Latest Post

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions. Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with 34 and 120B – Murder – The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the discovery of the body was solely based on the appellants’ statements and that the chain of evidence was incomplete – The Court applied the principles for circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must fully establish the guilt and exclude all other hypotheses – The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24 – