Month: April 2021

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 -Payment of extortion money does not amount to terror funding. Not satisfied that a case of conspiracy has been made out at this stage only on the ground that the Appellant met the members of the organization. Not agree with the prosecution that the amount is terror fund. At this stage, it cannot be said that the amount seized from the Appellant is proceeds from terrorist activity. There is no allegation that Appellant was receiving any money. On the other hand, the Appellant is accused of providing money to the members of organisation

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDESH KEDIA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Tender Call Notice-A reading of Section 4 would show that the registration of an establishment under the Orissa Act is to categorise the establishment as a shop, commercial establishment, hotel, etc. and not for the purpose of issuing a labour licence which, in the context of the present Tender Call Notice, can only be a labour licence under the Contract Labour Act

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S UTKAL SUPPLIERS — Appellant Vs. M/S MAA KANAK DURGA ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman and B.R. Gavai,…

Constitution of India-But the right not to be deported, is ancillary or concomitant to the right to reside or settle in any part of the territory of India guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e). Rohingyas in Jammu, on whose behalf the present application is filed, shall not be deported unless the procedure prescribed for such deportation is followed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MOHAMMAD SALIMULLAH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and V.…

Market value – Determination – Rate of price escalation – for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the “rate” of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ. )…

Apponitment of arbitrator – whether the dispute which had arisen at the first instance has been settled; if the dispute subsisted, whether the claim is within the period of limitation, the nature of relief if any and all other contention on merits are to be considered in the arbitral proceedings – Hence, keeping open all contentions on merits, sole Arbitrator is to be appointed to resolve the dispute between the parties

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH V. SREENIVASA REDDY — Appellant Vs. B.L. RATHNAMMA — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters

Service Law – Appointment to post of Junior Engineer/(Electrical)-Respondent HPSEB is directed to process the candidature of all applicants, including the degree holders who participated, and depending on the relative merits, proceed to issue the final selection list of all successful candidates, after holding interviews, etc.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNEET SHARMA AND OTHERS ETC — Appellant Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh…

(IPC) – Sections 302, 364-A, 376, 216 read with Section 120-B – Kidnapping Rape and Murder – Circumstancial evidence – Post-mortem report discloses that victim was sexually assaulted, the FSL Report on record does not establish any connection of accused with the sexual assault on the deceased victim – Record is again not clear as to when the present appellants were arrested and how and in what manner their disclosure statements led to the recovery of the dead body

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YOGESH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Indira Banerjee, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1306,…

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.