Rape – Consensual relationship -The appellant contended a valid Nikah with the second respondent and sought the quashing of the proceedings – The court examined the evidence, emphasizing the consensual nature of the relationship from 2013 to 2017 – The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant in a case of rape and other offences
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHEIKH ARIF — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…
Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 – Section 16(1)(i) – When landlord may recover possession – The Bombay High Court, in a judgment dated 4th August 2015, set aside the eviction decrees passed against the tenants in two separate suits filed by the landlords – this Court set aside the eviction decrees and remanded the cases back to the trial court for fresh consideration
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BAITULLA ISMAIL SHAIKH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KHATIJA ISMAIL PANHALKAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi,…
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(b) – ‘civil contempt’ – This case involves a dispute related to contempt of court arising from a stay order passed in an appeal – The Court set aside the order, emphasizing that the High Court had overstepped its contempt jurisdiction by vacating the stay order – The matter was remanded to the High Court to address the contempt issue appropriately
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMIT KUMAR DAS, JOINT SECRETARY, BAITANIK, A REGISTERED SOCIETY — Appellant Vs. SHRIMATI HUTHEESINGH TAGORE CHARITABLE TRUST — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose…
Allegations do not establish the ingredients of criminal offences – Dispute between the parties was essentially a commercial nature – The Court concludes that the dispute between the parties is essentially a commercial one, and the allegations do not establish the ingredients of criminal offences such as criminal breach of trust – The Court quashes the criminal complaint case and the summoning order, allowing the appeal.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SACHIN GARG — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Legal proceedings related to criminal contempt of court – The case involves a practicing advocate and former army personnel who was convicted by the High Court of Delhi under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – considering the appellant’s age and health conditions, the this Court modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court – The judgment emphasizes the importance of maintaining the dignity and reputation of judicial officers and protecting them from unfounded allegations that interfere with the administration of justice
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GULSHAN BAJWA — Appellant Vs. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.…
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(xi) – The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had assaulted the victim with the intention of dishonouring or outraging her modesty, as required under Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act – The Court also held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the accused belonged to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DASHRATH SAHU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…
Consumer Law – Medical Negligence – – the respondent filed a review petition with the NCDRC, which granted it ex parte, reducing the compensation to Rs. 2 lakhs and stating that the respondent had already paid the amount – The appellant then filed a review petition with the Supreme Court, which reinstated the original order of Rs. 2 lakhs with interest at 12% – The Supreme Court also imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the respondent for making a false representation
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P.C. JAIN — Appellant Vs. DR. R.P. SINGH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(S). …of…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 19(1)(a) – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 500 – Defamation – Quashing of complaint – A complaint has been filed against the appellant/accused, the registered owner of the ‘Sunday Blast’ newspaper – Allegation is that the accused allowed the publication of a news article in the February 24, 2013 edition with the title “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj,” – Order passed by Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad rejecting the complaint of the respondent-complainant is a well-reasoned order
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY UPADHYA — Appellant Vs. ANAND DUBEY — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No(S). …of 2024…
CSIR’s argument that respondent no. 1 was not graded as ‘Good’ whereas respondent nos. 2 & 3 were graded as ‘Very Good’ was irrelevant because the promotion of respondent nos. 2 & 3 had been interfered with by the High Court holding them to be ineligible for the post – In view of the above facts, the Court held that the action of the appellant-CSIR in denying promotion to respondent no. 1 upon the post of Under Secretary was rightly reversed by the High Court.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DIRECTOR GENERAL, COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH(CSIR) — Appellant Vs. J.K. PRASHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and…
In the facts and circumstances noted and more particularly the fact that the appellant still claims to be in possession of the land under acquisition, writ petition preferred by the appellant should have been heard and decided on merits – Matter is remitted to the High Court of Uttarakhand
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH J.N. PURI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (NOW STATE OF UTTARAKHAND) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep…









