Supreme Court held that the respondent-company had breached the agreement by not offering possession of the apartment for fit outs by the stipulated date and the appellants had the right to terminate the agreement and claim unconditional refund with interest at 12% p.a. as per the agreement – The Supreme Court also held that the NCDRC had overstepped its jurisdiction by rewriting the terms and conditions of the contract and applying its own subjective criteria.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VENKATARAMAN KRISHNAMURTHY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. LODHA CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. )…

Refund of excess price paid over the notified price in e-auction – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the appellant and directed the respondent to pay the refund amount with interest @ 12% per annum for the relevant periods, within two months, failing which the officers concerned would be personally liable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. DOMCO SMOKELESS FUELS PVT. LTD — Appellant Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,…

Implement Community Kitchens to combat hunger, malnutrition and starvation in the country – Court has also reiterated that the scope of judicial review in examining policy matters is very limited, and the Courts cannot direct the States to implement a particular policy or scheme on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available – The Court has disposed of the writ petition with these observations.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANUN DHAWAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…

The prosecution could not prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, as there were glaring discrepancies in the eyewitnesses’ version, absence of the testimony of the material witnesses and the ballistic report, and non-recovery of the weapon of crime – The Court also observed that the trial court had erred in convicting and acquitting the co-accused on the same set of evidence.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) – Sections 3(zz), 59 and 89 – Penal Code, 1860(IPC) – FSSA is a comprehensive and exhaustive legislation on all aspects of food and food safety, and that Section 89 of the FSSA gives an overriding effect to its provisions over any other law, including the IPC, in so far as the law applies to the aspects of food covered by the FSSA

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM NATH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…

Service Matters

(a) whether the appellant was entitled to withdraw her prospective resignation before the effective date; (b) whether the acceptance of her resignation by the trust was final, binding and irrevocable; and (c) what relief could be granted to the appellant – The court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the College Tribunal and the High Court

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. MRS. SUMAN V. JAIN — Appellant Vs. MARWADI SAMMELAN THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V.…