Latest Post

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions. Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with 34 and 120B – Murder – The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the discovery of the body was solely based on the appellants’ statements and that the chain of evidence was incomplete – The Court applied the principles for circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must fully establish the guilt and exclude all other hypotheses – The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

(i) Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court? (ii) what is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry?” First Question answer NEGATIVE second question resolved in (2005) 4 SCC 370

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka & Vikram Nath, JJ. Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2020 Decided on: 15.09.2022 The State of Punjab – Appellant…

Murder — Confession before police – Videography of statement by police – Held, both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements — Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: Uday Umesh Lalit CJI., S. Ravindra Bhat & Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. Criminal Appeal Nos.1597-1600 of 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.8792-8795 of…

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(1)(a) – Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1.2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provision of the 2013 Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. SHIV KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Application under Section 14 SARFAESI Act – District Magistrate (DM)/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) is not required to adjudicate the dispute between the borrower and the secured creditor and/or between any other third party and the secured creditor with respect to the secured assets.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH BALKRISHNA RAMA TARLE DEAD THR LRS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah…

You missed