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

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.