(CrPC) – Section 391 – Additional evidence – Appellate court must be equally, if not more cautious, of the desire to delay the hearing of the appeal, or the attempt to lead additional evidence to explore a chance of contradictory evidence.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Appellant Vs. ASHARAM @ ASHUMAL — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) – Unless both demand and acceptance are established, offence of obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means covered by clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) cannot be proved – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOUNDARAJAN — Appellant Vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIGILANCE ANTICORRUPTION DINDIGUL — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh…
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Sections 7, 16(1)(a)(i) and 19(2) – Appellant who sold the article of food after purchasing the same from the manufacturer through the invoices which contained the warranty as prescribed under the Act and the Rules – Hence, he had the protection available under Section 19(2)(a) of the Act – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SRI MAHAVIR AGENCY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…
There are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellants of commission of offence under the UAPA are prime facie true – Embargo on the grant of bail under proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 43D will not apply in this case – Bail granted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YEDALA SUBBA RAO AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…
“Corruption is a tree whose branches are of an unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere; and the dew that drops from thence, Hath infected some chairs and stools of authority.” – Anticipatory bail cancelled – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SANTOSH KARNANI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.…
Penalty Leviable Under S. 45 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 Is Statutory And Mandatory; Commissioner/AO Has No Discretion
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S SAW PIPES LTD. (KNOWN AS JINDAL SAW LTD.) — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah…
Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 – Sections 40 and 16(1)(i) – Disqualification – There cannot be a birthright to seek adjournments, especially when the Divisional Commissioner was mandated to decide the issue of disqualification within a period of ninety days from application, as per Section 40(2) of the Act – Divisional Commissioner thus rightly treated the written submissions as his defence – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VIRENDRASING — Appellant Vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…
RE: FELLING OF TREES IN AAREY FOREST (MAHARASHTRA)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE: FELLING OF TREES IN AAREY FOREST (MAHARASHTRA) ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and J B Pardiwala,…
HELD on SARFESAI writs to High courts – – When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to circumvent shall not be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant cannot avoid the noncompliance of approaching the Tribunal which requires the prescription of fees and use the constitutional remedy as an alternative.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna…
(IPC) – S 302 – Evidence Act, 1872 – S 8 r/w S 27 – Murder – that part of the confession which led to the recovery of the dead body of the victim would become admissible, apart from other articles of the deceased recovered at the instance of the accused has been identified by several witnesses independently – – Conviction and sentence upheld.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SIJU KURIAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 64…








