Latest Post

[Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, S. 80] | [Civil court jurisdiction barred for disputes concerning public trusts unless specific conditions are met.] Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 — Criminal Breach of Trust, Cheating, Forgery, Using Forged Document — Joint Venture Agreement — Dispute arising from JVA — FIR quashed — Allegations primarily civil in nature, with a criminal cloak — Dishonest intention not evident from the inception — Delay in lodging FIR indicates civil dispute — Security deposit not refundable, adjustable against share in sale proceeds — No false representation regarding title or litigation in JVA — Allegation of forgery of a tracing document unsubstantiated — Recourse to civil remedies should be taken for contractual disputes. Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 123 — Regularisation of unauthorised occupation — Legal fiction created by Section 123(2) deems land settled with house owners in possession by a specific cut-off date, overriding Section 143 declaration — Regularisation is a socio-economic measure and is applicable even if houses were built forcefully or without consent. [S. 302 read with S. 34 IPC] | Non-recovery of weapons cannot be fatal to prosecution if ocular and medical evidence is consistent and reliable. “Sharbat Rooh Afza” — Classification — Contains declared fruit juice and derives essential beverage identity from fruit-based constituents — Invert sugar syrup acts as carrier, sweetener, and preservative, not determinative of commercial identity — Fruit juice and allied distillates impart flavour and beverage character — Held to be classifiable as “fruit drink” under Entry 103.
Service Matters

Punjab Police Rules, 1934 – Rule 12.21 and 16.24 – Discharge of Inefficients – Case involving the discharge of a constable from the Punjab Police force – The constable, ‘J’, was discharged during his probation period due to prolonged absence without any intimation – The Supreme Court examined the relevant rules and held that ‘J’ discharge was justified as he was found unlikely to become an efficient police officer.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JASWANT SINGH — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil…

Penal Code, 1860 – 120B, 409, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 – Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 – Sections 4, 5, and 6 – Interlocutory applications filed by accused individuals seeking bail – the court agrees with the prosecution that the applicants should approach jurisdictional courts rather than seeking relief from the higher court – However, the court extends the interim bail granted to the applicants for three months to enable them to seek bail from the concerned courts.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PACL — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Respondent ( Before : A. S. Bopanna and M. M. Sundresh, JJ. ) IA. No.…

Even in a case where the final report of the police under Section 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ZUNAID — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Delhi Development Act, 1957 – Section 57 – Claim for interest – the court finds that the circumstances of the deposit did not involve any loss due to the “Act of Court” and that the notification was in force when the deposit was made – Therefore, the court rejects the claim for interest – The appellants are advised to pursue remedies for their subsequent losses separately.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Prashant…

An order of detention under section 3(1) of the Act can only be issued against a detenu to prevent him “from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”. “Public order” is defined in the Explanation to section 2(a) of the Act as encompassing situations that cause “harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave wide-spread danger to life or public health” – Order of detention quashed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMEENA BEGUM — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal…