Supreme Court of India Judgements

46610 Judgements hosted as on 29/08/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Cr P C

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 227 — Discharge — The appellant, had filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.PC seeking discharge in a case related to the custodial death of cashier/accountant — The court found that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellant based on the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith — The court clarified that its observations were made only in relation to the appellant and not the other accused in the case — The court allowed the application filed by the appellant under Section 227, Cr.PC, and discharged the appellant from the case.

Jul 16, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 522 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM PRAKASH CHADHA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia,…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 — Withdrawal of prosecution — The Supreme Court has set aside the withdrawal of prosecution of an accused in a double murder case, who was elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) in Uttar Pradesh — The court observed that political power should not be leveraged to secure the withdrawal of prosecution of an accused person named in the charge sheet after thorough investigation — The court also criticized the High Court for repeatedly allowing adjournments in the case, allowing the accused persons to deploy dilatory tactics to delay their trial — The court directed the High Court to ensure that justice is not further delayed or compromised due to political influence or any other extraneous factors — The court emphasized the paramount importance of ensuring the progression of the trial without further delay.

Jul 16, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 529 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAILENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 41A — Notice of appearance before police officer — Petitioner Singh filed a Special Leave Petition against the State of Karnataka & others, challenging an order dated 23-05-2024 from the High Court of Karnataka —The main issue revolves around respondent No. 2’s non-compliance with a medical examination required by the Investigating Officer for the case’s investigation — Respondent No. 2, argued against the necessity of the medical examination, citing protection from coercive action by a previous High Court order —The Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s order, directing respondent No. 2 to undergo a medical examination on 10th July, 2024 —The Court found respondent No. 2’s unwillingness to undergo medical examination unconvincing and not protected under the right against self-incrimination —The Court emphasized compliance with Section 41-A notice and rejected apprehensions about the medical facility without a tenable basis — The Supreme Court ordered respondent No. 2 to present himself for the medical examination as part of the investigation process.

Jul 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EKTA SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih (Vacation Bench),…

Cr P C Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code SVT., 1989 – Sections 306 and 411 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Section 39 – The case involves charges against respondents for attempting to ambush a CRPF convoy with explosives – The Special Judge, NIA, took cognizance for some offences but not others due to procedural issues – The appeal challenges the High Court’s judgment on the cognizance of charges under various sections of the RPC, 1989, and UAPA, 1967, particularly focusing on the applicability of Section 196-A of JK CrPC, 1989 – The National Investigation Agency argues that post the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, the CrPC, 1973 should apply, and the need for authorization under CrPC, 1989 is not required – The respondents argue that the complaint was conveyed when CrPC, 1989 was in force, and non-compliance recorded by the court should be upheld – The Supreme Court allows the appeal in part, allowing the appellant to seek appropriate authorization under CrPC, 1989, and directing the trial court to take cognizance if the appellant complies with the required authorization under CrPC, 1989.

Jun 3, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 447 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY NEW DELHI — Appellant Vs. OWAIS AMIN @ CHERRY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M. M.…

You missed

Consumer

The flat was purchased for the personal use of one of its directors and his family — The appellant created confusion by double allotment of the flat and unfairly forfeited the deposited amount —The NCDRC ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the appellant to refund the deposited amount with interest — The Supreme Court upheld this decision —The respondent was considered a consumer as the flat was for personal use — The appellant’s actions were deemed deficient and unfair due to the double allotment and premature cancellation —

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Anticipatory bail — Cancellation of — The appellant had his anticipatory bail cancelled without notice due to failure to plant saplings —Whether the cancellation of anticipatory bail without notice was justified The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting additional time to plant 500 trees —The anticipatory bail granted to is revived, and he must deposit the cost of saplings with the Forest authorities.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420 and 34 — Nature of Offence —The Court’s decision to grant bail in a case involving Sections 420 and 34 IPC indicates that while these sections pertain to serious offenses (cheating and criminal conspiracy, respectively), bail may still be granted if the circumstances of the case, such as the nature of the transaction and the relationship between the parties, warrant it.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) — PPA between Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, and the Hirehalli Solar Power Project LLP — The respondent sought an extension of the scheduled commissioning date (SCD) under the force majeure clause of the PPA due to delays in obtaining necessary approvals and licenses —The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) rejected the force majeure claim, but the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) reversed the decision, finding that the delay was not attributable to the respondent and that the force majeure clause was applicable — The Supreme Court agreed with the APTEL’s findings and dismissed the appeals — The court also rejected the appellant’s contention that the APTEL’s direction to pay late payment surcharge to the respondent was unjustified, as it was rooted in the PPA and in furtherance of the intention of the parties.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw