Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – While the principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, in the present case the evidence adduced gives rise to doubts, improbabilities and inconsistencies – Conviction and sentence is set-aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRADEEP KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 319 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 406, 409, 420, 457 and 380 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) – Summoning order against police officials – Misappropriating of paddy – Corruption – There appears to be prima facie evidence on record to make it a triable case as against the police officials – Summoning order against police officials is upheld – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURDEV SINGH BHALLA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Arbitral award – Jurisdiction to modify – Any court under Section 34 would have no jurisdiction to modify the arbitral award – Any attempt to “modify an award” under Section 34 would amount to “crossing the Lakshman Rekha” – Arbitral proceedings are per se not comparable to judicial proceedings before the Court.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S.V. SAMUDRAM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil…
(COFEPOSA) – Section 3 – Detention order – Right of detenue to make representation – – No error in the procedure adopted by the respondents as due compliance was made to translate all documents in Bengali apart from persuading the detenue to receive them – In addition, the panchnama was signed by the independent witnesses – Detenue also read the grounds of detention and the relevant documents – Therefore, he was well aware of his right to make a representation – Order of detention is upheld – Appeal dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SARFARAZ ALAM — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 34 – Murder of wife – Circumstantial evidence – If there is a snap in the chain, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt – If some of the circumstances in the chain can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis, then also the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence is set-aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DARSHAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : B. R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…
Share Market – Drastic fall in the securities market,- The impact on investors, the purported lack of redressal available and the disbursement of loans to the Adani Group allegedly without due procedure – The petitioners sought various directions, including a direction to constitute an SIT to oversee the SEBI investigation into the Adani Group and that all such investigations be court-monitored –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VISHAL TIWARI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj…
Property Law – Whether the appellant, who purchased a plot of land through a registered sale deed in 1966, is entitled to possession of the land or whether the respondents, who claim to have been in possession since 1944, have acquired title through adverse possession – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the decree of the First Appellate Court in favor of the plaintiff appellant – The Court held that the plaintiff appellant was the rightful owner of the land and that the defendant respondents’ possession was not adverse.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRIJ NARAYAN SHUKLA (D) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. SUDESH KUMAR ALIAS SURESH KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – – Default Bail – High Court also fell in error in not taking into consideration the reasons given under section 43D(2) (b) were clearly made out and explained in the extension letter dated 07.11.2020 giving the details of the progress of the investigation as also the reasons for detaining the respondent. The Public Prosecutor had mentioned in the request that major investigation of the case had been completed and the draft chargesheet had been prepared. However, for want of remaining sanctions and FSL report some more time was required for completing the investigation. – Bail declined
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. RAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET @LOVELY — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ…
Consumer Law – Policy – Supreme Court held that the date of issuance of the policy would be the relevant date for all the purposes and not the date of proposal or the date of issuance of the receipt – The appeals were accordingly allowed and the orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission were set aside.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JAYA WADHWANI — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…
Evidence Act – Sections 40-43 – Once information is given by an accused, the same information cannot be used, even if voluntarily made by a co-accused who is in custody. Section 27 of the Evidence Act does apply to joint disclosures, but this is not one such case.[14] This was precisely the reason given by the trial court to acquit the co-accused. Even if Section 8 of the Evidence Act is to apply, it would not have been possible to convict the co-accused.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL — Appellant Vs. STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S. V. N.…