![[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)
Mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of theft, especially when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, should not be a sufficient ground to deny the insurance claim.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHOK KUMAR — Appellant Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Person summoned under Section 319 CrPC need not be given opportunity of hearing before being added as accused
that such a right of inquiry or hearing would accrue only to a person who has already been discharged under Section 227 of CrPC in the very same proceeding…
Cheque Dishonour – Concurrent Sentencing Rule Only When Cases Arise Out Of Single Transaction
ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.9 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for…
HELD – Taking into account the distance of the court where the case sought to be transferred is pending and the place where the petitioner-wife is presently residing, we are inclined to allow the captioned transfer petition. Consequently, Transfer Petition is allowed.
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.973 OF 2023 POONAM ANKUR PAWAR … Petitioner VERSUS ANKUR ASHOKBHAI PAWAR … Respondent O R D…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 121, 121A, 124A, 153A, 505(1)(b), 117, 120B read with Section 34 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 15(1)(b), 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39, 40 and 43D(5) – Mere holding of certain literatures through which violent acts may be propagated would not ipso facto attract the provisions of Section 15(1)(b) of the said Act – There has been no credible evidence of commission of any terrorist act or enter into conspiracy to do so to invoke the provisions of Section 43D(5) of the 1967 Act – Bail granted with conditions.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VERNON — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction of suit – Once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction – Value for court fees and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases; but it is the value for court fees stated by the plaintiff that is of primary importance.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH B.P. NAAGAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAJ PAL SHARMA — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Summoning of additional accused – At the stage of summoning an accused, there has to be a prima facie satisfaction of the Court – Evidence which was there before the Court was of an eye witness who has clearly stated before the Court that a crime has been committed, inter alia, by the revisionist- Appeal allowed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANDEEP KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Criminal…
Army Act, 1950 – Sections 39(b) and 63 – Dismissal from Service – Army driver – Unauthorizedly absent for 108 days – Habitual offender -One must be mindful of the fact that discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of service – Order dismissal from Service upheld.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EX SEPOY MADAN PRASAD — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…
Contempt of Court – Maximum Punishment — Simple imprisonment, not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding Rs.2,000/- — Sub-Section (2) reads “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force” this implies that save and except the punishment provided in sub-Section (1) no other punishment can be prescribed to a person guilty of committing contempt of Court.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: B.R. Gavai & Sanjay Karol, JJ. Civil Appeal No.4725 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.13789 of 2022) Decided on: 28.07.2023 Gostho Behari Das – Appellant…
Penal Code, 1860 – Ss 302 & 304-I – Army Act, 1950 – Section 69 – Murder – Conviction and Sentence – Alteration of – Appellant-accused contended that case will be governed by exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC as the incident was an outcome of a sudden fight and he acted in a heat of passion – Conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is altered to the one under Part 1 of Section 304 of IPC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NO.15138812Y L/NK GURSEWAK SINGH — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…