Judgment Updates (Supreme Court of India)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Here in this page we have collected most important judgments passed by the Indian Supreme Court in the current year..

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

.

CHECK:  Supreme Court Judgments Consolidated List [1950-Current]

Law

 

 

  • Usha Chakraborty & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr (30/01/2023) - In order to cause registration of an F.I.R. and consequential investigation based on the same the petition filed under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., must satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences.
  • Deepak Gaba and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr (02/01/2023) - In case of a private complaint, the Magistrate can issue summons when the evidence produced at the pre-summoning stage shows that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The material on record should indicate that the ingredients for taking cognizance of an offence and issuing summons to the accused is made out.
  • Vivek Narayan Sharma Vs. Union of India (02/01/2023) - Important questions fall for consideration: "(i) Whether the notification dated 8th November 2016 is ultra vires Section 26(2) and Sections 7, 17, 23, 24, 29 and 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; (ii) Does the notification contravene the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution; (iii) Assuming that the notification has been validly issued under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 whether it is ultra vires Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution; (iv) Whether the limit on withdrawal of cash from the funds deposited in bank accounts has no basis in law and violates Articles 14, 19 and 21; (v) Whether the implementation of the impugned notification(s) suffers from procedural and/or substantive unreasonableness and thereby violates Articles 14 and 19 and, if so, to what effect? (vi) In the event that Section 26(2) is held to permit demonetization, does it suffer from excessive delegation of legislative power thereby rendering it ultra vires the Constitution; (vii) What is the scope of judicial review in matters relating to fiscal and economic policy of the Government; (viii) Whether a petition by a political party on the issues raised is maintainable under Article 32; and (ix) Whether District Co-operative Banks have been discriminated against by excluding them from accepting deposits and exchanging demonetized notes."
  • Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu(16/12/2022) - While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint.
  • Chandi Puliya Vs. State of West Bengal (12/12/2022) - DISCHARGE-the stage of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is a stage prior to framing of the charge (under Section 228 Cr.P.C.) and it is at that stage alone that the court can consider the application under Section 300 Cr.P.C. Once the court rejects the discharge application, it would proceed to framing of charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C.
  • Anjali Bhardwaj Vs CPIO, Supreme Court of India, (RTI Cell)-09/12/2022 - After due deliberation and discussion and after completing the consultative process, when a final decision is taken and thereafter, the resolution is drawn and signed by the members of the Collegium can be said to be a final decision and till then it remains the tentative decision. Only after the final resolution is drawn and signed by the members of the Collegium, which is always after completing the due procedure and the process of discussion/deliberations and consultation, the same required to be published on the Supreme Court website as per Resolution dated 03.10.2017
  • Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Subhash Jain and Ors(02/12/2022) - The expression "paid" in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act.
  • Union of India and Ors Vs Subrata Nath(23/11/2022) - being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct.
  • Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.(17/11/2022) - IMPORTANCE OF PLEADING IN NI ACT-It is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint under Section 141 that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 and has to be made in a complaint. Without this averment being made in a complaint, the requirements of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied.
  • Varimadugu Obi Reddy Vs. B. Sreenivasulu & Ors (16/11/2022) - SARFAESI Act, 2002-Although the respondent borrowers initially approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, but the order of the Tribunal indeed was appealable under Section 18 of the Act subject to the compliance of condition of predeposit and without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal, the respondent borrowers approached the High Court by filing the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution. We deprecate such practice of entertaining the writ application by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available under the law
  • Naveen Vs. State of Haryana & Ors-(01/11/2022) - SECTION 319 Cr.P.C-Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant and the crucial test as noticed above has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.
  • Aroon Purie Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors (31/10/2022) - DEFAMATION-There is no statutory immunity for the Managing Editor, Resident Editor or Chief Editor against any prosecution for the alleged publication of any matter in the newspaper over which these persons exercise control. In all these cases, the complainants have specifically alleged that these appellants had knowledge of the publication of the alleged defamatory matter and they were responsible for such publication; and the Magistrates who had taken cognizance of the offence held that there was prima facie case against these appellants. It was under such circumstances that the summonses were issued against these appellants.
  • Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Padmanabhan Kishore (31/10/2022) - Prevention of Money Laundering Act-Proceeds of crime-By handing over money with the intent of giving bribe, such person will be assisting or will knowingly be a party to an activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Without such active participation on part of the person concerned, the money would not assume the character of being proceeds of crime
  • Dr. Manik Bhattacharya Vs. Ramesh Malik and Ors (18/10/2022) - PROTECTION FROM ARREST GRAMTED-The case on hand is a case where the criminal law is directed to be set in motion on the basis of the allegations made in anonymous petition filed in the High Court. No judicial order can ever be passed by any court without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person likely to be affected by such order and particularly when such order results in drastic consequences of affecting one's own reputation.
  • Dr. Manik Bhattacharya Vs. Ramesh Malik and Ors (20/10/2022) - The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("2002 Act"), money laundering is an independent offence and in the event there is any allegation of the Enforcement Directorate having acted beyond jurisdiction or their act of arrest is not authorized by law, the petitioner would be entitled to apply before the appropriate Court of law independently. But that question could not be examined in a Special Leave Petition arising from the proceedings in which the question of Money Laundering were not involved.
  • Kesar Bai Vs. Genda Lal & Anr (14/10/2022) - ADVERSE POSSESSION-Suit seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction-In that view of the matter and once the substantial question of law on adverse possession was held in favour of the appellant - original defendant No.1 and the title/ownership claimed on the basis of the Sale Deed dated 31.08.1967 (Ex.P.1) was negated by all the Courts below, thereafter the possession/alleged possession of the plaintiffs could not have been protected by passing a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
  • Md. Anowar Hussain Vs. State of Assam (13/10/2022) - SEC-302-CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE-it is not a case where the motive could have played any decisive role nor it had been a case where two views were possible. Equally, the present case had not been of conviction on suspicion alone. Fact of the matter remains that all the aforesaid facts and factors, which ought to be in the knowledge of the appellant, are either not clarified or the explanation given by the appellant turns out to be false. Hence, in the given set of facts and circumstances, the legal consequence is that such omission coupled with such falsehood indeed provide additional links in the chain of circumstances.
  • Aminuddin Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.(30/09/2022) - BAIL CANCELLED-There can be no manner of doubt that the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 is a constitutional value which has to be respected by the High Court, as indeed by all courts. Equally, in a matter such as the present, where a serious offence of murder has taken place, the liberty of the accused has to be necessarily balanced with the public interest in the administration of criminal justice system which requires that a person who is accused of a crime is held to account. The length or the period of custody of any of the co-accused persons has hardly any bearing on the subjectmatter of these appeals. Similarly, even if stringent conditions have been imposed, the orders impugned cannot sustain themselves, for being hit by the dictum of this Court.
  • Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & Ors (30/09/2022) - SLP-NDPS Act-Preventive detention-the appellant detenu had been released on bail by the Special Court, Tripura despite the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, had not been brought to the notice and on the other hand, this fact was withheld and the detaining authority was given to understand that the trial of those criminal cases was pending.
  • Balram Singh Vs. Kelo Devi (23/09/2022) - Second Appeal-Permanent Injunction-Counter-claim seeking the decree of possession-Agreement to sell-An unregistered document/agreement to sell shall not be admissible in evidence. It may be true that in a given case, an unregistered document can be used and/or considered for collateral purpose. However, at the same time, the plaintiff cannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in a suit for substantive relief, namely, in the present case the relief for specific performance.
  • Chandrabhan (D) LRS. & Ors. Vs. Saraswati & Ors (22/09/2022) - Substantial Question of Law-The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be, whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court.
  • Sudhamayee Pattnaik and Ors. Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Ors (16/09/2022) - Suit is for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession-The plaintiffs are the domius litis. Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs. Not impleading any other person as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs.
  • Kanchan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (14/09/2022) - DISCHARGE APPLICATION WAS ALLOWED BY SC-Allegation relating to Appellant's disproportionate income in the period between 1974 and 1988 was levelled in an FIR filed twelve years after the said period concluded. The charge-sheet came to be filed seven years after the registration of the FIR. The application for discharge came to be dismissed on 28.03.2016, almost after a decade of filing of the charge sheet. The dismissal was affirmed by the High Court seven months thereafter, i.e., on 05.10.2016. Finally, and most unfortunately, the present SLP has been pending before this Court for the last six years. In the meanwhile, the Appellant superannuated from service in 2010, but had no option except to contest the case. He is now 72 years. Continuation of the prosecution, apart from the illegality as indicated hereinabove, would also be unjust.
  • Chherturam @ Chainu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (13/09/2022) - Son Murdered Father-The only redeeming feature is that the appellant has already undergone 12 years of sentence and on completion of the sentence, as per remission policy, he would be liable to be considered for release. The only aspect which we are inclined to consider is to issue a direction to the State to consider the case of the appellant for remission, the moment he completes the mandatory sentence as per the policy for such consideration.
  • Yashoda (alias Sodhan) Vs. Sukhwinder Singh and Ors-12/09/2022 - The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax evaders, bank loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
  • Vinod Katara Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (12/09/2022) - Concept of personal liberty has received a far more expansive interpretation. The notion that is accepted today is that liberty encompasses these rights and privileges which have long been recognized as being essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free man and not merely freedom from bodily restraint. There can be no cavil in saying that lodging juveniles in adult prisons amounts to deprivation of their personal liberty on multiple aspects.
