Month: March 2023

It is well settled that even if the decision on a question of law has been reversed or modified by subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case it shall not be a ground for review of such judgment merely because a subsequent judgment of the Single Judge has taken contrary view.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRAMJEEVI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. DINESH JOSHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ.…

Anticipatory Bail in CBI case HELD When the primary focus is on documentary evidence, court fail to understand as to why the appellants should now be arrested – CBI did not require the custodial interrogation of the appellants during the period of investigation from 29.06.2019 till 31.12.2021 Bail granted

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHDOOM BAVA — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No……..…

HELD the question stock broker not only has to obtain a certificate of registration from SEBI for each of the stock exchange where he operates, at the same time, has to pay ad valorem fee prescribed no more res integra in view of Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs. National Stock Exchange Members Association and Another 2022 SCCOnline SC 1392

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GPSK CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTRI FINANCE LIMITED) — Appellant Vs. THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before…

(CrPC) – Section 482 – – howsoever well intentioned, cannot be permitted to be operated in utter disregard of the well-recognized judicial principles governing uniform application of law – Unwarranted judicial activism may cause uncertainty or confusion not only in the mind of the authorities but also in the mind of the litigants.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 354, 354-B, 376 and 506 – Cancellation of anticipatory bail – sufficient material in the FIR that would prima facie attract the provision of Section 376, IPC – These factors ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent No.2/accused for granting him anticipatory bail – Impugned orders, granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2/accused, cannot be sustained – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MS. X — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Criminal…

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 – Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) – Illegal gratification – Conviction and sentence – Appeal against – there are no circumstances brought on record which will prove the demand for gratification. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act were not established and consequently, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) will not be attracted – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEERAJ DUTTA — Appellant Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 – Section 9 – – It is permissible to regulate admission and fee structure for achieving that purpose – It is not open to the appellant society to claim complete immunity in undertaking this exercise and seek exemption from any interference by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (AFRC)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ICON EDUCATION SOCIETY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. )…

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.