Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Private agreements cannot be enforced in Slum Rehabilitation Schemes as against the statutory mandate of Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) – Slum society or private Developer cannot dictate terms to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and it must act in terms of its own policies and circulars – Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) has to act in terms of its own policies and circulars without allowing private or contractual interests to prevail over public policy especially a policy which is welfare based.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAYUNKTA SANGARSH SAMITI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia,…
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 19 – Money Laundering Case – Non-furnishing of grounds of arrest – Illegal Arrest – Seeking direction to release – Since by way of safeguard a duty is cast upon the concerned officer to forward a copy of the order along with the material in his possession to the Adjudicating Authority immediately after the arrest of the person, and to take the person arrested to the concerned court within 24 hours of the arrest, the reasonably convenient or reasonably requisite time to inform the arrestee about the grounds of his arrest would be twenty-four hours of the arrest – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM KISHOR ARORA — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Criminal…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 8 – Reference to Arbitration Clause – A plea of fraud – Two conditions which must be satisfied before the Court can refuse to refer the matter to the Arbitrator, a forum consciously decided by parties in an agreement – First is whether the plea permeates the entire contract and above all, the arbitration agreement, rendering it void or secondly, whether the allegation of fraud touches upon the internal affairs of the parties inter se having no implication in the public domain
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUSHMA SHIVKUMAR DAGA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MADHURKUMAR RAMKRISHNAJI BAJAJ AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.…
HELD it may be recorded here that subsequent to date, there was a chargesheet issued against the Respondent and ultimately, the entire proceedings came to be dropped on 11.12.2019. Since the eligibility conditions in Rule 9 (1)(a)(iii), the validity of which is not under challenge before us, requires us to limit our inquiry into the question of eligibility as on date of consideration, what happens after that becomes insignificant to the inquiry. – In the background of facts and position of law analysed here in, it has to be concluded that as on the date of consideration, disciplinary action was contemplated against the writ petitioner Dinesh Singh, and therefore he was rightly held to be ineligible for selection of his name in Register A-1.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DINESH SINGH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 389 – Suspension of sentence – Appellate Court is unambiguously vested with the power to suspend implementation of the sentence or the order of conviction under appeal and grant bail to the incarcerated convict, for which it is imperative to assign the reasons in writing – In order to suspend the conviction of an individual, the primary factors that are to be looked into, would be the peculiar facts and circumstances of that specific case, where the failure to stay such a conviction would lead to injustice or irreversible consequences
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AFJAL ANSARI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UP — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 16 Rule 21 – There is no difference between a party to a suit as a witness and a witness simpliciter – Production of documents for both a party to the suit and a witness as the case may be, at the stage of cross-examination, is permissible within law – Function performed by either a witness or a party to a suit when in the witness box is the same
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHAMMED ABDUL WAHID — Appellant Vs. NILOFER AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B. R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 439 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 186, 204, 353, 384 and 120-B – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 3, 4 and 45 – Bail – Money Laundering – Merely because accused is a woman should not be granted the benefit of the first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA and grant bail
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAUMYA CHAURASIA — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 and 149 – Murder – Acquittal – Appeal against – A sole eyewitness, happens to be the most interested witness being the father of the deceased and having long enmity with the group to which the accused persons belong, therefore, his testimony was to be examined with great caution and the High Court was justified in doing so and in doubting it so as to uphold the conviction on his solitary evidence
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHHOTE LAL — Appellant Vs. ROHTASH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – Sections 14 and 31(1) – Formation of policy – Jurisdiction – A Tribunal functioning within the strict boundaries of the governing legislation, would not have the power to direct the formation of a policy – it cannot be questioned that disputes in respect of promotions and/or filling up of vacancies is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, it cannot direct those responsible for making policy, to make a policy in a particular manner.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. AIR COMMODORE NK SHARMA (17038) ADM/LGL — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay…
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Sections 52 and 89 – Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Section 16 – Penalty for misbranded food – Punishment under PFA and the penalty under the FSSA cannot be imposed on the violator for the same misbranding because it will amount to double jeopardy – in such a situation, in view of the overriding effect given to the provisions of the FSSA, the violator who indulges in misbranding cannot be punished under the PFA and he will be liable to pay penalty under the FSSA in accordance with Section 52 thereof.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANIK HIRU JHANGIANI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF M.P. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…