Month: August 2020

Tweets against CJI – Guilty of contempt – Act committed by the contemnor is a very serious one – The Court do not take cognizance of such conduct it will give a wrong message to the lawyers and litigants throughout the country – However, by showing magnanimity, instead of imposing any severe punishment, The Court is sentencing the contemnor with a nominal fine of Re. 1/ (Rupee one).

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANOTHER ( Before : Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal)…

Finance Act, 1994 – Section 65(105)(zzzzj) – Payment of service tax – Business of distributing natural gas – Supply of pipes and measuring equipment – HELD SKID equipment fulfils the description in Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of a taxable service: service in relation “tangible goods” where the recipient of the service has use (without possession or effective control) of the goods – Appeal allowed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD — Appellant Vs. M/S ADANI GAS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra…

HELD The Registration Certificate of vehicles which do not possess a valid PUC Certificate shall be forthwith suspended and/or cancelled, and penal measures initiated against the owner and/or the person(s) in possession and/or control of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra…

(CrPC) – Ss 372 and 377 – (IPC) – Ss 364A and 34 – Kidnapping for ransom – Enhancement of sentence -It is fairly well settled that the remedy of appeal is creature of the Statute. – State Government to prefer appeal for inadequate sentence under Section 377, Cr.PC but similarly no appeal can be maintained by victim under Section 372, Cr.PC on the ground of inadequate sentence.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARVINDER KANSAL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash…

(CrPC) – S 357(3) – Release of compensation – Police officers have illegally detained complainant’s son in connection with a theft case and he was tortured in the police lock up and succumbed to the injuries – Appellant herein who is the father of the victim is relentlessly pursuing the matter from last more than a decade -Instead of ordering release of compensation to the appellant at this stage – It appropriate to request the High Court for expeditious disposal of the Case – Appeal dismissed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DALBIR SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash…

IMP : Disaster Management Act, 2005 – Section 71 and 72 – Jurisdiction – Students cannot be promoted without exams – State Governments or State Disaster Management Authority in exercise of power under Disaster Management Act, 2005 has no jurisdiction to take a decision that the students of final year/terminal students should be promoted on the basis of earlier year assessment and internal assessment

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PRANEETH K AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy…

Non-Supply of fuel to vehicles without PUC Certificate – Appeal against – Tribunal had no power and/or authority and/or jurisdiction to pass orders directing the Appellant State Government to issue orders, instructions or directions on dealers, outlets and petrol pumps not to supply fuel to vehicles without PUC Certificate – Appeal allowed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 7 – A personal Loan to a Promoter or a Director of a company cannot trigger the Corporate Resolution Process under the IBC. Disputes as to whether the signatures of the Respondents are forged or whether records have been fabricated can be adjudicated upon evidence including forensic evidence in a regular suit and not in proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S RADHA EXPORTS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED. — Appellant Vs. K.P. JAYARAM AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra and Indira Banerjee,…

Decree of possession – A decree of possession does not automatically follow a decree of declaration of title and ownership over property – It is well settled that, where a Plaintiff wants to establish that the Defendant’s original possession was permissive, it is for the Plaintiff to prove this allegation and if he fails to do so, it may be presumed that possession was adverse, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

 “A decree of possession does not automatically follow a decree of declaration of title and ownership over property. “   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAZIR MOHAMED — Appellant…

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.