Month: February 2020

Boycott Of Courts Can’t Be Justified As Freedom Of Speech & Expression : SC On Lawyers’ Strikes HELD “To go on strike/boycott courts cannot be justified under the guise of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Nobody has the right to go on strike/boycott courts. Even, such a right, if any, cannot affect the rights of others and more particularly, the right of Speedy Justice guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution”,

Boycott Of Courts Can’t Be Justified As Freedom Of Speech & Expression : SC On Lawyers’ Strikes [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 28 Feb 2020 5:11 PM The Supreme Court…

Tender – Installation and maintenance of 74 videoscopes at various field formations of CBEC – direct that out of the payment to be made to M/s. ASVA Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd., a sum of Rs. 63 lakhs shall be deducted and orders with regard to that amount shall be passed after hearing the parties in detail at the time of final hearing.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER, DIRECTORATE OF LOGISTICS — Appellant Vs. ALMIGHTY TECHSERV, PROPRIETOR MR. MANISH DALMIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha…

IMP ::: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 5(8) and 43 – Mortgage by a Corporate debtor to secure debts of third party not “Financial Debt” within meaning of Section 5(8) – Whether lenders of Jaiprakash Associates Limited could be treated as financial creditors, HELD it cannot be said that the corporate debtor owes them any ‘financial debt’ within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Code; and hence, such lenders of Jaiprakash Associates Limited do not fall in the category of the ‘financial creditors’ of the corporate debtor Jaypee Infratech Limited – Appeals are allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANUJ JAIN INTERIM RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL FOR JAYPEE INFRATECH LIMITED — Appellant Vs. AXIS BANK LIMITED ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) Section 340 read with 195 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 – Production of forged documents before the Revenue Court – Larger bench to consider (i) Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court? (ii) What is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry?

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF PUNJAB — Appellant Vs. JASBIR SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 – Section 28 – Deposit of amount – Word “deposit” used in the Section, is to be understood and mean that deposit is to be made either, before making an application, or simultaneously with the application within the prescribed time of thirty days

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARAYAN YADAV (D) THR.LRS. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and R. Subhash…

Service Matters

Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 – Regulations 39(1), 39(4)(i) and 39(4) – Penalty imposed on employee on the grounds of conduct which had led to a conviction on a criminal charge – Where the respondent was convicted of various criminal offences and subsequently, a notice to show cause was issued – HELD DB of high court was in error to hold the action on notice pending, decision of criminal appeal

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. MUKESH POONAMCHAND SHAH — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, JJ.…

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.