Latest Post

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — Section 8(3) — Unauthorized alienation of minor’s property — Such alienation is voidable, not void ab initio, and can be challenged by the minor upon attaining majority or by someone claiming under the minor. Criminal Procedure — Delay in Investigation and Filing of Charge Sheet — Speedy Trial — Right to Speedy Trial and Timely Completion of Investigation are integral parts of Article 21 of the Constitution — Statutory recognition in CrPC for prompt investigation — Investigations should be completed within a reasonable time, not endlessly — Lack of strict timelines in CrPC does not permit indefinite investigations — Inordinate delay without adequate justification warrants intervention by Courts. Contract Law — Statutory Amendment — Impact on existing contracts — Where a statutory amendment alters a fundamental aspect like royalty rates, a pre-existing contract cannot prevent the application of the amended law, especially when the payment of royalty is linked to the removal or consumption of minerals — [MMDR Act] Applicability of S.9 — Scope — Section 9 applies broadly to all entities engaged in removal/dispatch of minerals, not only direct mining lessees. Criminal Procedure — Passport — Return/Surrender of Passport — Accused facing serious criminal charges — Right to travel abroad vis-à-vis right to speedy trial — Balance between individual liberty and societal interest — Accused charged with abetment of suicide and criminal conspiracy since 2014, trial still at stage of committal despite lapse of over ten years — Accused, a US citizen, had misused interim protection in prior proceedings to leave the country without Court’s leave — Whether High Court justified in permitting accused to travel abroad on grounds of medical treatment — Held, not justified — High Court indulgent rather than judicially restrained — Medical facilities in India comparable to those abroad — High Court’s revisional order set aside — Accused restrained from travelling abroad without express permission of Sessions Court — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 442 — Constitution of India, Art. 21 Service Law — Promotion — Entitlement to promotion to Chief Medical Director (Higher Administrative Grade) in Indian Railway Medical Service — Appellant was denied promotion despite being eligible, with a junior officer being promoted instead — Appellant’s case was rejected by the Tribunal and High Court based on her grading in Annual Confidential Reports

Rejection of plaint – Suit for possession and suit for claiming damages for use and occupation of the property are two different causes of action – There being different consideration for adjudication second suit filed by the respondent claiming damages for use and occupation of the premises was maintainable

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ATM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal,…

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(2)(v) and 14A(1) – – Acquittal -There must be an allegation that the accused not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe committed an offence under the IPC punishable for a term of 10 years or more against a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe knowing that such person belongs to such ‘community’

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHASHIKANT SHARMA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta,…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 306 – Abetment of Suicide – Acquittal – The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done by the appellants in the close proximity to the date of suicide – By no stretch of the imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHIT SINGHAL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal,…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 34 – Murder – Applicability of Section 34 of the IPC – For applying Section 34 IPC there should be a common intention of all the co-accused persons which means community of purpose and common design – Common intention does not mean that the co-accused persons should have engaged in any discussion or agreement so as to prepare a plan or hatch a conspiracy for committing the offence

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM NARESH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

You missed