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.

Interpretation of Contract – A commercial document cannot be interpreted in a manner that is at odds with the original purpose and intendment of the parties to the document – A deviation from the plain terms of the contract is warranted only when it serves business efficacy better.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RATNAGIRI GAS AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya…

Service Matters

Service Law – Relaxation – Eligibility qualifications – State had power to relax the eligibility criteria, the same could not have been done mid-stream without giving wide publicity of such change, and opportunity to similarly situated candidates to apply and compete with others

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANKITA THAKUR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Manoj Misra and Hrishikesh Roy,…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32 – Writ Petition – Direction to expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members of the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies HELD Learned Chief Justices of the High Courts shall register a suo-motu case with the title, “In Re: designated courts for MPs/MLAs” to monitor early disposal of criminal cases pending against the members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies – The suo-motu case may be heard by the Special Bench presided by the Learned Chief Justice or a bench assigned by them.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Evidence Act, 1972 – Section 32 – Murder by poisoning – Dying declaration – A statement made by a person who is dying is made exception to the rule of hearsay and has been made admissible in evidence under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, it would not be prudent to base conviction, relying upon such dying declaration alone – Conviction and sentence set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARIPRASAD @ KISHAN SAHU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Employees Provident Fund And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Section 1(3)(B) – Establishments of factories – Clause (a) of sub-Section (3) is applicable only to those factories engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I – Clause (b) of sub-Section (3) is applicable to all other establishments which are not covered by clause (a) of sub-Section (3) provided such establishments are notified by a notification issued by the Central Government which is published in the official Gazette

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THANKAMMA BABY — Appellant Vs. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, KOCHI, KERALA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…

Service Matters

Forfeiture of gratuity – Compulsory retirement; removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment and dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment are distinct and separate punishments – Act of forfeiture of gratuity is not envisaged as the provisions are silent on the aspect of forfeiture in case of compulsory retirement.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JYOTIRMAY RAY — Appellant Vs. THE FIELD GENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan,…

As to procedural unconscionability, the Court finds that this was a contract of adhesion. The terms of the contract were not negotiated and Plaintiff had relatively little economic strength in the transaction. As to substantive unconscionability, the arbitration clause is unreasonable insofar as it requires Plaintiff to travel to Okaloosa County, Florida for the arbitration. In many circumstances requiring a consumer to travel a substantial distance to arbitrate a claim has been found to be unreasonable

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH LOMBARDI ENGINEERING LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UTTARAKHAND JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala and…

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is bolstered if the trial court hands down an acquittal – A Court of Appeal should be circumspect in overturning its judgment of acquittal, is not a principle that requires reiteration – Time and again that an acquittal will only be overturned in the presence of very compelling reasons.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANJUNATH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

You missed