Tag: JUDGMENTS

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.

SANTOSH PRASAD @ SANTOSH KUMAR VS THE STATE OF BIHAR-14/2/2020

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

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

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

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.

Om Prakash Vs. Suresh Kumar-30/01/2020

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

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.

Sushila Aggarwal and others Versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another – 29/1/2020

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

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

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

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.

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

State of NCT of Delhi Vs Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors – 05/12/2019

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

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

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

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.