![[Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, S. 80] | [Civil court jurisdiction barred for disputes concerning public trusts unless specific conditions are met.]](https://i0.wp.com/sclaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Code-of-Civil-Procedure.jpg?resize=150%2C150&ssl=1)
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Acquittal – Judgment of acquittal can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when there is perversity and not by taking a different view on reappreciation of evidence – If the conclusion of the Trial Court is plausible one, merely because another view is possible on reappreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal and substitute its own findings to convict the accused – Conviction and sentence set-aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RUPESH MANGER (THAPA) — Appellant Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Service Law – Benefit of revised pay scales – There is no reason why the appellants should be denied the same relief, especially when even as of 7th January 2014, the same benefit was granted to the similarly placed employees – Direction to State Government to extend the benefits under the Government Order dated 15th November 1999 to the appellants within a period of three months.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH B.C. NAGARAJ AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal,…
Restoration of Review application – No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic much less should be permitted to misuse the process of law – High Court had committed gross error in allowing such vexatious applications and that too without assigning any reason.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VASANT NATURE CURE HOSPITAL AND PRATIBHA MATERNITY HOSPITAL TRUST AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UKAJI RAMAJI-SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ANOTHER —…
When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other – In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity – This principle means that the Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination – Conviction and sentence set-aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAVED SHAUKAT ALI QURESHI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal…
Whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of a “light motor vehicle” could on the strength of the licence be entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs – Any change in the position of law as expressed in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663 would undoubtedly have an impact on persons who have obtained insurance relying on the law declared by this Court and who may be driving commercial vehicles with LMV licences – A large number of persons would be dependent on the sector for earning their livelihood HELD entire matter is evaluated by the Government before this Court embarks upon the interpretative exercise. Two months time granted
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAMBHA DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.,…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 114 – Murder with knife blows – Even if in the opinion of the autopsy surgeon there was mismatch of the knife with the injuries caused, the doctor’s evidence cannot eclipse ocular evidence – An eyewitness to a gruesome killing cannot in deposition narrate blow by blow account of the knife strikes inflicted on the deceased like in a screenplay – Exaggerated devotion to rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law – Conviction and sentence upheld – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMESHJI AMARSING THAKOR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
HELD The basis of the appeals which question the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat, directing a closure has since been overtaken by the subsequent developments in terms of which the slaughter house has been closed. The closure is not in pursuance of the direction of the Lok Adalat, but in exercise of the statutory jurisdiction of the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PANCHAYAT QURESHIAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri…
IBC 2016 – HELD inclined to give chance to the respondent No.1 in the given facts of the case but would not like the proceedings to drag on under the pretext of the OTS given by the respondent No.1., as it would be the objective of the Court to have a quick resolution with the aspect of insolvency or revival. if the OTS is not accepted, the appellant will be free to declare the results of the e-voting qua all the proposals.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R. RAGHAVENDRAN — Appellant Vs. C. RAJA JOHN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil…
Direction to frame guidelines on media briefings by police – Nature of the disclosure which is made by the police in the course of media briefings should be objective in nature and should not consist of a subjective opinion pre-judging the guilt of the accused – Union Ministry of Home Affairs should prepare a comprehensive manual on media briefings by police personnel – Organisations representing the print and electronic media should also be consulted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y…
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – Section 4-C – Raiyat land is not for mining – The controversy relating to Section 4-C of the WBLR Act, 1955, cannot simply be decided on the basis of Memo No. V/RTI/775/15 dated 06.03.2017 issued by the Deputy District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Purulia, that as per the revenue records the land was recorded as ‘Dungri’. The reason is that Raiyat land is not for mining – Thus, a contradiction arises, as the grant of Raiyat land and the classification of the same land as ‘Dungri’ is contradictory – Government of West Bengal will execute a mining lease for 20.87 acres of land in favour of the Respondent No. 1 – M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna…