Month: January 2023

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 376 – Rape – False promise to marry – Acquittal – It would be a folly to treat every breach of promise to marry as a false promise and to prosecute a person for the offence of rape under Section 376 – There is a difference between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAIM AHAMED — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Ss 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120B – Civil remedy – In respect of the issue involved, which is of civil nature, the respondent had already a civil suit and it is pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the respondent is to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against the appellants. FIR Quashed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH USHA CHAKRABORTY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 8(a) – Estoppel – Mere spec successonis or expectation his conduct in transferring/releasing his rights for valuable consideration, would give rise to an estoppel – Effect of the estoppel cannot be warded off by persons claiming through the person whose conduct has generated the estoppel.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ELUMALAI @ VENKATESAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M. KAMALA AND OTHERS AND ETC. — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy,…

Injunction – While passing an order of injunction, the Courts are required to be guided by the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury – A blanket order directing maintenance of status quo in respect of the all 11 properties admeasuring 115 acres is not justified

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEVELOPER GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SURINDER SINGH MARWAH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath, JJ.…

Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 – – A State Legislature has no legislative competence to enact a law in respect of modern medicine or allopathic medicine contrary to the said standards that have been determined by the Central Law – Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BAHARUL ISLAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

(IPC) – Section 302 read with 34 – Murder – – whether it is sufficient in the ordinary course to lead to death – The adequacy or otherwise of medical attention is not a relevant factor in this case, because the doctor who conducted the post-mortem clearly deposed that death was caused due to cardio respiratory failures, as a result of the injuries inflicted upon the deceased – Thus, the injuries and the death were closely and directly linked

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRASAD PRADHAN AND ANOTHER @.APPELLANT Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Criminal…

HELD restricted interim order, allowing the Purse Seine Fishing beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu, but within the Exclusive Economic Zone, with certain conditions – Only registered fishing vessel will be given permission – The Fisheries Department will give permission to such boats only, which are installed with an approved Vessel Tracking System – These vessels will be allowed to operate only twice a week – It shall be mandatory for all the sailors to keep their biometric card/photo ID with them – Fisheries Department of the State shall also give a colour code to these Purse Seine Fishing Boats – The Registration Number of these vessels shall be prominently displayed on the boat

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FISHERMAN CARE, REGISTERED ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRYING AND FISHERIES REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS…

The facts of this case would amply demonstrate that the petitioner/plaintiff was not ready nor capacity to perform his part of the contract as he had no financial capacity to pay the consideration in cash as contracted and intended to bite for the time which disentitles him as time is the essence of the contract.” Thus, both readiness as well as willingness have to be established by the plaintiff on whom the burden is cast in a suit for specific performance of an agreement.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH C. HARIDASAN — Appellant Vs. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA KURUP AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

HELD – nothing is on record to show that the writ petitioners were praying and/or a grievance was made by the original landowners with respect to nonpayment of compensation and that the possession of the land in question was stated to be taken in the year 1967 by drawing the panchnama – High Court has error in declared that the acquisition proceedings to have lapsed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. RAJESH DUA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

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.