FIRs In Multiple States Can’t Be Clubbed When Offences Under State Enactments Also Involved
“In the instant case, the FIRs have been filed against the petitioner in the respective States not only invoking the provisions of the IPC but also the provisions of the…
Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To IPS Officer Who Allegedly Got Conman To Pose As HC Chief Justice To Influence Corruption Probe
The Supreme Court recently denied anticipatory bail to IPS officer and former Superintendent of Police Aditya Kumar who had allegedly involved a conman to pose as the Chief Justice of…
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 80HHC – Claim for deduction -The assessee’s attempt to broaden the deduction sources is considered impermissible, as strict interpretation aligns with specific terms in Section 80HHC – Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 80HHC emphasize that deductions are intended exclusively for profits derived from exporting goods and merchandise outside India, and including other income contradicts the section’s intended scope and purpose – Appeal Dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAH ORIGINALS — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-24, MUMBAI — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Section 16 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 25 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Rule 12 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 – Murder – – the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, but all the sentences which have been awarded to him are hereby quashed as such sentences cannot be given to a juvenile, in view of Section 16 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – The appeal is partially allowed concerning the issue of juvenility – The High Court’s order is modified accordingly.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PAWAN KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. )…
Held, the appellant may have accidentally caused the death of the deceased while intoxicated, there is no evidence to prove that the appellant, due to intoxication – The absence of such evidence, combined with the appellant not claiming to have been intoxicated against his will, leads to the conclusion that Section 86 of the (IPC) does not apply – Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to a reduction of the sentence from Section 302 IPC (murder) to a charge falling under Part II of Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) – Appeal Dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NANHE — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 2791…
IBC, 2016 – Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction only under Section 31(2) of the Code, which gives power not to approve only when the Resolution Plan does not meet the requirement laid down under Section 31(1) of the Code, for which a reasoned order is required to be passed – NCLT’s jurisdiction and powers as the Adjudicating Authority under the Code, flow only from the Code and the Regulations thereunder.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAVINDRA LOONKAR, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF ACIL LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin…
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 16 – Adoption Deed – Mere fact that a deed of adoption has been registered cannot be taken as evidence of proof of adoption, as an adoption deed never proves an adoption – Factum of adoption has to be proved by oral evidence of giving or taking of the child and that the necessary ceremonies, where they are necessary to be performed, were carried out in accordance with shastras.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOTURU NALINI KANTH — Appellant Vs. GAINEDI KALIPRASAD (DEAD, THROUGH LRS.) — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Civil…
Insurance Claim – Replacement of Car – On account of damage caused to BMW Car due to accident – In case of total loss/constructive total loss, instead of paying the amount, the insurer has an option available to replace the vehicle with a new one – Thus, it is not the right of the insured under the policy conditions to always claim replacement of the car – It is at the option of the insurer
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. MUKUL AGGARWAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal,…
Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015 (as amended by Mineral (Auction) Amendment Rules, 2017) – Rule 9(10), Rule 9(11) and Rule 9(12) – The State Government is expected to be aware of the commercial worth of the natural resources being tendered or auctioned, as well as their potential future earning capacity – Consequently, the statutory regulations outline a bid cum e-auction process that involves not only shortlisting technically qualified bidders but also evaluating specific bids to ensure they meet eligibility criteria for participation in the e-auction – The rules incorporate various safeguards to guarantee transparency and objectivity throughout the bidding process.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF JHARKHAND — Appellant Vs. SOCIEDADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.V.N. Bhatti and Sanjiv Khanna,…
Civil Law – It is settled law that a vendor cannot transfer a title to the vendee better than he himself possesses, the principle arising from the maxim nemo dat quod non habet, i.e., “no one can confer a better title than what he himself has”. In the present case, the plaintiff’s vendor having been denied the right of title in the land by the Commissioner’s order, could not have conveyed the same to her vendee.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P. KISHORE KUMAR — Appellant Vs. VITTAL K. PATKAR — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…