Month: February 2024

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – Rule 9(5) – Contract Act, 1872 – Sections 73 and 74 – Forfeiture of earnest-money deposit by the secured creditor – Constitutional validity of Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules is upheld – Any dilution of the forfeiture provided under Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules would result in the entire auction process under the SARFAESI Act being set at naught by mischievous auction purchaser(s) through sham bids, thereby undermining the overall object of the SARFAESI Act of promoting financial stability, reducing NPAs and fostering a more efficient and streamlined mechanism for recovery of bad debts

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. SHANMUGAVELU — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala and…

Environmental Rule of Law – The importance of ensuring the effective functioning of these environmental bodies as this is imperative for the protection, restitution, and development of the ecology – The role of the constitutional courts is therefore to monitor the proper institutionalisation of environmental regulatory bodies and authorities

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 – Quashing of FIR – Misuse of Power of Attorney -The dispute, if any, is between the land-owners/principals inter-se and/or between them and the PoA-holder – It would be improper to drag the appellant into criminal litigation, when he had no role either in the execution of the PoA nor any misdeed by the PoA-holder vis-a-vis the land-owners/principals – Moreover, the entire consideration amount has been paid by the appellant to the PoA-holder

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT SHER SINGH KALSIA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. )…

Property Dispute – Dispute over illegal demolition – Settlement discussions ensued between the complainants and accused, resulting in compensation to the tenants – The tenants withdrew their complaint, seeking quashing of proceedings – The Supreme Court allowed the petitions, ordering police personnel to pay compensation to the tenants, and quashing the proceedings upon depositing the specified amounts in a fund

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHATRUGHNA ATMARAM PATIL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VINOD DODHU CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma,…

Rape – Consensual relationship -The appellant contended a valid Nikah with the second respondent and sought the quashing of the proceedings – The court examined the evidence, emphasizing the consensual nature of the relationship from 2013 to 2017 – The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant in a case of rape and other offences

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHEIKH ARIF — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…

Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 – Section 16(1)(i) – When landlord may recover possession – The Bombay High Court, in a judgment dated 4th August 2015, set aside the eviction decrees passed against the tenants in two separate suits filed by the landlords – this Court set aside the eviction decrees and remanded the cases back to the trial court for fresh consideration

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BAITULLA ISMAIL SHAIKH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KHATIJA ISMAIL PANHALKAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi,…

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(b) – ‘civil contempt’ – This case involves a dispute related to contempt of court arising from a stay order passed in an appeal – The Court set aside the order, emphasizing that the High Court had overstepped its contempt jurisdiction by vacating the stay order – The matter was remanded to the High Court to address the contempt issue appropriately

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMIT KUMAR DAS, JOINT SECRETARY, BAITANIK, A REGISTERED SOCIETY — Appellant Vs. SHRIMATI HUTHEESINGH TAGORE CHARITABLE TRUST — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose…

Allegations do not establish the ingredients of criminal offences – Dispute between the parties was essentially a commercial nature – The Court concludes that the dispute between the parties is essentially a commercial one, and the allegations do not establish the ingredients of criminal offences such as criminal breach of trust – The Court quashes the criminal complaint case and the summoning order, allowing the appeal.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SACHIN GARG — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Legal proceedings related to criminal contempt of court – The case involves a practicing advocate and former army personnel who was convicted by the High Court of Delhi under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – considering the appellant’s age and health conditions, the this Court modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court – The judgment emphasizes the importance of maintaining the dignity and reputation of judicial officers and protecting them from unfounded allegations that interfere with the administration of justice

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GULSHAN BAJWA — Appellant Vs. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.…

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(xi) – The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had assaulted the victim with the intention of dishonouring or outraging her modesty, as required under Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act – The Court also held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the accused belonged to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DASHRATH SAHU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

You missed