Latest Post

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15) Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30) Tender and Contract — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of “prime contractor” and “in the same name and style” — Requirement of work experience — Where an NIT’s pre-qualification document requires “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer)” to have completed previous work, and the term “prime contractor” is undefined, its meaning must be derived from common parlance as the tenderer primarily responsible for the contract offer; however, the requirement must be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, considering the credentials and capacity to execute the work, not merely the name. (Paras 17, 20, 21.3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 389 — Suspension of execution of sentence pending appeal and release on bail — Scope and distinction with bail — Appellate Court must record proper reasons for suspending sentence; it should not be passed as a matter of routine — The Appellate Court must not reappreciate evidence or attempt to find lacunae in the prosecution case at this stage — Once convicted, the presumption of innocence vanishes, and the High Court should be slow in granting bail pending appeal, especially for serious offenses like murder (Section 302, IPC). (Paras 6, 6.1, 6.2)

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 307, and 326 read with Section 120B – Abkari Act, 1077 – Section 55(a), 55 (h), 55 (i) and 57(A)(1)(ii) – Deadly conspiracy of liquor poisoning by mixing noxious substances likely to endanger human life -Conspiracy is when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means – Offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general law, where intent alone does not constitute crime – It is the intention to commit a crime and join hands with persons having the same intention –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAJEEV — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1134…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 149 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25 – Murder – Death sentence – Criminal history of the convict by itself cannot be a ground for awarding him death penalty – Past conduct does not necessarily have to be taken into consideration while imposing death penalty – Present case is not a case wherein it can be held that imposition of death penalty is the only alternative

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MADAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal…

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) – Sections 3, 9 and 12A – Detention order – Applicability of Section 9 and Section 12A of COFEPOSA – Order of detention had not been revoked on the report of the Advisory Board or before the receipt of the report of Advisory Board or before making a reference to the Advisory Board –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THANESAR SINGH SODHI (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and…

Carriage by Air Act, 1972 – Sections 19 and 13(3) – Carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, luggage or goods – If the carrier admits the loss of the goods, or if the goods have not arrived at the expiration of seven days after the date on which they ought to have arrived, the consignee is entitled to put into force against the carrier the rights which flow from the contract of carriage.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. RAJASTHAN ART EMPORIUM — Appellant Vs. KUWAIT AIRWAYS AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. )…

Interpretation of Contract – A commercial document cannot be interpreted in a manner that is at odds with the original purpose and intendment of the parties to the document – A deviation from the plain terms of the contract is warranted only when it serves business efficacy better.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RATNAGIRI GAS AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya…

Service Matters

Service Law – Relaxation – Eligibility qualifications – State had power to relax the eligibility criteria, the same could not have been done mid-stream without giving wide publicity of such change, and opportunity to similarly situated candidates to apply and compete with others

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANKITA THAKUR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Manoj Misra and Hrishikesh Roy,…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32 – Writ Petition – Direction to expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members of the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies HELD Learned Chief Justices of the High Courts shall register a suo-motu case with the title, “In Re: designated courts for MPs/MLAs” to monitor early disposal of criminal cases pending against the members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies – The suo-motu case may be heard by the Special Bench presided by the Learned Chief Justice or a bench assigned by them.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Evidence Act, 1972 – Section 32 – Murder by poisoning – Dying declaration – A statement made by a person who is dying is made exception to the rule of hearsay and has been made admissible in evidence under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, it would not be prudent to base conviction, relying upon such dying declaration alone – Conviction and sentence set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARIPRASAD @ KISHAN SAHU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Employees Provident Fund And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Section 1(3)(B) – Establishments of factories – Clause (a) of sub-Section (3) is applicable only to those factories engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I – Clause (b) of sub-Section (3) is applicable to all other establishments which are not covered by clause (a) of sub-Section (3) provided such establishments are notified by a notification issued by the Central Government which is published in the official Gazette

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THANKAMMA BABY — Appellant Vs. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, KOCHI, KERALA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…

You missed