  • Dr. Abraham Patani of Mumbai & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (02/09/2022) - we deem the present case to be an appropriate instance where public interest must have paramountcy over private interest. We emphasize once again before parting that the rights of the individual must only be watered down when the necessary circumstances demanding such a drastic measure exist.
  • State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Nandu @ Nandua (02/09/2022) - There cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life, if an accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Any punishment less than the imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 would be contrary to Section 302 IPC. By the impugned judgment and order though the High Court has specifically maintained the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the IPC, but the High Court has reduced the sentence to sentence already undergone which is less than imprisonment for life, which shall be contrary to Section 302 IPC and is unsustainable.
  • Mahadeo & Ors. Vs  Sovan Devi & Ors-30/08/22 - It is well settled that inter-departmental communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right. This Court examined the said question in a judgment reported as Omkar Sinha v. Sahadat Khan. Reliance was placed on Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab to hold that merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order.
  • Satyender and Ors. Vs. Saroj and Ors (17/08/2017) - In other words, second appeal is not a forum where court has to re-examine or re-appreciate questions of fact settled by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.
  • Pushpendra Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand (24/08/2022) - Criminal conspiracy-the ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available.
  • Ayillyath Yadunath Nambiar Vs P. Sreedharan (18/08/2022) - Specific performance of contract-Court has sufficient reason to arrive at a conclusion of not awarding the relief of specific performance of contract rather directing for refund of advance amount at adequate interest rate.
  • National Company Law Tribunal Bar Association Vs. Union of India-01/08/2022 - Whether Supreme Court should in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution entertain a petition filed by the Bar Association and direct the extension of tenures, especially in view of the supervening developments which have taken place in the meantime.
  • Mrs. Akella Lalitha v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao & Anr- 28/07/2022 - Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956-After the demise of her first husband, being the only natural guardian of the child we fail to see how the mother can be lawfully restrained from including the child in her new family and deciding the surname of the child. A surname refers to the name a person shares with other members of that person's family, distinguished from that person's given name or names; a family name.
  • Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors-29 /07/2022 - SEC-482 Cr.P.C-Inherent power to recall a judgment and/or order which was without jurisdiction or a judgment and/or order passed without hearing a person prejudicially affected by the judgment and/or order.
  • Mohammed Zubair Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors – 20/07/2022 - BAIL- In terms of Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC, the police officer in question must be satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent the person sought to be arrested from committing any further offence, for proper investigation of the offence, to prevent the arrestee from tampering with or destroying evidence, to prevent them from influencing or intimidating potential witnesses, or when it is not possible to ensure their presence in court without arresting them.
  • Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai Vs. State of Bihar (14/07/2022) - CRIMINAL APPEAL- the plain language of Sections 385-386 does not contemplate dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter. On the contrary, the Code envisages disposal of the appeal on merits after perusal and scrutiny of the record.
  • Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. Vs. Alok Kumar Lodha & Ors (12/07/2022) - Commercial Suits under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure-if, by permitting plaintiffs to amend the plaint including a prayer clause nature of the suit is likely to be changed, in that case, the Court would not be justified in allowing the amendment.
  • Sadhan Chaudhury Vs The State of Rajasthan and Anr- 12/07/2022 - Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC-t is not essential that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest.
  • Ajmal Vs State of Kerala-12/07/2022 - Appellants would be entitled for acquittal under section 302 IPC but would be liable to be convicted under section 304 PartII IPC. Rest of the conviction upheld by the High Court and the sentence for the charges under sections 341, 323, 324 and 427 read with section 34 IPC is maintained.
  • Manoj Pratap Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan-24/06/2022 - DEATH PENALTY CONFIRMED-Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed; conviction of the appellant of offences under Sections 363, 365, 376(2)(f), 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is confirmed; and the sentences awarded to the appellant, including the death sentence for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are also confirmed.
  • ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI VS STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR-24/06/2022 - FURTHER INVESTIGATION-No fault can be found with the approach of the SIT in submitting final report , which is backed by firm logic, expositing analytical mind and dealing with all aspects objectively for discarding the allegations regarding larger criminal conspiracy (at the highest level) for causing and precipitating mass violence across the State against the muslim community.
  • Gopinathan Vs. State of Kerala-24/06/2022 - SENTENCE REDUCED- Accused(A1) was charge-sheeted for offence U/S 55(g) and 8(1) read with 8(2) of the Abkari Act and was convicted for the aforestated offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/each
  • Krishna Rai (D) through LRS. & Ors. Vs. Banaras Hindu University through Registrar & Ors-16/06/2022 - Whether principle of estoppel and acquiescence will prevail over statutory service rules prescribing the procedure for promotion of ClassIV employees to ClassIII working in the Banaras Hindu University(BHU)
  • Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors-09/06/2022 - Habeas corpus - the writ petition seeking writ of habeas corpus for production of corpus - Pranav Acharya aged 5 years
  • Vallal Rck Vs. M/s. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. and Ors-03/06/2022 - Apex Court has, time and again, emphasized the need for minimal judicial interference by the NCLAT and NCLT in the framework of IBC
  • Mahendra Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Madya Pradesh-03/06/2022 - It is a sound and well established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact.
  • Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. A. Balakrishnan & Anr (30/05/2022) - Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016-the application under Section 7 of the IBC was filed within a period of three years from the date on which the Recovery Certificate was issued. As such, the application under Section 7 of the IBC was within limitation.
  • Rekha Jain Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr-10/05/2022 - SECTION 420 IPC-In the absence of any allegation of inducement by the accused Rekha Jain, she cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.
  • Biltu Bhattacharya Vs. State of West Bengal-10/05/2022 - CRIMINAL REVIEW PETITION DISMISSED-SEC 302 IPC-We have gone through the grounds raised in the Review Petition and do not find any error apparent on record to justify interference.
  • Jacob Puliyel Vs Union of India-02/05/2022 - Imposing restrictions on the rights of persons who are unvaccinated is totally unwarranted as there is no basis for discriminating against unvaccinated persons. Vaccinated people are also prone to infection
  • Shraddha Gupta Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors – 26/04/2022 - Whether, a person against whom a single FIR/charge sheet is filed for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, 1986 can be prosecuted under the Gangsters Act. In other words, whether a single crime committed by a 'Gangster' is sufficient to apply the Gangsters Act on such members of a 'Gang'
  • Manisha Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr- 19/04/2022 - At the stage of granting bail the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence in the case. Such an exercise may be undertaken at the stage of trial.
  • Jagjeet Singh & Ors VS Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr-18/04/2022 - The victim’s right to participate in criminal trial and his/her right to know the status of investigation, and take necessary steps, or to be heard at every crucial stage of the criminal proceedings, including at the time of grant or cancellation of bail, were also duly recognised by the Committee.
  • Kamatchi Vs. Lakshmi Narayanan-13/04/2022 - The provisions of the Act contemplate filing of an application under Section 12 to initiate the proceedings before the concerned Magistrate. After hearing both sides and after taking into account the material on record, the Magistrate may pass an appropriate order under Section 12 of the Act. It is only the breach of such order which constitutes an offence as is clear from Section 31 of the Act.
  • State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Subhash @ Pappu-01/04/2022 - Whether respondent -accused can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 149 IPC when the deceased died due to septicemia after a period of thirty days
  • Sunil Kumar Rai & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors-21/02/2022 - Court has power of grant of compensation in the case of violation of Fundamental Rights.
  • K. Shanthamma Vs. State of Telangana-21/02/2022 - The offence under Section 7 of the PC Act relating to public servants taking bribe requires a demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof. The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act
  • Babu Venkatesh and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr-18/02/2022 - Section 156(3) CrPC- applications under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate
  • Hotel Priya, A Proprietorship Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors-18/02/2022 - DANCE BAR-whenever challenges arise, particularly based on gender, it is the task of the judges to scrutinize closely, whether, if and the extent to which the impugned practices or rules or norms are rooted in historical prejudice, gender stereotypes and paternalism.
  • Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC & Ors-15/02/2022 - Before we deal with the issue at hand, it may be necessary to recount brief facts. Aggrieved by the sale transaction between Future Retail Limited (FRL)Reliance Group, Amazon initiated an arbitration proceeding before the  Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC), in terms of Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. (FCPL)Amazon agreements.
  • Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary Vs. State of Haryana & Anr-15/02/2022 - Juvenile Justice-Question of Juvenility-The plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner. If the reliance is on a document to seek juvenility which is not reliable or dubious in nature, the appellant cannot be treated to be juvenile keeping in view that the Act is a beneficial legislation.
  • Satye Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand-15/02/2022 - EVIDENCE-It is settled position of law that circumstances howsoever strong cannot take place of proof and that the guilt of the accused have to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Jogi Ram Vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors -01/02/2022 - where a widow gets a share in the property under a preliminary decree before or at the time when the 1956 Act had been passed but had not been given actual possession under a final decree, the property would be deemed to be possessed by her and by force of s. 14(1) she would get absolute interest. in the property.
  • Vasudev Vs State of Madhya Pradesh-01/02/2022 - As the use of the gun itself is not established by the FSL report, therefore, the conviction under Section 27 Arms Act also is not justified. Considering all these aspects, in our considered opinion, the ingredients of Section 307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act have not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, proving the guilt of the accused/appellant.
