![[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)
Quashing of FIR – Rape – Victim has not furnished any information in regard to the date and time of the commission of the alleged offence – Investigation is over and charge sheet is ready to be filed before the competent court – Although the allegations levelled in the FIR do not inspire any confidence more particularly in the absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged offences – Quashed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IQBAL @ BALA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.…
HELD that the leak of ammonia gas was not occasioned due to wear and tear (as claimed by the Respondent) but was the outcome of an accident[1] which was not foreseen and beyond its control and not covered by any of the exceptions in the Refrigeration Policy (Exception Clause 3) so as to entitle the Respondent to claim immunity for the ultimate purpose of repudiating the insurance claim lodged by the Appellant – Payment of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- in full and final.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S.S. COLD STORAGE INDIA PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ.…
Insurance Law – It is not open to an insurance company to ignore or fail to act upon a certificate or document that it had itself called for from independent and impartial authorities, subject to just exceptions, merely because it is averse to it or to its detriment
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. ISNAR AQUA FARMS — Appellant Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. )…
If the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 395 of the IPC is made out – None of the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 365, 342 and 506 respectively of the IPC are disclosed on plain reading of the FIR – FIR is nothing but abuse of the process of law – FIR quashed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HAJI IQBAL @ BALA THROUGH S.P.O.A. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala,…
Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely – FIR quashed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.…
Quashing of FIR – Gang Rape – By just naming the appellant-accused in the FIR, offence cannot be said to have been committed by him – If any particular role is attributed or some kind of active participation is alleged in relation to the alleged offence, then it would be a different scenario – FIR quashed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HAJI IQBAL @ BALA THROUGH S.P.O.A. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala,…
There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” – Facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty – – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMAL — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
An Authorized Officer under the PMLA, 2002 is not duty bound to follow the rigor of Section 41A of the CrPC, 1973 as against the binding conditions under Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 – – When an arrestee is forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 19(3) of the PMLA, 2002 no writ of Habeus Corpus would lie — Section 167 of the CrPC, 1973 is a bridge between liberty and investigation performing a fine balancing act
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V. SENTHIL BALAJI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and M. M.…
RAHUL GANDHI CASE – When an offence is non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable, the least that the Trial Judge was expected to do was to give some reasons as to why, in the facts and circumstances, he found it necessary to impose the maximum sentence of two years
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAHUL GANDHI — Appellant Vs. PURNESH ISHWARBHAI MODI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.…
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Order 12 Rule 3 – Alternation/Addition of Order – Power of Supreme Court – Any application filed on the pretext of ‘clarification/addition’ while evading the recourse of review, ought not to be entertained and should be discouraged.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KETAN KANTILAL SETH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. )…