Latest Post

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 — Conviction and Sentence — Separate punishments for offences under Section 20 as well as offences under Sections 25 and 29 are permissible, as these are distinct and independent offences, even if they arise from the same transaction. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33C(2) — Maintainability of claim petition — Labour Court and High Court dismissed the appellant’s case on the technical ground of non-maintainability of the petition under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, primarily because proceedings under this section are in the nature of execution proceedings — The issue of grant of pension was disputed by the respondent-Bank and therefore could not be held to be a pre-existing right — Dismissal of the case at the threshold by both the Labour Court and High Court was upheld. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 1 Rule 10 — Impleadment of parties — Principles for impleadment — A necessary party is essential for effective order, while a proper party aids complete adjudication — In writ proceedings, a person directly affected by an interim order can be joined even if not an original party. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 374 — Appeal against dismissal of criminal appeal by High Court — Conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act — Prosecution case based entirely on circumstantial evidence — No eyewitnesses — Reliability of prosecution witnesses critically examined — Admission by key witness regarding darkness and identification by voice only, materially undermining credibility — Evidence found insufficient to meet standard of proof in criminal law and exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence — Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Conviction for uttering obscene words — Held, mere use of the word “bastard” is not sufficient to constitute obscenity, especially in heated conversations during the modern era — Conviction under Section 294(b) IPC is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

Registration Act, 1908 – Section 47 – Time from which registered document operates – Sale operated from the date of execution of the original sale deed, despite the alteration made before registration without the buyer’s consent – This was because the full consideration was paid on the date of execution, and Section 47 of the Registration Act applies to make the sale deed operate from that date.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANWAR RAJ SINGH (D) TH. LRS. — Appellant Vs. GEJO. (D) TH.LRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj…

Article 229 of the Constitution does not grant the Chief Justice the power to make rules regarding the post-retiral benefits of former judges – The State Government has the legislative power to make laws regarding the post-retiral benefits of its employees, including former High Court judges.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS —…

“The SEBI, and the investigative agencies of the Union government, shall probe into whether the loss suffered by Indian investors due to the conduct of the Hindenburg research and any other entities in taking short position involved any infraction of law, and if so, suitable action shall be taken.”

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VISHAL TIWARI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj…

Service Matters

The appellant had filled in 08.12.1997 as his date of birth, while his actual date of birth is 18.12.1997 – SCOI 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: – The Supreme Court’s reasoning is based on the following principles: a. De minimis non curat lex – The law does not concern itself with trifles. b. Candidacy cancellation for trivial errors is not justified. c. No prejudice caused to the state due to the error.

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. )…

You missed