Month: February 2024

Consumer Law – Medical Negligence – – the respondent filed a review petition with the NCDRC, which granted it ex parte, reducing the compensation to Rs. 2 lakhs and stating that the respondent had already paid the amount – The appellant then filed a review petition with the Supreme Court, which reinstated the original order of Rs. 2 lakhs with interest at 12% – The Supreme Court also imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the respondent for making a false representation

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P.C. JAIN — Appellant Vs. DR. R.P. SINGH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(S). …of…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 19(1)(a) – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 500 – Defamation – Quashing of complaint – A complaint has been filed against the appellant/accused, the registered owner of the ‘Sunday Blast’ newspaper – Allegation is that the accused allowed the publication of a news article in the February 24, 2013 edition with the title “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj,” – Order passed by Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad rejecting the complaint of the respondent-complainant is a well-reasoned order

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY UPADHYA — Appellant Vs. ANAND DUBEY — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No(S). …of 2024…

Service Matters

CSIR’s argument that respondent no. 1 was not graded as ‘Good’ whereas respondent nos. 2 & 3 were graded as ‘Very Good’ was irrelevant because the promotion of respondent nos. 2 & 3 had been interfered with by the High Court holding them to be ineligible for the post – In view of the above facts, the Court held that the action of the appellant-CSIR in denying promotion to respondent no. 1 upon the post of Under Secretary was rightly reversed by the High Court.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DIRECTOR GENERAL, COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH(CSIR) — Appellant Vs. J.K. PRASHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and…

In the facts and circumstances noted and more particularly the fact that the appellant still claims to be in possession of the land under acquisition, writ petition preferred by the appellant should have been heard and decided on merits – Matter is remitted to the High Court of Uttarakhand

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH J.N. PURI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (NOW STATE OF UTTARAKHAND) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep…

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) – Section 138 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 73 – Cheque Bounce – Comparison of signature – In an appropriate case, the certified copy of the specimen signature maintained by the Bank can be procured with a request to the Court to compare the same with the signature appearing on the cheque by exercising powers under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJITSINH CHEHUJI RATHOD — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 18 – Maintenance to wife – Enhancement of – Husband serving as Assistant Manager, BSNL and his salary is Rs. 1,05,871 (Rupees One Lakh Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy One) per month – Monthly maintenance enhanced form Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 20,000

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YAGWATI @ POONAM — Appellant Vs. GHANSHYAM — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. 1318-1319…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Murder – Acquittal – Benefit of doubt – Evidence of recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant-accused cannot be accepted as reliable – It cannot be said that there was a discovery by the appellant of the place where dead bodies were kept

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KRISHAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 2351…

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India is clearly permissible to do ‘complete justice’ to a ’cause or matter’ and this Court can pass an order or decree which a family court, trial court or High Court can pass and when such power is exercised, the question or issue of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction does not arise

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASHCHANDRA JOSHI — Appellant Vs. KUNTAL PRAKASHCHANDRA JOSHI @ KUNTAL VISANJI SHAH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.…

Sole circumstance of recovery of blood-stained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the accused – Only on the basis of sole circumstance of recovery of blood-stained weapon, it cannot be said that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt – Merely on the basis of suspicion, conviction would not be tenable

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJA NAYKAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 902…

Chargesheet having been filed against the accused within the prescribed time limit and the cognizance having been taken by the Special Court of the offences allegedly committed by them, the accused could not have claimed the statutory right of default bail under Section 167(2) on the ground that the investigation qua other accused was pending – Order granting default bail is set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Appellant Vs. KAPIL WADHAWAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…

You missed