“Unreliable Confession, Doubtful Evidence: Murder Acquittal Upheld”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KALINGA @ KUSHAL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE INSPECTOR HUBLI — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra…
Holding that the respondents did not prove the contents of the lease deed by summoning the record from the Gram Panchayat, and that the suit for injunction was not maintainable without proving the title or legality of possession of the land.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE TEHSILDAR, URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. GANGA BAI MENARIYA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram…
Chandigarh Mayor Election: Supreme Court quashed the election result and declared the appellant as the validly elected candidate for the post of Mayor – It also issued a notice to the presiding officer to show cause why criminal proceedings should not be initiated against him under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KULDEEP KUMAR — Appellant Vs. — Respondent U.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., J B Pardiwala and Manoj…
Bail applications should have been placed before the same Single Judge who had granted bail, and not before another Single Judge – The Supreme Court further noted that the trial had commenced and the appellants had not misused their liberty or violated the bail conditions.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HIMANSHU SHARMA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No(s)…..…
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Sections 2(b)(i) and 3(1) – Quashing of FIR – Member of gang – For framing a charge for the offence under the Gangsters Act and for continuing the prosecution of the accused under the above provisions, the prosecution would be required to clearly state that the appellants are being prosecuted for any one or more offences covered by anti-social activities as defined under Section 2(b) – FIR and criminal proceedings were quashed – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FARHANA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Quashing of criminal proceedings – Criminal prosecution should not be allowed to continue where the object to lodge the FIR is not for criminal prosecution and for punishing the offender for the offence committed but for recovery of money under coercion and pressure.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEEPAK KUMAR SHRIVAS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma,…
High court had not applied the correct standard of proof for invoking Section 319 CrPC, which requires more than a prima facie case but short of evidence that would lead to conviction – The supreme court also noted that the allegations against the appellants were vague and omnibus and that the trial court order was well reasoned and not perverse.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH N. MANOGAR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma,…
Electoral Bond Scheme, the proviso to Section 29C(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (as amended by Section 137 of Finance Act 2017), Section 182(3) of the Companies Act (as amended by Section 154 of the Finance Act 2017), and Section 13A(b) (as amended by Section 11 of Finance Act 2017) are violative of Article 19(1)(a) and unconstitutional
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.,…
Class-IV employee, when in financial hardship, may represent directly to the superior but that by itself cannot amount to major misconduct for which punishment of termination from service should be imposed – It is trite law that ordinarily the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer should not be interfered by the appellate authority or by the writ court – Appellant is reinstated in service with all consequential benefits – Order of termination set-aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHATRAPAL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. )…
“No Total Bar on Tribal Land Sale: Supreme Court Allows Specific Performance”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BABASAHEB DHONDIBA KUTE — Appellant Vs. RADHU VITHOBA BARDE — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…