  • Arjun Gopal vs Union Of India-29/10/2021 - On Diwali days or on any other festivals like Gurupurab, etc., when such fireworks generally take place, it would strictly be from 8.00 p.m. till 10.00 p.m. only. On Christmas eve and New Year's eve, when such fireworks start around midnight i.e. 12.00 a.m., it would be from 11.55 p.m. till 12.30 a.m. only.
  • Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors-27/10/2021 - Pegasus suite of spywares-we constitute a Technical Committee comprising of three members, including those who are experts in cyber security, digital forensics, networks and hardware, whose functioning will be overseen by Justice R.V. Raveendran,
  • High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr-29/09/2021 - GRANTING BAIL-The issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitised judicial process
  • Vishwabandhu Vs. Sri Krishna and Anr-29/09/2021 - MONEY SUIT-Ex Party Decree-Execution-Notice- when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement "refused" or "not available in the house" or "house locked" or "shop closed" or "addressee not in station", due service has to be presumed.
  • Suraz India Trust Vs. Union of India-29/09/2021 - CONTEMPT OF COURT- Court has held that an apology cannot be a defence, a justification can be accepted if it can be ignored without compromising the dignity of the Court
  • State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. Vs. Shaheena Masarat & Anr- 29/09/2021 - SERVICE LAW-Appointments to public posts should be strictly in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Eligibility criteria should be uniform and there cannot be scope of arbitrary selections
  • Harjit Singh Vs. Inderpreet Singh @ Inder and Anr – 24/08/2021 - Apex Court does not interfere with Bail order of HC. But, where the discretion of HC to grant bail has been exercised without due application of mind or in contravention of directions of apex Court, granting bail is liable to be set aside.
  • Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors – 19/08/2021 - It is made clear that person is entitled to claim benefit of reservation in either of the successor State of Bihar or State of Jharkhand, but will not be entitled to claim benefit simultaneously
  • Madhav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh-18/08/2021 - It happens at times that the real culprit lodges the first information against known or unknown persons, to misdirect the investigation of an offence
  • North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors-03/08/2021 - The doctors, both under AYUSH and CHS, render service to patients and on this core aspect, there is nothing to distinguish them.
  • Rajinder Goel Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Anr-02/08/2021 - Petition REJECTED under Article 32 of the Constitution and since a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution was available to him for getting remedy
  • Neeraj Garg Vs. Sarita Rani and Ors. Etc-02/08/2021 - Expunging certain observations made against the LAWYER by the learned Judge of the High Court while deciding four cases
  • State of Kerala Vs. K. Ajith & Ors-28/07/21 - CJM declining to grant permission to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution. An application for withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of the CrPC. It is not the duty of this Court, in an application under Section 321 of the CrPC, to adjudicate upon evidentiary issues and examine the admissibility or sufficiency of evidence.
  • Lakshman Singh Vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)-23/07/21 - Production of an injury report for the offence under Section 323 IPC is not a sine qua non for establishing the case for the offence under Section 323 IPC. Section 323 IPC is a punishable section for voluntarily causing hurt. "Hurt" is defined under Section 319 IPC.
  • Indra Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr-23/07/21 - Section 197 of the CrPC seeks to protect an officer from unnecessary harassment, who is accused of an offence committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties and, thus, prohibits the court from taking cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the competent authority.
  • Somesh Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr-22/07/21 - Post Conviction Bail Cancelled-Observed: The courts comprised in the district judiciary are the first point of interface with citizens. If the faith of the citizen in the administration of justice has to be preserved, it is to the district judiciary that attention must be focused as well as the 'higher' judiciary.
  • Union of India Vs. Rajendra N. Shah & Anr-20/07/21 - These appeals raise an important question as to the vires of the Constitution (Ninety Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011 [the "Constitution 97th Amendment Act"] which inter alia introduced Part IXB under the chapter heading 'The Co-operative Societies'.
  • K.P. Natarajan & Anr. Vs. Muthalammal & Ors-16/07/2021 - In a Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”), challenging an order of the trial Court refusing to condone the delay of 862 days
  • Sachin Kashyap & Ors. Vs. Sushil Chandra Srivastava & Ors-15/07/2021 - Writ Petition having been filed for a particular cause and with a particular prayer cannot be expanded to cover within its ambit all the issues which may be of general or public importance without there being any pleadings or prayer with regard to a particular issue.
  • Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Anr-14/07/2021 - The Madras Bar Association has filed this Writ Petition seeking a declaration that Sections 12 and 13 of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 and Sections 184 and 186 (2) of the Finance Act, 2017 as amended by the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 as ultra vires
  • Franklin Templeton Trustee Services Private Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Amruta Garg and Ors. Etc-14/07/2021 - Since the Regulations are in the nature of economic regulations, while exercising the power of judicial review, we would exercise restraint unless clear grounds justify interference. We would not supplant our views for that of the experts as this can put the marketplace into serious jeopardy and cause unintended complications.
  • Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minister & Ors-05/06/2021 - The Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in the public services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 as amended in 2019 granting 12% and 13% reservation for Maratha community in addition to 50% social reservation is not covered by exceptional circumstances as contemplated by Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney's case.
  • Mallappa Vs State of Karnataka-07/05/2021 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Mallappa Vs State of Karnataka Criminal Appeal No. 1993 of 2010 Bench: N.V. Ramana, CJI., Surya Kant, Aniruddha Bose JJ. DATE: 07-05-2021 ACTS: Section 302/ 34 IPC JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. 1. The appellant (Mallappa) was
  • Chief Election Commissioner of India Vs. M.R Vijayabhaskar & Ors-06/05/2021 - we must emphasize the need for judges to exercise caution in off-the-cuff remarks in open court, which may be susceptible to misinterpretation. Language, both on the Bench and in judgments, must comport with judicial propriety. Language is an important instrument of a judicial process which is sensitive to constitutional values. Judicial language is a window to a conscience sensitive to constitutional ethos. Bereft of its understated balance, language risks losing its symbolism as a protector of human dignity.
  • Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors-26/03/2021 - In an appeal under Section 423 of the Companies Act, 2013, this Court is concerned with questions of law arising out of the order of NCLAT. Therefore, we will not decide this prayer. It should be pointed out at this stage that Article 75 of the Articles of Association is nothing but a provision for an exit option (though one may think of it as an expulsion option). After attacking Article 75 before NCLT, the S.P. Group cannot ask this Court to go into the question of fixation of fair value compensation for exercising an exit option.
  • State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Jail Superintendent, Ropar and Ors-26/03/2021 - The Court in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot curtail the fundamental rights of the citizens conferred under the Constitution and pass orders in violation of substantive provisions which are based on fundamental policy principles, yet when a case of the present nature arises, it may issue appropriate directions so that criminal trial is conducted in accordance with law. It is the obligation and duty of this Court to ensure free and fair trial.
  • Lt. Col. Nitisha and Ors. Vs. UOI and Ors-25/03/2021 - Discrimination against women -The pattern of evaluation in Indian Army in case of women, by excluding subsequent achievements of the petitioners and failing to account for the inherent patterns of discrimination that were produced as a consequence of casual grading and skewed incentive structures, has resulted in indirect and systemic discrimination. This discrimination has caused an economic and psychological harm and an affront to their dignity.
  • Naresh Kumar Vs Kalawati and Ors-25/03/2021 - A dying declaration is admissible in evidence under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It alone can also form the basis for conviction if it has been made voluntarily and inspires confidence. If there are contradictions, variations, creating doubts about its truthfulness, affecting its veracity and credibility or if the dying declaration is suspect, or the accused is able to create a doubt not only with regard to the dying declaration but also with regard to the nature and manner of death, the benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the accused. Therefore much shall depend on the facts of a case. There can be no rigid standard or yardstick for acceptance or rejection of a dying declaration.
  • Patricia Mukhim Vs State of Meghalaya- 25/03/2021 - Disapprobation of governmental inaction cannot be branded as an attempt to promote hatred between different communities. Free speech of the citizens of this country cannot be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases, unless such speech has the tendency to affect public order. The sequitur of above analysis of the Facebook post made by the Appellant is that no case is made out against the Appellant for an offence under Section 153 A and 505 (1) (c) IPC.
  • State of Rajasthan and Ors Vs Love kush Meena-24/03/2021 - Whether a benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused in a case charged under Sections 302,323,341/34 of the Indian Penal Code  can create an opportunity for the accused to join as a constable in the Rajasthan Police service-NO- Any Govt circular favouring acquitted accused for job has to be read in the context of the judicial pronouncements that giving benefit of doubt would not entitle candidate for appointment.
  • Charansingh Vs State of Maharashtra and others-24/03/2021 - A GD entry recording the information by the informant disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence can be treated as FIR in a given case and the police has the power and jurisdiction to investigate the same. The appellant has been summoned for a preliminary enquiry only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. If the preliminary enquiry discloses the cognizable offence, then a first information report will be registered against the appellant.
  • A.Subramanian and Anr. Vs. R. Pannerselvam-08/02/2021 - SUIT FOR INJUNCTION-It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the Plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the Defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the Plaintiff. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition laid down by Supreme Court in the above cases. But coming to the facts in the present case the present suit giving rise to this appeal, was not a suit for declaration of title and possession rather the suit was filed for injunction.
  • Boloram Bordoloi Vs Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and Ors-08/02/2021 - it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passes an order on the basis thereof, no further detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment.
  • Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors- 27/11/2020 - Court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while considering the applications for bail since the petitioner is already in Judicial custody. The legislature has provided specific remedy under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for applying for regular bail.
  • Rajesh Dhiman Vs State of Himachal Pradesh-26/10/2020 - Whether bias was caused by complainant also being the investigating officer? Whether alternate version has been established and what is the effect of lack of independent witnesses? Whether High Court erred in reversing acquittal in appeal?
  • Raveen Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh -26/10/2020 - (A) What is the scope and essence of the High Court’s appellate jurisdiction against a judgment of acquittal? (B) What is the extent of reliance upon a document with which the other side was not confronted with during cross­-examination? C) Whether non-examination of independent witnesses vitiates the prosecution case?
  • AMIT SAHNI Vs COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS-07/10/2020 - We have to make it unequivocally clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely. Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone. The present case was not even one of protests taking place in an undesignated area, but was a blockage of a public way which caused grave inconvenience to commuters. We cannot accept the plea of the applicants that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest.
  • Sarika Vs. The Administrator, Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee, Ujjain, MP-1/9/2020 - The original work in the temple is required to be restored. As assured by the Committee, let restoration work be done concerning eyesore painting by 15th December 2020. The Temple Committee is directed to ensure in future not to permit or resort to such painting and covering of the original work, objected by the Expert Committee. Let a report be submitted to this Court in this regard by 15th December 2020.
  • Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi)-31/08/2020 - In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like factor.-Case overruled: Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627 [Complainant can not be Investigator]
  • Vijay Mallya vs.State Bank of India & Ors-31/08/2020 - Though the scope of review was thus limited, we have carefully considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Munim. Those submissions were dealt with and rejected in the judgment under review. In our considered view, the attempt on part of the respondent No.3 to have re-hearing in the matter cannot be permitted nor do the submissions make out any “error apparent on record” to justify interference in review jurisdiction.
  • IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR-31/08/2020 - The Court, from the very beginning, was desirous of giving quietus to this matter. Directly or indirectly, the contemnor was persuaded to end this matter by tendering an apology and save the grace of the institution as well as the individual, who is an officer of the Court. However, for the reasons best known to him he has neither shown regret in spite of our persuasion or the advice of the learned Attorney General. Thus, we have to consider imposing an appropriate sentence upon him.
  • PRANEETH K AND ORS. VS UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS-28/08/2020 - The Guidelines were issued with the object that a uniform academic calendar be followed by all the Universities and final /terminal examinations be held. The State Governments or State Disaster Management Authority in exercise of power under Disaster Management Act, 2005 has no jurisdiction to take a decision that the students of final year/terminal students should be promoted on the basis of earlier year assessment and internal assessment.
  • Rhea Chakraborty vs The State of Bihar & Ors-19/08/2020 - CBI INVESTIGATION-At the stage of investigation, they were not required to transfer the FIR to Mumbai police. For the same reason, the Bihar government was competent to give consent for entrustment of investigation to the CBI and as such the ongoing investigation by the CBI is held to be lawful.
  • Preet Pal Singh vs The State of UP and Ars-14/08/2020 - SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE-In considering an application for suspension of sentence, the Appellate Court is only to examine if there is such patent infirmity in the order of conviction that renders the order of conviction prima facie erroneous. Where there is evidence that has been considered by the Trial Court, it is not open to a Court considering application under Section 389 to re-assess and/or re-analyze the same evidence and take a different view, to suspend the execution of the sentence and release the convict on bail.
  • M. Radha Hari Seshu Vs The State of Telangana-14/08/2020 - Sections 304B, 498A and 302, IPC-we do not wish to go into the merits of the matter at this stage. However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel and other material placed on record and further taking into account that the appellant is in jail since 15th December 2016, we deem it appropriate that it is a fit case to suspend the sentence imposed on the appellant and to enlarge the appellant on bail, pending Criminal Appeal
  • IN RE- PRASHANT BHUSHAN & ANR. …. ALLEGED CONTEMNOR(S)-14/08/2020 - The scurrilous/malicious attacks by the alleged contemnor No.1 are not only against one or two judges but the entire Supreme Court in its functioning of the last six years. Such an attack which tends to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of this Court cannot be ignored. Recently, the Supreme Court in the cases of National Lawyers Campaign for Judical Transparency and Reforms and others vs. Union of India and others15 and Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors (supra) has suo motu taken action against Advocates who had made scandalous allegations against the individual judge/judges. Here the alleged contemnor has attempted to scandalise the entire institution of the Supreme Court.
  • Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRS. & Ors- 09/07/2020 - The words "right to sue" means the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Order VII Rule 11(d) provides that where a suit appears from the averments in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected.
  • Aruna Oswal vs Pankaj Oswal & ors-06/07/2020 - the proceedings before the NCLT filed under sections 241 and 242 of the Act should not be entertained because of the pending civil dispute and considering the minuscule extent of holding of 0.03%, that too, acquired after filing a civil suit in company securities, of respondent no. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in order to maintain the proceedings, the respondent should have waited for the decision of the right, title and interest, in the civil suit concerning shares in question.
  • Reepak Kansal Vs. Secretary-General, Supreme Court of India & Ors 06/07/2020 - Advocates are treated with respect in society. People repose immense faith in the judiciary and judicial system and the first person who deals with them is a lawyer. Litigants repose faith in a lawyer and share with them privileged information. They put their signatures wherever asked by a Lawyer. An advocate is supposed to protect their rights and to ensure that untainted justice delivered to his cause
  • How to compute compensation payable to the dependants of the deceased under MV Act-United India Insurance Vs. Satinder Kaur-30/06/2020 - United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors-U/S. 166/168 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988-The Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors[ (2017) 16 SCC 680]affirmed the view taken in Sarla Verma (supra) and Reshma Kumari (supra), and held that the age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. Another three-judge bench in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud & Ors.[(2019) 5 SCC 554] traced out the law on this issue, and held that the compensation is to be computed based on what the deceased would have contributed to support the dependants.
  • While applying Article 227 Constitution, HC cannot act as Court of Appeal-MD. INAM VS SANJAY KR SINGHAL -26/06/2020 - Art 227 of Constitution of India - It is a well settled principle of law, that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law.
  • State of Rajasthan vs Mehram & Ors-06/05/2020 - QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT-The learned counsel for the accused No. 5 was at pains to persuade us that the said accused is now about 70/­75 years of age and at this distance of time, it may not be appropriate to send him back to jail. Taking overall view of the matter, we are not impressed by this submission. Even in case of offence under Section 326, IPC, which commended to the High Court, the same was punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten years and also liable to fine. Had it been a conviction under Section 326, as aforesaid, the sentence of only about five months in the facts of the present case, by no stretch of imagination, was adequate.
  • Triloki Nath Singh vs Anirudh Singh (d) Thr. Lrs & Ors-06/05/2020 - Whether the decree passed on a compromise can be challenged by the stranger to the proceedings in a separate suit? The appellant could file a suit for protection of his right, title or interest devolved on the basis of the stated sale deed dated 6th January, 1984, allegedly executed by one of the party (Sampatiya) to the proceedings in the partition suit, which could be examined independently by the Court on its own merits in accordance with law.
  • Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi-iii vs M/S. Uni Products India Ltd-01/05/2020 - The common parlance test”, “marketability test”, “popular meaning test” are all tools for interpretation to arrive at a decision on proper classification of a tariff entry. These tests, however, would be required to be applied if a particular tariff entry is capable of being classified in more than one heads.
  • Bhagwat Sharan (Dead Thr. Lrs.) vs Purushottam & Ors-03/04/2020 - Hindu Undivided Family-It is held that where one of the coparceners separated himself from other members of the joint family there was no presumption that the rest of coparceners continued to constitute a joint family. However, it is also held that at the same time there is no presumption that because one member of the family has separated, the rest of the family is no longer a joint family.
  • NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD. VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF  INCOME TAX-03/04/2020 - INCOME TAX-whether the revenue has sufficient reasons to believe that undisclosed income of the asseessee has escaped assessment and therefore there are grounds to issue notice. An assessing officer can only re­open an assessment if he has ‘reason to believe’ that undisclosed income has escaped assessment. Mere change of opinion of the assessing officer is not a sufficient to meet the standard of ‘reason to believe’.
  • RAJA @ AYYAPPAN VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU-01/04/2020 - Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates that to make the confession of a co­accused admissible in evidence, there has to be a joint trial. If there is no joint trial, the confession of a co­ accused is not at all admissible in evidence and, therefore, the same cannot be taken as evidence against the other co­accused.
  • M. SUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHER  VS S. JANAKI AND ANOTHER- 20/03/2020 - FARE INVESTIGATION-Section 156(3) CrPC is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police.
  • PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA  Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI -20/03/2020 - When the power is vested in the very high contitutional authority, it must be presumed that the said authority had acted carefully after considering all the aspects of the matter. It cannot be said that His Excellency the President of India did not consider the mercy petition with open mind filed by the petitioner Pawan Kumar Gupta.
  • DHANPAT  VERSUS SHEO RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS-19/03/2020 - WILL-it is the overall assessment of the Court on the basis of the unusual features appearing in the Will or the unnatural circumstances surrounding its execution, that justifies a close scrutiny of the same before it can be accepted.
  • BENEDICT DENIS KINNY  VS TULIP BRIAN MIRANDA & ORS-19/03/2020 - ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION-When a citizen has right to judicial review against any decision of statutory authority, the High Court in exercise of judicial review had every jurisdiction to maintain the status quo so as to by lapse of time, the petition may not be infructuous.
  • RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR VS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(ASSESSMENT) & ANR-19/03/2020 - INCOME TAX-while interpreting a Tax Legislature the consequences and hardship are not looked into but the purpose and object by which taxing statutes have been enacted cannot be lost sight.
  • AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH  VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS-19/03/2020 - The consistent view taken by this Court that the exercise of power of judicial review of the decision taken by His Excellency the President of India in Mercy Petition is very limited.Keeping in view the above principles, when we considered the grounds raised by the petitioner, we do not find any ground to hold that there was non-application of mind by the President of India. Insofar as the alleged torture of the petitioner in the prison, as we have held in earlier Writ Petition (criminal) Diary No. 3334 of 2020, the alleged torture in the prison cannot be a ground for review of the order of rejection of the Mercy Petition by the President of India.
  • MUKESH VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI-19/03/2020 - NIRBHYA DEATH ROW ACCUSED-In this writ petition, the petitioner has raised the points on merits of the matter:- (i) That there was no proper consideration of evidence; (ii) regarding the disability of Ram Singh (accused no.1) who subsequently allegedly committed suicide in the prison; and (iii) raising doubts about the arrest of the petitioner at Karoli, Rajasthan.
  • TULSA DEVI NIROLA AND OTHERS VS RADHA NIROLA AND OTHERS-04/03/2020 - Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925-The family pension did not constitute a part of the estate of the deceased.The right to family pension in more than one wife being conditional in nature and not absolute, in view of nomination in favour of respondent no.1 alone, appellant no 1 in the facts of the case can also be said to have waived her statutory right to pension in lieu of benefits received by her under the settlement deed.
  • CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER  VS HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND-04/03/2020 - If The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating a third party to have access to the information/obtaining the certified copies of the documents or orders requires to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information, is not inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act;
  • NIRMALA KOTHARI VS UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD-04/03/2020 - Section Section 149(2)(a)(ii) -While hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise.
  • INTERNET AND MOBILE ASSOCIATION OF INDIA Vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA-04/03/2020 - Crypto Currency-The petitioner in the first writ petition is a specialized industry body known as ‘Internet and Mobile Association of India’ which represents the interests of online and digital services industry. The petitioners in the second writ petition comprise of a few companies which run online crypto assets exchange platforms, the shareholders/founders of these companies and a few individual crypto assets traders.
  • K. Virupaksha & Anr. Vs The State of Karnataka & Anr-03/02/2020  - Criminal Complaint in connection with SARFAESI- DRT Act-Complainant filed the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The said complaint being taken on record, the learned Magistrate has referred the same for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and to submit a report. Based on such direction an FIR was registered.
  • DILIP SHAW @ SANATAN & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS-02/03/2020 - Common object-The fact that there was short time gap and little deviation in describing the exact place of occurrence by themselves cannot detach the involvement of the persons who had hurled the bombs from rest of the accused persons altogether, who were part of the same group. They were harbouring common object, which fact emerges from various factors including having assembled therewith weapons of assault and their participation in the acts of assault. These weapons were capable of causing death. The act of hurling bombs was in very close proximity in time to the act of assault on Sarban.
  • Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah Versus State of Gujarat & Ors-02/03/2020 - Criminal-Whether the appellant-one of the co-accused against whom the charge-sheet is already filed and against whom the trial is in progress, is required to be heard and/or has any locus in the proceedings under Section 173(8) CrPC – further investigation qua one another accused namely Shri Bhaumik against whom no charge-sheet has been filed till date?
  • UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT- 02/03/2020 - A guarantor or a mortgagor, who has mortgaged its property to secure the repayment of the loan, stands on the same footing as a borrower and if he wants to file an appeal, he must comply with the terms of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
  • DR. SHAH FAESAL AND ORS.  VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR- 02/03/2020 - Supreme Court is of the opinion that there is no conflict between the judgments in the Prem Nath Kaul case (supra) and the Sampat Prakash case (supra). The plea of the counsel to refer the present matter to a larger Bench on this ground is therefore rejected
  • Agra Diocesan Trust Association Vs. Anil David and Ors-19/02/2020 - Concept of "market value" - a wider concept in other contexts, was deemed to be referrable to one or other modes of determining the value under sub clauses (v), (va) or (vb) of Section 7 (iv-A).
  • Sri-Renganathaswamy Vs. P.K. Thoppulan Chettiar- 19/02/2020 - Specific endowment-The Deed of Settlement must be examined as a whole to determine the true intention of the settlor. Where the settlor seeks to divest himself of the property entirely for a religious purpose, a public religious charity is created.
  • Suresh Chand and Anr. Vs. Suresh Chander (D) through LRS. and Ors- 19/02/2020 - Second appeal- Pre-emption-whether a right of pre-emption was available to Beni Prasad who is alleged to be a joint owner in possession of the disputed courtyard. This has arisen in the context of the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act 1961.
  • Gelus Ram Sahu and others Vs. Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh and others-18/02/2020 - It is the well-settled legal position that an amendment can be considered to be declaratory and clarificatory only if the statute itself expressly and unequivocally states that it is a declaratory and clarificatory provision. If there is no such clear statement in the statute itself, the amendment will not be considered to be merely declaratory or clarificatory.
  • Soumitra Kumar Nahar Vs. Parul Nahar-18/02/2020 - While deciding the welfare of the child, it is not the view of one spouse alone which has to be taken into consideration. The Courts should decide the issue of custody on a paramount consideration which is in the best interest of the child who is the victim in the custody battle.
  • APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD VS SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS & ORS- 14/2/2020 - Section 138 of the N.I-It appears that both, the Learned Trial Court as well as the High Court, have committed error in shifting the burden upon the complainant to prove the debt or liability, without appreciating the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act.
  • SANTOSH PRASAD @ SANTOSH KUMAR VS THE STATE OF BIHAR-14/2/2020 - Sections 376 and 450 of the IPC-It cannot be disputed that there can be a conviction solely based on the evidence of the prosecutrix. However, the evidence must be reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, now let us examine the evidence of the prosecutrix and consider whether in the facts and circumstances of the case is it safe to convict the accused solely based on the deposition of the prosecutrix, more particularly when neither the medical report/evidence supports nor other witnesses support and it has come on record that there was an enmity between both the parties.
  • Chandigarh Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.  Versus State of Punjab & Anr-14/2/2020 - Arbitration Award-an Award can neither be remitted nor set aside merely on the ground that it does not contain reasons in support of the conclusion or decision reached in it except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission requires it to give reasons. In that light the learned advocate would point out that in the instant case the agreement between the parties would require that the learned Arbitrator has to assign reasons for the Award and when such requirement is stipulated the Award passed without reasons would not be sustainable being contrary to the explicit requirement in the contract between the parties.
  • VINAY SHARMA  Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS-14/2/2020  - Nirbhaya’s case-Vinay Sharma – a death-row convict-we do not find any ground for exercise of judicial review of the order of the President of India rejecting the petitioner’s mercy petition and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
  • Om Prakash Vs. Suresh Kumar-30/01/2020 - The principal argument of the appellant is that the statement made by his counsel before the High Court was not binding on him, as it was made without his instructions.We hasten to add neither the client nor the court is bound by the lawyer's statements or admissions as to matters of law or legal conclusions. Thus, according to generally accepted notions of professional responsibility, lawyers should follow the client's instructions rather than substitute their judgment for that of the client. We may add that in some cases, lawyers can make decisions without consulting the client.
  • State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr Vs. Madhya Pradesh Transport Workers Federation-29/01/2020 - The Labour Bar Association, Satna and M.P. Transport Workers Federation sought to assail the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Labour Laws (Amendment) and Misc. Provisions Act, 2002 (for short 'the Amendment') enforced by Notification dated 5.8.2005 as ultra vires the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution-VIRES TESTE PASSED
  • SHRIPAL BHATI & ANR. VS STATE OF U.P. & ORS- 29/1/2020 - Locus standi to maintain writ petition-Unless injury is suffered personally a person can not be said to be aggrieved and has no locus standi.
  • MOHANDAS AND OTHERS  VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS -29/1/2020 - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966-This is a case where the Municipal Council, which is the Authority, which must make available the funds for the acquisition of the property, is in dire financial straits and is unable to finance the acquisition.
  • Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and another – 29/1/2020 - Anticipatory Bail-An order of anticipatory bail should not be “blanket” in the sense that it should not enable the accused to commit further offences and claim relief of indefinite protection from arrest. It should be confined to the offence or incident, for which apprehension of arrest is sought, in relation to a specific incident. It cannot operate in respect of a future incident that involves commission of an offence.
  • Jasmeet Kaur Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr-12/12/ 2019 - It was evident from the conduct of the parties that they had abandoned their domicile of origin i.e. India, had set up their matrimonial home in the U.S. and raised their daughter in that environment. When the Petitioner - wife decided not to return to the U.S. in January, 2016 she acted in her self-interest, and not in the best interest of her children.
  • Saeeda Khatoon Arshi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr-10/12/2019 - A protest petition had not been filed by the appellant when the report was submitted under Section 173 did not render the court powerless to exercise its powers under Section 319 on the basis of the evidence which had emerged during the course of the trial.
