When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other – In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity – This principle means that the Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination – Conviction and sentence set-aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAVED SHAUKAT ALI QURESHI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal…
Whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of a “light motor vehicle” could on the strength of the licence be entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs – Any change in the position of law as expressed in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663 would undoubtedly have an impact on persons who have obtained insurance relying on the law declared by this Court and who may be driving commercial vehicles with LMV licences – A large number of persons would be dependent on the sector for earning their livelihood HELD entire matter is evaluated by the Government before this Court embarks upon the interpretative exercise. Two months time granted
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAMBHA DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.,…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 114 – Murder with knife blows – Even if in the opinion of the autopsy surgeon there was mismatch of the knife with the injuries caused, the doctor’s evidence cannot eclipse ocular evidence – An eyewitness to a gruesome killing cannot in deposition narrate blow by blow account of the knife strikes inflicted on the deceased like in a screenplay – Exaggerated devotion to rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law – Conviction and sentence upheld – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMESHJI AMARSING THAKOR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
HELD The basis of the appeals which question the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat, directing a closure has since been overtaken by the subsequent developments in terms of which the slaughter house has been closed. The closure is not in pursuance of the direction of the Lok Adalat, but in exercise of the statutory jurisdiction of the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PANCHAYAT QURESHIAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri…
IBC 2016 – HELD inclined to give chance to the respondent No.1 in the given facts of the case but would not like the proceedings to drag on under the pretext of the OTS given by the respondent No.1., as it would be the objective of the Court to have a quick resolution with the aspect of insolvency or revival. if the OTS is not accepted, the appellant will be free to declare the results of the e-voting qua all the proposals.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R. RAGHAVENDRAN — Appellant Vs. C. RAJA JOHN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil…
Direction to frame guidelines on media briefings by police – Nature of the disclosure which is made by the police in the course of media briefings should be objective in nature and should not consist of a subjective opinion pre-judging the guilt of the accused – Union Ministry of Home Affairs should prepare a comprehensive manual on media briefings by police personnel – Organisations representing the print and electronic media should also be consulted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y…
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – Section 4-C – Raiyat land is not for mining – The controversy relating to Section 4-C of the WBLR Act, 1955, cannot simply be decided on the basis of Memo No. V/RTI/775/15 dated 06.03.2017 issued by the Deputy District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Purulia, that as per the revenue records the land was recorded as ‘Dungri’. The reason is that Raiyat land is not for mining – Thus, a contradiction arises, as the grant of Raiyat land and the classification of the same land as ‘Dungri’ is contradictory – Government of West Bengal will execute a mining lease for 20.87 acres of land in favour of the Respondent No. 1 – M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna…
Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 54 and Section 9 – Suit for specific performance – Limitation – Article 54 of Part II of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 19637 stipulates the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance as three years from the date fixed for performance, and in alternative when no date is fixed, three years from the date when the plaintiff has notice that performance has been refused – when no time is fixed for performance, the court will have to determine the date on which the plaintiff had notice of refusal on part of the defendant to perform the contract.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. VALLIAMMAI — Appellant Vs. K.P. MURALI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Judicial service – Appointment to higher judicial service – If one of the selected candidates joins and then resigns, it gives rise to a fresh vacancy which could not have been filled up without issuing a proper advertisement and following the fresh selection process.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDESH KUMAR GOYAL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 341, 302 read with 34 – Murder – Common intention – Accused persons had assembled in the morning and surrounded (gheraoed) the deceased with deadly weapons is sufficient indication to infer that they had surrounded (gheraoed) in a pre-planned manner with a pre-determined mind – the nature of injuries which have been caused on the head of the deceased with the deadly weapons proves that they had assembled with the common intention and not merely to threaten her or to deter her from practicing witchcraft
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHAKTU GORAIN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…









