Month: January 2020

IMP :: Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Limited To A Fixed Period Except In Special And Peculiar Circumstances: SC HELD anticipatory bail should not invariably be limited to a fixed period. But if there are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so, life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the trial except in special and peculiar cases.

  Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Limited To A Fixed Period Except In Special And Peculiar Circumstances: SC  Ashok Kini 29 Jan 2020 5:25 PM The Supreme Court has held that…

NIRBHAYA CASE : Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 32, 72 and 161 – Mercy petition – Delay in disposal of mercy petition may be a ground calling for judicial review of the order passed under Article 72/161 of the Constitution – But the quick consideration of the mercy petition and swift rejection of the same cannot be a ground for judicial review of the order

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MUKESH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 115 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 – Decree of possession by way of specific performance of the Agreement of Sale – Where the defendant No.2 (the appellant herein) had contested the suit and had put forth the contention that he was a bonafide purchaser without notice HELD the Courts below have on the contrary concluded that the defendants No.1 and 2 being of the same village, the defendant No.2 would have knowledge of the agreement entered into by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff – Such conclusion is only an assumption

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUKHWINDER SINGH — Appellant Vs. JAGROOP SINGH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921 HELD ‘actual physical possession of land and building’ would mean and require the tenant to be in actual physical possession. The provisions would not be applicable if the tenant is not in actual physical possession and has given the premises on lease or licence basis to a third party.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. R. CHANDRAMOULEESWARAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari, JJ.…

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) – Sections 36A, 37 and 67 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 167 – Illegally transportion of heroin – Bail application – prosecution story is that the brother himself did not know what was loaded on the ship till he was informed by the owner of the vessel. Even when the heroin was loaded in the ship it was supposed to go towards Egypt and that would not have been a crime under the NDPS Act – Bail granted

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUJIT TIWARI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta, JJ. ) Criminal…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.