Month: April 2024

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 29 read with 20(b)(ii)(c) and 25, 67, 41 to 44 – The court discussed the applicability of Section 67 statements and the compliance with Sections 41 to 44 of the NDPS Act – By virtue of the decision in Tofan Singh, the benefit is to be granted to the appellants herein in regard to the inadmissibility of their statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act 1985 – These appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as that of the Trial Court – The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them by giving benefit of doubt.

2024:INSC:290 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. NAJMUNISHA SOLE APPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2319 OF 2009 AND ABDUL HAMID CHANDMIYA ALIAS LADOO BAPU SOLE APPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 9 Rule 7 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 –The Court found no satisfactory explanation for the delay, noting the appellant’s negligence and inconsistency in statements – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the lower courts and refusing to condone the inordinate delay.

2024 INSC 281 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.B. LAL (KRISHNA BAHADUR LAL) — Appellant Vs. GYANENDRA PRATAP AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna…

Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 – Sections 83(1)(a), 100(1)(b) and 100(1)(d)(i) – False declaration of educational qualifications and suppression of financial information – The court examined the legal requirements for an Election Petition under the RP Act and concluded that the respondent’s petition lacked concise statements of material facts and full particulars of alleged corrupt practices – The court dismissed the Election Petition, finding it deficient in terms of the mandatory requirements of material facts and particulars needed to constitute a cause of action.

2024 INSC 282 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KARIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA — Appellant Vs. AMINUL HAQUE LASKAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Bela M.…

Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 32(3) and 32(5) – Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is Relevant -The Court found inconsistencies in the respondents’ arguments and relied on evidence indicating a joint family business – The Court applied the principle of preponderance of probability and the Indian Evidence Act to assess the joint nature of the business – The Supreme Court concluded that the properties were joint family assets and should be partitioned accordingly. Cases Referred

2024 INSC 283 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VITTHALRAO MAROTIRAO NAVKHARE — Appellant Vs. NANIBAI (DEAD), THROUGH LRS, AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420 and 120B – Cheating in Land Mortgage -Court found no evidence of intentional deceit or conspiracy by the appellants, as the AICTE was aware of the mortgage from the first application – The Court referenced legal definitions of cheating and criminal conspiracy, emphasizing the lack of dishonest inducement and absence of AICTE’s complaint – The appellants were discharged from the alleged offences, with the Court concluding that the essential elements of cheating were not present.

2024 INSC 284 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIPIN SAHNI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar,…

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 Sections 65(a)(e),81,98(2) and 116(2) and Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 465, 468, 471 and 114 – Court reasoned that the appellant should have approached the criminal court under Section 451 Cr.P.C instead of directly filing a Special Criminal Application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution – The Court applied the doctrine of harmonious construction to interpret Section 98 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act in conjunction with the Cr.P.C – The appeal was dismissed, with the Court stating that the appellant is free to approach the concerned court regarding the custody of the vehicle.

2024 INSC 285 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KHENGARBHAI LAKHABHAI DAMBHALA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal,…

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 3 – The court emphasized the importance of the law of limitation, stating that litigation must have an end and cannot be prolonged indefinitely – The court discussed the mandatory nature of Section 3 of the Limitation Act and the discretionary nature of Section 5, which allows for condonation of delay if ‘sufficient cause’ is shown – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the Special Leave Petition due to the petitioners’ negligence and lack of due diligence in pursuing the matter.

2024 INSC 286 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L.RS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) — Respondent ( Before :…

Consumer Law – Whether respondent file a complaint under the CPA considering the investment was made in a partnership firm attracts Consumer Protection Act – The court finds the complaint not maintainable, as the investment was a commercial transaction and the appellants did not inherit the firm’s liabilities – The Supreme Court sets aside the orders of the lower forums and dismisses the complaint, allowing the respondent to seek other legal remedies.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANNAPURNA B. UPPIN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MALSIDDAPPA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ )…

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 9 and 13(1) (ia) – Divorce – The Supreme Court finds merit in the appellant/husband’s willingness to undergo the test and partially upholds the Trial Court’s order – The Supreme Court modifies the High Court’s order, directing the appellant/husband to undergo the medical test as per the Trial Court’s direction.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEEP MUKERJEE — Appellant Vs. SREYASHI BANERJEE — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(S). of…

The primary issue is whether the amalgamation of companies and the resulting transfer of leasehold rights amount to a transfer under the lease deed, requiring payment of unearned increase value to Delhi Development Authority (DDA) – The Court reasoned that the amalgamation did result in a transfer as per the lease deed’s clauses and that the appellant is liable to pay the unearned increase – The appeal was dismissed, confirming DDA’s demand for unearned increase value, and the respondent-DDA was allowed to withdraw the deposited amount with interest.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. JAIPRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS M/S. JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD.) — Appellant Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S.…

You missed