Latest Post

[Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, S. 80] | [Civil court jurisdiction barred for disputes concerning public trusts unless specific conditions are met.] Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 — Criminal Breach of Trust, Cheating, Forgery, Using Forged Document — Joint Venture Agreement — Dispute arising from JVA — FIR quashed — Allegations primarily civil in nature, with a criminal cloak — Dishonest intention not evident from the inception — Delay in lodging FIR indicates civil dispute — Security deposit not refundable, adjustable against share in sale proceeds — No false representation regarding title or litigation in JVA — Allegation of forgery of a tracing document unsubstantiated — Recourse to civil remedies should be taken for contractual disputes. Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 123 — Regularisation of unauthorised occupation — Legal fiction created by Section 123(2) deems land settled with house owners in possession by a specific cut-off date, overriding Section 143 declaration — Regularisation is a socio-economic measure and is applicable even if houses were built forcefully or without consent. [S. 302 read with S. 34 IPC] | Non-recovery of weapons cannot be fatal to prosecution if ocular and medical evidence is consistent and reliable. “Sharbat Rooh Afza” — Classification — Contains declared fruit juice and derives essential beverage identity from fruit-based constituents — Invert sugar syrup acts as carrier, sweetener, and preservative, not determinative of commercial identity — Fruit juice and allied distillates impart flavour and beverage character — Held to be classifiable as “fruit drink” under Entry 103.

Circumstantial evidence – they must exclude all hypotheses consistent with the innocence of the accused and inconsistent with his guilt – Incriminating circumstances were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and otherwise also the circumstance of last seen was inconclusive – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF PUNJAB — Appellant Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 2128…

Service Law – Compassionate appointment – If the monthly income is less than 60% of the total emoluments (which the deceased was drawing at the time of death) less Tax @ 15% (if the income is more than Rs. 10,000/- p.m.) the case for compassionate appointment can be considered

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BALJIT SINGH — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

HELD In order to ensure the purity of the election process it was thought by our Constitution- makers that the responsibility to hold free and fair elections in the country should be entrusted to an independent body which would be insulated from political and/or executive interference.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SUVENDU ADHIKARI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra,…

Division Bench to ensure giving appropriate opportunity and time to the appellants to make submissions before the Division Bench and thereafter appropriate orders may be passed as the Division Bench may deem fit after hearing learned counsel for the appellants – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GREATER MALWA PARAMEDICAL COLLEGE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,…

Murder – In the absence of any credible eye witness to the incident and the fact that the presence of the accused appellants at the place of incident is not well established – Constrained to accord benefit of doubt to both the accused appellants – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD. MUSLIM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (NOW UTTARAKHAND) — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal…

Paid-up capital – Appellants cannot be described as having acted in a defective or in an unfair manner, in the matter of allotment of further shares particularly when the contention of the respondents about the bona fides of the decision to increase the authorised capital has been found in favour of the appellants

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HASMUKHLAL MADHAVLAL PATEL AND ANR. — Appellant Vs. AMBIKA FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and B.V.…