State Bank of India (SBI) was directed to disclose details of Electoral Bonds purchased and redeemed, including purchaser names and bond denominations – The Election Commission of India (ECI) was ordered to publish the disclosed information on its website by a specific deadline – SBI sought an extension for compliance, which was denied, and the Court warned of contempt proceedings if the directions were not followed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH STATE BANK OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Sanjiv…
Court directed the Commissioner to work out remedies for the cases of goods under Section 15(1)(c) of the Customs Act within a specified timeframe – The Court sustained the demand for customs duty and interest on certain cases while upholding the penalty imposed on the appellant for unauthorized removal of imported goods – The impugned order of the CESTAT was modified accordingly, and the appeal was allowed in part.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. BISCO LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. )…
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Supreme Court found significant discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, including the victim’s, casting doubt on the prosecution’s version of events – Due to these inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, setting aside their convictions and sentences – The judgment emphasizes the importance of credible evidence and the consequences of accusations on the lives of individuals, highlighting the need for careful examination of testimonies in sexual harassment cases.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NIRMAL PREMKUMAR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Dipankar Datta, K.V. Viswanathan and Sandeep…
Land Dispute – Appeal Against High Court Order – The appellant challenges the High Court’s decision to quash a resolution for land allocation for a new primary school – The dispute involves land needed for a highway project, leading to the demolition and proposed relocation of a school – Respondents filed multiple writ petitions, with the latest being dismissed due to concealment of previous petitions and lack of notice to parties – The Supreme Court finds the High Court’s order arbitrary and sets it aside, allowing the appeal and the school’s construction on the disputed land.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNEETA DEVI — Appellant Vs. AVINASH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s). of…
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 – Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Section 52 – Misbranding – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but considered the new Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which provides for a lesser penalty for misbranding, leading to a reduction in the sentence – Appellant no.2’s sentence was converted to a fine, and appellant no.1’s fine was upheld – The appeal was partly allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S A.K. SARKAR AND COMPANY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia…
Allegations were based on WhatsApp status messages that were considered to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, specifically regarding the abrogation of Article 370 and Independence Day of Pakistan – The Court analyzed the intention behind the messages, referencing past judgments and the importance of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution – The Court quashed the FIR, stating that the appellant’s messages were an expression of protest within his rights, and continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the process of law
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAVED AHMAD HAJAM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. )…
“The tiger perishes without the forest and the forest perishes without its tigers. Therefore, the tiger should stand guard over the forest and the forest should protect all its tigers.”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sandeep Mehta,…
Motor Accident Claims – The Supreme Court re-assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 35,000/- per month and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 38,81,500/- with interest @8% per annum to the appellants – The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the High Court and restored that of the Tribunal partially.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VETHAMBAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 376(2)(n) and 506 – Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR, holding that the complainant was a mature and intelligent woman who consented to the relations with the appellant during the subsistence of her earlier marriage – The Court also relied on a similar case, Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), where the accused was not held guilty of rape on false promise of marriage.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH XXXX — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
High Court did not consider the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, the circumstances peculiar to the respondent, and the larger interest of the public or the State – The Court also notes that the respondent failed in his fundamental duty as a police officer and the possibility of his influencing the witnesses and the investigation was high – The Court holds that the respondent is not entitled to anticipatory bail and directs him to apply for regular bail if arrested.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF JHARKHAND — Appellant Vs. SANDEEP KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No……of…








