Month: March 2020

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 370 and 370(2) – Abrogation of Article 370 – Refering the issue of scrapping Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir to a larger bench – There is no conflict between the judgments in the Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1959 SC 749 and the Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1970 SC 1118 – Plea of the counsel to refer the present matter to a larger Bench is rejected.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH DR. SHAH FAESAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, R.…

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Sections 161 and 157-B – Transfer of lands by persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe – HELD there is clear bar under Section 157-B of the Act for transfer of land by a Scheduled Tribe even by way of exchange as the word “or otherwise” indicates. When there is a clear statutory provision barring the transfer, it was not open to the High Court to substitute its view in the place of that provision.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. AKHALAQ HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, S. Abdul Nazeer and A.S.…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 511, 109, 34, 120­B, 406, 409, 420, 405, 417 and 426 – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) – Section 13(2) – Quashing of criminal proceeding – HELD The SARFAESI Act is a complete code in itself which provides the procedure to be followed -A criminal proceeding would not be sustainable in a matter of the present nature, exposing the appellants even on that count to the proceedings before the Investigating Officer or the criminal court would not be justified

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH K. VIRUPAKSHA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, S. Abdul Nazeer and…

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 9, 13 and 13(1)(ia) – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100 – Dissolution of marriage – Restitution of Conjugal rights – Unsubstantiated allegation of dowry demand or such other allegation has been made – Husband and his family members are exposed to criminal litigation and ultimately it is found that such allegation is unwarranted and without basis and if that act of the wife itself forms the basis for the husband to allege that mental cruelty

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MANGAYAKARASI — Appellant Vs. M. YUVARAJ — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, S. Abdul Nazeer and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Sections 92 and 92(1) – Public Charities – Public charity is perpetual and the Court is the guardian of a charity HELD If in respect of a trust which had set up a hospital, a request was made for framing of a proper scope of administration by appointing trustee from medical profession and from public for proper and effective administration of the Trust, the matter would definitely fall within the scope of Section 92 of the Code

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S. SITALAXMI SAHUWALA MEDICAL TRUST AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and…

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.