Month: April 2023

HELD (1) The entire property 5/1 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, is deattached. The order dated 15.12.2017 is modified to such extent; (2) The application for impleadement filed by Mrs. Manju Awasty is disposed of; (3) The restriction imposed on Mrs. Monica Gogia, bona fide buyer and owner of C-1/2 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi from transferring the property as captioned, is vacated.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RITIKA AWASTY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) I.A. Nos.…

HELD for the principle of determining the guilt of the accused in a case involving circumstantial evidence is not that of probability but certainty and that all the evidence present should conclusively point towards only a singular hypothesis, which is the guilt of the accused – Appeal allowed judgement HC set aside

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAGHAVENDRA PRATAP SINGH @ PANKAJ SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ )…

There is absolutely no warrant for the High Court to direct that the investigation of a person who has been interrogated as a suspect in the conspiracy should be in the printed or written form – or questionnaire may also be handed over to the respondent – Appeal allowed anticipatory bail rejected

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNEETHA NARREDDY — Appellant Vs. Y S AVINASH REDDY AN ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI. and Pamidighantam Sri…

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 143(1)(a) and 143(3) – Jurisdiction of AO to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ – Once during search undisclosed income is found on unearthing the incriminating material during the search, the AO would assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income even in case of completed/unabated assessments.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3 — Appellant Vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.…

(CrPC) – Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 324, 307, 342 and 506 – Quashing of FIR – the irresistible conclusion to be drawn by this court is to accept the report of the jurisdictional police where under they have arrived at a conclusion that incident projected by the complainant appears to be false, and thereby the proceedings against the appellant deserves to be quashed – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RITU TOMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

(IPC) – Sections 302, 397 and 450 – Murder – Conviction and sentence – identification of the accused by the witnesses present but also their apprehension and arrest, apart from seizure of the stolen gold ornaments and cash from their possession, it is amply clear that there was no time or possibility for the police to hoist a false case upon them

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DAKKATA BALARAM REDDY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar,…

(IPC) – Sections 302, 364A, 201, read with Section 120B – Kidnapping for ransom and murder – In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, and for the reasons, this court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to modify the sentence awarded to both appellants to a minimum term of 20 years actual imprisonment – Appeals partly allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIKAS CHAUDHARY — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

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.