED CASE (C) No.2 OF2023INDEX I INTRODUCTION Paras 1 to 2 II. FACTS Paras 3 to 4.1 III. SUBMISSIONS Paras 5 to 29 IV. CONSIDERATION Paras 30 to 122 A. Legislative Scheme of the TCP Act. Paras 30 to 44 B. Nature of functions/powers of the Paras 45 to 61 Authorities under Chapter-IV of the TCP Act. C. Whether the NGT could have issued Paras 62 to 70 directions to the legislative body to exercise its legislative functions in a particular manner?. D. Whether observations in Para 47 of the Paras 71 to 78 Mantri Techzone Private Limited (supra) would operate as res judicata?. E. Development Plan 2041. Paras 79 to 90 F. Whether the NGT was justified in Paras 91 to 112 passing the order dated 14th October 2022 when the High Court was seized of the same issue d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC23REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6503 OF2022JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. ...APPELLANT (S) VERSUS MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LIMITED & ORS. ...RESPONDENT (S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.6502 OF2022CIVIL APPEAL No.4612 OF2023JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.CIVIL APPEAL No.6503 OF2022AND CIVIL APPEAL No.6502 OF20221. These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 20th September 2021, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14815 of 2020, thereby allowing the said writ petition filed by MB Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited (hereinafter referred to as MB Power), respondent No.1 herein. By the impugned 1 judgment and order, the High Court held that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 therein (appellants herein and the State of Rajasthan) are bound to purchase a total of 906 MW electricity from the successful bidders. It, therefore, directed the writ petitione...
Tag this Judgment!