Month: February 2022

SARFAESI – Section 14(1A) – Taking of Possession of Secured Assets and Documents – Held, An advocate is and must be regarded as an officer of the court and subordinate to the CMM/DM for the purposes of Section 14(1A) of the 2002 Act – It is open to the District Magistrate (DM) or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) to appoint an advocate and authorise him/her to take possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NKGSB COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SUBIR CHAKRAVARTY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil…

National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Section 17 – Objective of Section 44, UAPA, Section 17, NIA Act, and Section 173(6) is to safeguard witnesses – They are in the nature of a statutory witness protection – On the court being satisfied that the disclosure of the address and name of the witness could endanger the family and the witness, such an order can be passed – They are also in the context of special provisions made for offences under special statutes.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WAHEED-UR-REHMAN PARRA — Appellant Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. )…

Motor Accident – Compensation – Enhancement of – Post accident – Pain, suffering and trauma suffered by the claimant cannot be compensated in terms of the money – However, still it will be a solace to award suitable compensation under different heads including the pain, shock and suffering, loss of amenities and happiness of life

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI BENSON GEORGE — Appellant Vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 25 and 27 – Murder – Re-appreciation of evidence – evidence cannot be discarded only for the reason that PW allegedly did not raise any alarm or did not try to intervene when the deceased was being ferociously assaulted and stabbed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURESH YADAV @ GUDDU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Criminal…

Work and Contract – Blacklisting/Banning – Considering the seriousness of the matter that due to the omission and commission on the part of the contractor a serious incident had occurred as there was a collapse of a ten meter slab while constructing a flyover in which one person died and eleven others injured, as such the contractor does not deserve any leniency

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S PANDA INFRAPROJECT LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 – Sections 9, 9(1), 9(2) and 9(2)(xvii) – Exemption to pay service tax – If the statute mandates that the Market Committees have to provide the land/shop/platform/space on rent/lease then and then only it can be said to be a mandatory statutory obligation otherwise it is only a discretionary function. No exemption from tax.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, NEW MANDI YARD, ALWAR — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, ALWAR — Respondent ( Before :…

Employees Provident Fund And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Section 14B – Power to recover damages – Held, any default or delay in the payment of EPF contribution by the employer under the Act is a sine qua non for imposition of levy of damages under Section 14B of the Act 1952 and mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty/damages for breach of civil obligations/liabilities.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HORTICULTURE EXPERIMENT STATION GONIKOPPAL, COORG — Appellant Vs. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka,…

Service Matters

Application for permission to file review petition – Review Petition is now preferred by those who were not parties to the litigation with an application seeking permission to file Review Petition – No reason to grant the permission as prayed for – Consequently, the instant Review Petition is closed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIJAY PRATAP YADAV AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay…

You missed

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 – The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu – The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail – The Union of India, represented by NIA, argues that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses and the prima facie evidence against the respondents – The defence contends that the allegations are vague and the evidence, particularly the statements of protected witnesses, is unreliable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the sufficiency of prima facie evidence – The Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the material evidence and recorded perverse findings regarding the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences – The Court relied on the provisions of the UAPA and past judgments to establish the standards for granting bail in cases involving terrorism – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents should not be released on bail, given the reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them are prima facie true and the potential threat to national security.