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.…
Succession Act, 1956 – Section 63 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Property Dispute – The plaintiffs claimed that the property belonged to them through an oral partition among the sons of the original owner and was bequeathed to them by ‘A’ through a will – Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, finding that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the oral partition and the will.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDHIRAN — Appellant Vs. MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
Set-off is not permitted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) -NCLAT reasoned that the debts between Airtel and Aircel arose from separate transactions and were not connected in a way that would justify set-off – The NCLAT ultimately rejected Airtel’s claim for set-off, finding that it was not permitted under the IBC in the context of Aircel’s corporate insolvency resolution proceedings. This decision reflects the importance of protecting the fairness and efficiency of the insolvency resolution process under the IBC.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. VIJAYKUMAR V. IYER AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.…
The NCLAT upheld the CoC’s decision to distribute the proceeds on a pro-rata basis and dismissed the appellant’s appeal – Overall, the NCLAT’s decision balanced the interests of the dissenting financial creditor (DBS Bank) with the need for a fair and equitable distribution of proceeds under the resolution plan.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DBS BANK LIMITED SINGAPORE — Appellant Vs. RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.…
The state argued the forgery was serious misconduct and made appointments illegal – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and ruled that the appellants were entitled to continue in their service – The court found no evidence of wrongdoing by the Appellants and directed the State to pay the appellants’ salaries with arrears and continue their service.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RADHEY SHYAM YADAV AND ANOTHER ETC — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan,…
Land Dispute – Declaration of title and possession over a property -The doctrine of merger applied, meaning lower courts’ judgments merged with the High Court’s judgment. The respondents’ argument that the High Court committed a bona fide error was rejected, and the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment in the second round. The First Appellate Court’s judgment was restored.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MARY PUSHPAM — Appellant Vs. TELVI CURUSUMARY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
The court found the prosecution’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for kidnapping, attempted murder, and robbery, but had doubts about the evidence’s sufficiency to prove the intention of demanding ransom. The court acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 364A of the IPC while upholding their convictions for other offences.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEERAJ SHARMA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376 and 506 – Rape – Quashing of FIR – The appellant’s main argument was that the prosecution against him was an abuse of process of law – consensual relationship – the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and quashed the FIR against the appellant – Appeal Allowed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJEET SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Cheque Bounce – Default in payment of agreed amount – Violation of undertaking given before the High Court and further violated the condition contained in the order granting extension of time to comply – Order cancelling the order of suspension of sentence and bail is upheld.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SATISH P. BHATT — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…
The appellant had filled in 08.12.1997 as his date of birth, while his actual date of birth is 18.12.1997 – This Court allowed the appeal, holding that the error in the application form was a trivial error and did not justify the cancellation of the appellant’s candidature –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VASHIST NARAYAN KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. )…