The Court considered the principles of anticipatory bail and the role of the accused, noting that the prime accused had been granted bail and the appellant’s role was secondary – The Court analyzed the factors to be considered for anticipatory bail, as laid out in previous judgments, focusing on the nature of the accusation and the role of the accused – The Supreme Court confirmed the order granting anticipatory bail to Petitioner, setting aside the order of cancellation, with the condition of cooperation in the investigation and trial.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SABITA PAUL AND OTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol,…
Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023 – Section 7(1) – Selection Committee – The Court analyzes the 2023 Act in light of the Constitution and previous judgments, particularly focusing on the principle of proportionality and the power of judicial review – The Court declines to grant a stay, citing the importance of maintaining the election schedule and the assumption that constitutional post holders will adhere to their roles in accordance with the Constitution – The observations are tentative as the matter is sub-judice. ORDE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. JAYA THAKUR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ.…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sections 10, 16 and 20 – Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate – The court refers to Section 16 and Section 20 of the CPC, emphasizing that suits related to immovable property should be instituted where the property is located – The court analyzes the provisions of the CPC and prior case law to determine jurisdiction and the applicability of Section 10 of the CPC – The court dismisses the petitioner’s transfer petition and allows the respondent’s petition, ordering the transfer of the petitioner’s suit to Sehore, Madhya Pradesh.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S ACME PAPERS LTD. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S. CHINTAMAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 363,342 and 201 – Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Sections 2(13) and 6 –The Court analyzed relevant provisions of the JJ Act, emphasizing the mandatory nature of preliminary assessments for CICLs accused of heinous offences – The Court quashed the impugned judgment and ordered the appellant’s release, noting that the proceedings against him were vitiated due to the violation of the JJ Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THIRUMOORTHY — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…
CBI investigation for justice – The Court finds the investigation ineffective and is inclined to transfer the case to the CBI, noting the need for a credible investigation and the fundamental rights of the appellants – The Court discusses the circumstances under which investigations can be transferred to the CBI, emphasizing the sparing use of this power and the need for complete justice – The Court sets aside the High Court’s order dismissing the transfer to the CBI and directs the CBI to take over the investigation, ensuring a thorough inquiry and the pursuit of justice.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AWUNGSHI CHIRMAYO AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia,…
Grant of Bail – Supreme Court found that the High Court’s order lacked legal sustenance as it did not properly consider the detailed evidence against respondent no.2. – The Supreme Court emphasized the need for brief reasons in bail decisions, as established by precedent – The appeal is allowed, the High Court’s order was set aside, and respondent no.2 was given three weeks to surrender – The order does not prejudice subsequent proceedings or bar fresh bail applications.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM MURTI SHARMA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sudhansu Dhulia and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Section 3, 7 and 10(3) – Transferring of employees between different units of the company – – The Supreme Court refers to the case of Cipla Ltd. to assert that the terms of employment and Standing Orders do not conflict, and transfers are permissible – The Court analyzes the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, particularly Sections 7 and 10, to determine the operation and modification of Standing Orders – The Supreme Court concludes that the transfers were legal, overturns the High Court’s judgment, and dismisses the writ petitions filed by the respondents – The Court does not address the broader issue of the power to modify Standing Orders.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. DIVGI METAL WARES LTD. — Appellant Vs. M/S. DIVGI METAL WARES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and Section 304 Part-I – Murder – Acquital – The Supreme Court finds that the prosecution has not fully established the circumstances necessary for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, as required by the precedent set in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 – The Supreme Court allows the appeal, acquits the appellants of all charges, and orders their immediate release, citing insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAGHUNATHA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
“Silk Sarees and Sales Tax Rates: Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Government’s Levy Under ADE Act, CST Act, and Delhi Sales Tax Act”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAREE SANSAR — Appellant Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – 3(2)(v)(1) – Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 – Rule 5(3)(d) – The Court finds the exemption to be unguided and arbitrary, lacking specific criteria for the quantity of earth extraction and the definition of linear projects – The Court concludes that the exemption under item 6 of the impugned notification is illegal and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India – The amended notification also fails to address these concerns adequately – Appeal Partly allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NOBLE M. PAIKADA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…