  • State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Sudarshana Chatterjee-10/12/2019 - Summoning of officers to the court-The High Court, in our view, was not right in directing the Principal Secretary to appear in the court and explain the reason for passing the order dated 04.01.2019. Observing that merely because an order has been passed by the officer, it does not warrant the personal presence of the officer in the Court and summoning of officers to the Court and eventually affect the public at large
  • Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dafadar Kartar Singh & Anr- 9/12/2019 - Summary Court Martial-The judgments of acquittal may be reversed or otherwise disturbed only for very substantial and compelling reasons. Very substantial and compelling reasons exist when the trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/ report of the ballistic expert, etc.
  • ONGC LTD. & ORS. Vs CONSUMER EDUCATION RESEARCH SOCIETY & ORS- 09/12/2019 - Consumer- whether any amount is being paid by the employees for contribution to the services rendered by the Trust, it is apparent that the service, if any, is being rendered by the Trust and not by the ONGC. Therefore, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the claimants and the ONGC.
  • THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Vs PHULPARI KUMARI- 06/12/2019 - Departmental Inquiry : It is settled law that interference with the orders passed pursuant to a departmental inquiry can be only in case of ‘no evidence’. Sufficiency of evidence is not within the realm of judicial review.
  • Station House Officer CBI/ACB/Bangalore vs. B.A. Srinivasan – 05/12/2019 - Sanction u/s Section 197 CrPC when not required- From a perusal of the case law referred to supra, it becomes clear that for the purpose of obtaining previous sanction from the appropriate Government under Section 197 CrPC, it is imperative that the alleged offence is committed in discharge of official duty by the accused.
  • State of NCT of Delhi Vs Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors – 05/12/2019 - Order of Discharge-Sections 120B, 302, 201 r.w. S.34 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act- In the present case, on account of the inconsistency in framing charges by the Sessions Court against the six accused, the trial has got truncated. The trial with respect to three accused i.e. Sachin Bansal, Narendra Mann, and the alleged contract killer – Joginder Singh Sodhi has proceeded in the absence of the other three accused viz. Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann and Shailendra Singh.
  • Mahipal Vs Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr-05/12/2019 - Cancellation of Bail -Where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind which may require the intervention of this Court. Where an earlier application for bail has been rejected, there is a higher burden on the appellate court to furnish specific reasons as to why bail should be granted.
  • BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs Sh. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma & Anr-05/12/2019 - Pension Denied: Even if the first respondent had served twenty years, under Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules his past service stands forfeited upon resignation. The first respondent is therefore not entitled to pensionary benefits.
  • STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. VS MANJU NAIK- 04/12/2019 - Statutory Interpretation:a particular provision of the statute should be construed with reference to other provisions of the same statute so as to construe the enactment as a whole. It would also be necessary to avoid an interpretation which will involve conflict with two provisions of the same statute and effort should be made for harmonious construction. In other words, the provision of a Rule cannot be used to defeat another Rule unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation between them.
  • P.Chidambaram Vs Directorate of Enforcement – 4/12/2019 - The instant appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 15.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application No.2718 of 2019 impugned herein is set aside; The appellant is ordered to be released on bail if he is not required in any other case, subject to executing bail bonds for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs with two sureties of the like sum produced to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge; The passport ordered to be deposited by this Court in the CBI case shall remain in deposit and the appellant shall not leave the country without specific orders to be passed by the learned Special Judge. The appellant shall make himself available for interrogation in the course of further investigation as and when required by the respondent. The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to intimidate or influence the witnesses;
  • BHAWNA BAI VS GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS- 03/12/2019 - For framing the charges under Section 228 Crl.P.C., the judge is not required to record detailed reasons. As pointed out earlier, at the stage of framing the charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case is to be seen.
  • P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep Versus State of Kerala and Anr. – 29/11/2019 - Whether the contents of the memory card/pen­drive submitted to the Court alongwith the police report can be treated as “document” as such.
  • JAI PRAKASH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH  AND OTHERS-28/11/2019 - Murder Conviction-Sections 302 IPC and 120-B IPC-The duty of the appellate court is to consider and appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution and arrive at an independent conclusion. Like the trial court, the appellate court also must be satisfied of its conclusion.
  • THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS VS PRANJAL KUMAR SARMA & ORS 28/11/2019 - Selection process-the norms existing on the date when the process of selection begins, will control the selection and the alteration to the norms would not affect the ongoing process unless the new Rules are to be given retrospective effect.
  • KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VS B. HEERA NAIK & ORS. ETC- 26/11/2019 - Criminal-Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974- whether Commissioner of City Municipal Council and Chief Officers of City Municipal Council can be prosecuted under Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1974”).
  • Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd-26/11/2019 - ARBITRATION-In exercise of the power conferred by Section 11(6) of the Act, we appoint Dr. Justice A.K. Sikri, former Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator to decide all the disputes arising out of the Agreement dated 22.05.2017, between the parties, subject to the mandatory declaration made under the amended Section 12 of the Act with respect to independence and impartiality and the ability to devote sufficient time to complete the arbitration within the period as per Section 29A of the Act.
  • Chaitu Lal Vs. State of Uttarakhand-20/11/2019 - RAPE-The attempt to commit an offence begins when the accused commences to do an act with the necessary intention. In the present case, the accused appellant pounced upon the complainant victim, sat upon her and lifted her petticoat while the complainant victim protested against his advancements and wept.
  • State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Killu @ Kailash and Ors- 19/11/2019 - MURDER: Merely because the other three accused persons i.e. the present respondents had not used their weapons does not absolve them of the responsibility and vicarious liability on which the very idea of charge under Section 149 IPC is founded.
  • Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) Vs. Abhilash Lal & Ors-15/11/2019 - STATUTORY INTERPRETATION-if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all, articulated in Nazir Ahmad v. Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253, has found widespread acceptance.
  • Manju Puri Vs. Rajiv Singh Hanspal & Ors-14/11/2019 - Revocation of probate-even though learned Single Judge had discretion to issue citation or not but in the facts of the present case a citation ought to have been issued in exercise of discretion conferred under Section 283 of the Succession Act and the probate granted without issuance of such citation in the facts of the present case deserves to be revoked and learned Single Judge and the Division Bench committed error in rejecting the application for revocation filed by the appellant.
  • Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Vs. M/s. Krishna Wax Pvt. Ltd-14/11/2019 - Writ in Excise Matter-It has been laid down by this Court that the excise law is a complete code in itself and it would normally not be appropriate for a Writ Court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the concerned person must first raise all the objections before the authority who had issued a show cause notice and the redressal in terms of the existing provisions of the law could be taken resort to if an adverse order was passed against such person.
  • Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director & ANR-14/11/2019 - REVIEW: The common judgment in four Writ Petitions has generated three Review Petitions, a Contempt Petition and a Petition under Section 340 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and an application seeking correction.
  • Ravi S/o. Ashok Ghumare Vs. State of Maharashtra – 03/10/2019 - MURDER- DEATH SENTENCE CONFIRMED-the victim was barely a two-year old baby whom the appellant kidnapped and apparently kept on assaulting over 4-5 hours till she breathed her last. The appellant who had no control over his carnal desires surpassed all natural, social and legal limits just to satiate his sexual hunger. He ruthlessly finished a life which was yet to bloom. The appellant instead of showing fatherly love, affection and protection to the child against the evils of the society, rather made her the victim of lust.
  • Smt. Kasturibai Sukharam Khandelwal Trust Vs. Indore Development Authority & Ors-03/10/2019 - In the ordinary course of business, there was no justification for the authority to consider the application of the 2nd respondent which was not in due compliance and in terms of the advertisement in reference to which the applications were invited.
  • Union of India Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors-01/10/2019 - Atrocities Act -There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. Arrest of a public servant can only be after approval of the appointing authority and of a nonpublic servant after approval by the S.S.P. To avoid false implication of an innocent, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted by the DSP.
  • Sudam @ Rahul Kaniram Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra-01/10/2019 - The review petitions are allowed to the extent that the sentence of death awarded to the Petitioner is commuted to imprisonment for the remainder of his life sans any right to remission.
  • K.H. Nazar Vs. Mathew K. Jacob & Ors -30/09/2019 - Statutory Interpretation- Beneficial Legislation-Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of ‘bread and butter’ statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions
  • Indusind Media & Communications Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi-27/09/2019 - CUSTOM-The basic principle of levy of customs duty, in view of the aforementioned provisions, is that the value of the imported goods has to be determined at the time and place of importation. The value to be determined for the imported goods would be the payment required to be made as a condition of sale. Assessment of customs duty must have a direct nexus with the value of goods which was payable at the time of importation.
  • Guru @ Gurubaran & Ors. Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police 27/09/2019 - Section 302, Indian Penal Code -the accused can only be held guilty of having committed the offence under Section 324 IPC. He has already undergone imprisonment for around 11 years and, therefore, his conviction under Section 302 IPC is altered to Section 324 IPC and the sentence is reduced to the period of incarceration already undergone.
  • Md. Abrar Vs. Meghalaya Board of Wakf & ANR-26/09/2019 - WAKF- in order to establish a claim of hereditary succession to mutawalliship, the intention of the waqif, as manifested either through the directions given in the waqf deed or the creation of a custom, is of paramount importance
  • Leeladhar (D) through LRS. Vs. Vijay Kumar (D) through LRS-26/09/2019 - Specific performance of the contract-The agreement was an agreement to sell and after entering into the agreement to sell, Appellant received the full sale consideration and handed over the possession to Respondent, the question of exercising any discretionary favour to the appellant does not arise.
  • Central Bureau of Investigation etc. Vs. Mrs. Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal & ANR. etc 25/09/2019 - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION-The absence of sanction no doubt can be agitated at the threshold but the invalidity of the sanction is to be raised during the trial. In the instant facts, admittedly there is a sanction though the accused seek to pick holes in the manner the sanction has been granted and to claim that the same is defective which is a matter to be considered in the trial.
  • Jignesh Shah & ANR. Vs. Union of India & ANR-25/09/2019 - A winding up proceeding is a proceeding 'in rem' and not a recovery proceeding
  • Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel & Ors. Vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai-23/09/2019 - In the absence of any evidence of any forgery or fabrication and in the absence of specific denial of the execution of the gift deed, the Donee was under no obligation to examine one of the attesting witnesses of the gift deed.
  • M/s. Canara Nidhi Ltd. Vs. M. Shashikala and Others-23/09/2019 - Issues need not be struck at the stage of hearing a Section 34 application, which is a summary procedure
  • D. Sasi Kumar Vs. Soundararajan-23/09/2019 - If as on the date of filing the petition the requirement subsists and it is proved, the same would be sufficient irrespective of the time-lapse in the judicial process coming to an end.
  • Vasant Ganpat Padave (D) by LRS. & Ors. Vs. Anant Mahadev Sawant (D) through LRS. & Ors-18/09/2019 - Statutory Interpretation: Where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature, the Court might modify the language used by the Legislature so as to achieve the
  • Karuppanna Gounder Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police – 17/09/2019 - Accused acquitted : The question is whether the death of the deceased could be attributed to the injury caused by the appellant A1. The appellant is alleged to have used the Sammatti (hammer) and he gave a blow at the
  • Ritu Saxena Vs. J.S. Grover & ANR-17/09/2019 - Any self-serving statements without any proof of financial resources cannot be relied upon to return a finding that the appellant was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Non-production of any income tax record or the bank
  • State of Odisha & Another Vs. Anup Kumar Senapati & Another-16/09/2019 - It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect.
  • Jose Paulo Coutinho Vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira & ANR- 13/09/2019 - Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 as applicable in the State of Goa, which shall govern the rights of succession and inheritance even in respect of properties of a Goan domicile situated outside Goa, anywhere in India
  • K. Arjun Das Vs. Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa & Ors-17/9/2019 - The deity cannot be divested of any title or rights of immovable property in violation of the statutory provisions and this fact cannot be ruled out that the property belonging to the deity must fetch the best possible price..
  • Ganpati Babji Alamwar (D) by LRS. Ramlu and Others Vs. Digambarrao Venkatrao Bhadke and Others- 12/09/2019 - Mortgage by conditional sale-There must exist a debtor and creditor relationship. The valuation of the property, and the transaction value, along with the duration of time for reconveyance, are important considerations to decide the nature of the agreement.
  • Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal Vs. Central Bank of India & ANR-11/09/2019 - Section 13 (13) SARFAESI Act-
  • Fr. Issac Mattammel Cor-Episcopa Vs. St. Mary’s Orthodox Syrian Church & Ors.- 6/09/2019 - Malankara Church is episcopal in character to the extent it is so declared in the 1934 Constitution. The 1934 Constitution fully governs the affairs of the parish churches and shall prevail.
  • Dr. Ashwani Kumar Vs. Union of India and Another – 5/09/2019 - The right to life with dignity under Article 21, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Central Government to enact a suitable stand-alone, comprehensive legislation against custodial torture as it has directed in the case of mob violence/lynching vide its judgment 17th July 2018.
  • P. CHIDAMBARAM VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT – 5/9/2019 - Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation.
  • Assam Public Works Vs. Union of India & Ors. 13/08/ 2019 - The entire NRC exercise having been performed and the same cannot be now ordered to be reopened by initiation of a fresh exercise on certain other parameters that have been suggested on behalf of the intervenors/applicants on the strength of the provisions of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act.
  • Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal – 13/08/2019 - Income Tax Act - According to Section 292BB of the Act, if the assessee had participated in the proceedings, by way of legal fiction, notice would be deemed to be valid even if there be infractions as detailed in said Section.
  • Munawwar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh-16/07/19 - Murder and kidnapping of a seven-year old-The identity of the kidnappers been established. There is direct evidence in the form of ocular testimonies, which establish accused persons had kidnapped and had held the victim in captivity. Further, there was no
  • Dr. S. Kumar & Ors. Vs. S. Ramalingam-16/07/19 - Section 41 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882-Easement of necessity-The argument that right of easement stands extinguished once the easement of necessity comes to an end is not applicable if the rights of the parties arise out of a sale deed and the rights of the parties have to be adjudicated upon as they exist on the date of filing of the suit. The subsequent events of inheritance vesting the property in the same person will not take away the easement right. The appellants have been granted right to use passage in the sale deed.
  • STATE OF RAJASTHAN  VS MAHESH KUMAR @ MAHESH DHAULPURIA & ANR- 16/7/2019 - In the cases of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a complete chain of evidence as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused and none else.
  • Sita Ram Vs. State of NCT of Delhi – 09/07/19 - Sections 302 and 323 read with 34 of the I.P.C.- the occurrence was without premeditation and sudden fight between the parties started in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. The occurrence happened when deceased as his way back home questioned the accused as to his conduct of tapping electricity from the pole. He was not pre-armed and other accused were also not pre-armed. Though, deceased has sustained as many as nine injuries, except injury no(s).1 to 3 which are the injuries caused on the head and all other injuries are on the hand, shoulder, arms etc. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by deceased, it cannot be said that the accused and other accused have taken undue advantage of deceased in attacking him. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. deserves to be modified under Section 304 Part II I.P.C.
  • Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors – 08/07/19 -  Army Act 1950-The requirement of recording reasons for convening a Summary Court Martial shall apply from 5 July 2016. However, the fundamental principle of law which has been enunciated is that the power to order an SCM is a drastic power which must be exercised in a situation where it is absolutely imperative that immediate action is necessary.
  • Central Bureau of Investigation & ANR. Vs. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum Etc-05/07/19 - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION-the provisions of Article 32 do not specifically indicate who can move the court. In the absence of such a provision in that respect, it is plain that the petitioner may be anyone in whom the law has conferred power to maintain an action of such nature. It is open to anybody who is interested in the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for relief.
  • The Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Ispat Khandan Janta Mazdoor Union-05/07/19 - where the contract was to supply of labour and necessary labour was supplied by the contractor who worked under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer, that in itself will not in any manner construe the contract entered between the contractor and contract labour to be sham and bogus per se.
  • Ramesh Dasu Chauhan and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra-04/07/19 - Evidence Act-There is no gainsaying that confession made to a police officer cannot be proved as against a person accused of any offence and no confession made by a person while in police custody except made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, can be proved against him in view of embargo created by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Section 27 of the Act nevertheless carves out an exception as it provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence while he is in police custody, "so much of such information", regardless of it being a confession or not, may be proved, if it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.
  • Sopanrao & ANR. Vs. Syed Mehmood & Ors-03/07/19 - CIVIL SUIT-The limitation for filing a suit for possession on the basis of title is 12 years . Merely because one of the reliefs sought is of declaration that will not mean that the outer limitation of 12 years is lost. In a suit filed for possession based on title the plaintiff is bound to prove his title and pray for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit land because his suit on the basis of title cannot succeed unless he is held to have some title over the land.
  • M/s. Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors-02/07/19 - A contract is interpreted according to its purpose. The purpose of a contract is the interests, objectives, values, policy that the contract is designed to actualise. It comprises the joint intent of the parties. Every such contract expresses the autonomy of the contractual parties' private will. It creates reasonable, legally protected expectations between the parties and reliance on its results. Consistent with  the character of purposive interpretation, the court is required to determine the ultimate purpose of a contract primarily by the joint intent of the parties at the time of the contract so formed. It is not the intent of a single party; it is the joint intent of both the parties and the joint intent of the parties is to be discovered from the entirety of the contract and the circumstances surrounding its formation.
  • Dalbir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors-02/07/19 - Summary General Court Martial-In service matters the past conduct, both positive and negative will be relevant not only while referring to the misconduct but also in deciding the proportionality of the punishment, the Court should be cautious while considering the case of an officer/soldier/employee of a disciplined force and the same yardstick or sympathetic consideration as in other cases cannot be applied. The resources of the country are spent on training a soldier to retaliate and fight when the integrity of the nation is threatened and there is aggression. In such grave situation if a soldier turns his back to the challenge, it will certainly amount to cowardice.
  • Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Reynders Label Printing India Pvt. Ltd. and ANR-01/07/19 - Sections 11(5), 11(9) and 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-Domestic commercial arbitration-That agreement is only between the applicant and respondent No.1 and as a result thereof, it would give rise to a domestic commercial arbitration and not an international commercial arbitration. Respondent No.1 has also made it amply clear through its counsel that it will have no objection, whatsoever, if the Court were to appoint a sole arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the applicant and respondent No.1, who would conduct the arbitration proceedings in accordance with the Act, in Delhi, as a domestic commercial arbitration between the applicant and respondent No.1 alone.
  • Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & ANR-01/07/19 - Criminal-Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967-The special Judge in his order has neither referred to Section 309 nor Section 167 under which accused was remanded. When the Court has power to pass a particular order, non-mention of provision of law or wrong mention of provision of law is inconsequential.
  • Madhav Prasad Aggarwal & ANR. Vs. Axis Bank Ltd. & ANR-01/07/19 - Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code -A plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all. The Court held that it is not permissible to reject plaint qua any particular portion of a plaint
  • Parminder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors – 01/07/19 - Motor Accident Claim-functional disability at 100% -loss of earning capacity- The Appellant is entitled to the following amounts: i) Rs. 32,40,000/to be awarded towards loss of future earnings by taking the income of the Appellant at Rs. 10,000/p. m., and granting Future Prospects @50%; ii) Rs. 7,50,000/to be awarded towards repeated hospitalizations and medical expenses for undergoing surgeries and medical treatment; iii) Rs. 10,00,000/to be awarded towards future medical expenses and attendant charges; iv) Interest @ 9% awarded by the High Court from the date of the Claim Petition, till the date of recovery to be maintained. And If the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving license, the principle of 'pay and recover' can be ordered to direct the insurance company to the pay the victim, and then recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount from the owners and drivers of the two offending trucks.
  • Hari Sankaran Vs. Union of India & Others – 04/06/19 - Section 130(1) & (2) read with sections 211/212 and Sections 241/242 of the Companies Act, 2013- Report of the RBI Report can be taken note of, while upholding the order passed by the learned Tribunal under Section 130 of the Companies Act. As a larger public interest has been involved and reopening of the books of accounts and recasting of financial statements of the aforesaid companies is required to be carried out in the larger public interest, to find out the real truth, and the conditions precedent while invoking power under Section 130 of the Companies Act are satisfied/complied with, therefore order passed by the learned Tribunal passed under Section 130 of the Companies Act, confirmed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, is not required to be interfered with.
  • Kamlakar Vs. State of Maharashtra-31/05/19 - Section 302 & Section 147, 148 of Indian Penal Code- Supreme Court not interfered when having reappreciated the evidence to the extent it is required and a detailed perusal of the judgment passed by the Sessions Court as also the High Court would indicate that both the Courts have adverted to the evidence in detail and have ultimately arrived at the conclusion and when the concurrent judgment based upon the evidence have found the appellant to be guilty of the charge alleged against him in committing the murder and had convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
  • State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kalicharan & Ors-31/05/19 - Section 302/149 of the IPC & Section 304 Part II of the IPC- it was a case of free fight,  the weapon used by the accused was Farsa and he caused the injury on the vital part of the body i.e. head which proved to be fatal and again the evidence on record, more particularly, the medical evidence and the manner in which the incident took place, the accused should have been held guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part I and not 304 Part II of the IPC.
  • Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and Others Vs. Virender Gandhi-29/05/19 - Section 138 /148 Read with section 143A of the N.I. Act-Whether the first appellate court is justified in directing the appellants - original accused who have been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation/fine imposed by the learned trial Court, pending appeals challenging the order of conviction and sentence and while suspending the sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., considering Section 148 of the N.I. Act as amended? Held yes.
  • Parsa Kente Collieries Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd- 27/05/19 - ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996- Arbitral tribunal must decide in accordance with the terms of the contract, but if an arbitrator construes a term of the contract in a reasonable manner, it will not mean that the award can be set aside on this ground. It is further observed and held that construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an arbitrator to decide unless the arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that it could be said to be something that no fair minded or reasonable person could do.
  • Guman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan – 24/5/2019 - A witness can be graded as reliable, unreliable, neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and consequences shall be followed accordingly
  • Pramod Kumar & ANR. Vs. Zalak Singh & Ors- 10/5/2019 - ORDER II RULE 2 - CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA-It is undoubtedly true that the law does not compel a litigant to combine one or more causes of action in a suit. It is open to a plaintiff, if he so wishes, however to combine more than one cause of action against same parties in one suit.
  • Power Grid Corporation of India Vs. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Company Ltd – 09/05/19 - Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act 1998 - present dispute arises with respect to tariff charged between 01.04.2001 and 31.03.2004 on account of FERV calculation and apportionment. Any variation in the apportionment of FERV now, for the abovementioned period, will consequently be passed on to the consumers. This will be unfair to the consumers who were not consumers for the abovementioned period but will eventually bear the brunt of transactions which took place 15-18 years ago.
  • Birendra Prasad Sah Vs. State of Bihar & ANR – 08/05/19 - Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881-Issuance of successive notices is permissible under the provisions of Section 138-Condonation of Delay-The CJM condoned the delay on the cause which was shown by the appellant and it is evident that the appellant had indicated sufficient cause for seeking condonation of the delay in the institution of the complaint. 
  • Hemareddi (D) through LRS. Vs. Ramachandra Yallappa Hosmani and Ors – 07/05/19 - ABATEMENT OF SUIT- Death of a party during the currency of a litigation -The impact of death of the late brother of the appellant qua the proceeding is one arising out of the incompatibility of a decree which has become final with the decree which the appellant invites the appellate court to pass.
  • State represented by Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. M. Subrahmanyam – 07/05/19 - Section 173(2)(5)(a), Cr.P.C- The failure to bring the authorisation on record, as observed, was more a matter of procedure, which is but a handmaid of justice. Substantive justice must always prevail over procedural or technical justice. To hold that failure to explain delay in a procedural matter would operate as res judicata will be a travesty of justice considering that the present is a matter relating to corruption in public life by holder of a public post. The rights of an accused are undoubtedly important, but so is the rule of law and societal interest in ensuring that an alleged offender be subjected to the laws of the land in the larger public interest. To put the rights of an accused at a higher pedestal and to make the rule of law and societal interest in prevention of crime, subservient to the same cannot be considered as dispensation of justice. A balance therefore has to be struck. A procedural lapse cannot be placed at par with what is or may be substantive violation of the law.
  • Sasikala Pushpa and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu – 07/05/19 - Forging Vakalatnama-A Vakalatnama is only a document which authorizes an advocate to appear on behalf of the party and by and large, it has no bearing on the merits of the case. Before proceeding to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the court must satisfy itself that "it is expedient in the interest of justice". The language in Section 340 Cr.P.C. shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case.
  • Rafiq Qureshi Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau Eastern Zonal Unit – 07/05/19 - NDPS-Section 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-where Court imposes a punishment higher than minimum relying on an irrelevant factor and no other factor as enumerated in Section 32B(a to f) are present award of sentence higher than minimum can be interfered with.
  • Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh Vs. State of Gujarat – 07/05/19 - Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC- Life imprisonment converted into acquittal by giving benefit of doubt-Supreme Court would be slow to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. In an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse (vide Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 11 SCC 141). Where the appreciation of evidence is erroneous, the Supreme Court would certainly appreciate the evidence.
  • Tejaswini Gaud and Others Vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and Others – 06/05/19 - Custody of the Child given to the father - Writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative process for securing the liberty of the subject by affording an effective means of immediate release from an illegal or improper detention. The writ also extends its influence to restore the custody of a minor to his guardian when wrongfully deprived of it. The detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody is treated as equivalent to illegal detention for the purpose of granting writ, directing custody of the minor child.
  • Jiten K. Ajmera & ANR. Vs. M/s. Tejas Cooperative Housing Society – 06/05/19 - Consumer Complaint - Additional evidence before State Consumer Commission - Section 107(1) (d) r.w. Rule 27 of Order XLI, CPC - Under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC a party can produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, if it establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within its knowledge, or could not even after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed.
  • Rambir Vs. State of NCT, Delhi – 06/05/19 - CRIMINAL-The case of the appellant falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Further, the judgment in the case of Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh1 also supports the case of the appellant. In the aforesaid case, the knife blows were inflicted in the heat of the moment, one of which caused death of the deceased, this Court has held that accused is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4.
  • Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation Vs. Paramjeet Singh – 03/05/19 - LABOUR LAW- The nature of the appointment was purely contractual for a period of one year or until the shortage of drivers was met, whichever was earlier. Moreover, the contract stipulates that the services of the respondent could be dispensed with without any notice.  The terms of the appointment indicate that the respondent was on a purely contractual appointment and that the services could be dispensed with without notice at any stage.
  • Shri Hanumant Dinkar Arjun Vs. Shri Suresh R. Andhare & ANR – 03/05/19 - Criminal Appeal - In our opinion, the order dated 26.02.2003, which is the basis of the complaint in question, is sub judice in the criminal appeal. In other words, when the order, which is the foundation for filing the complaint in question itself is sub judice, the appellant is required to await the final outcome of the criminal appeal filed by the accused persons.
  • The Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade – 03/05/19 - The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.
  • Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs. Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd – 02/05/19 - As a matter of fact, what was agreed in the Principles of Agreement more amount than that has been ordered to be paid on the basis of principles of business equilibrium and other factors
  • State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Farid Ahmad Tak – 02/05/19 - Mere summary disposal of a Special Leave Petition does not conclude the issue on merits. The acts of commission and omission on part of the concerned Respondents as a result of which there was wrongful loss to the State and public interest was compromised.
  • A.C. Narayanan vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr (13/09/2013) - we are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. An exception to the above is when the power of attorney holder of the complainant does not have a personal knowledge about the transactions then he cannot be examined. However, where the attorney holder of the complainant is in charge of the business of the complainant-payee and the attorney holder alone is personally aware of the transactions, there is no reason why the attorney holder cannot depose as a witness.

 

MORE JUDGMENTS



%d bloggers like this: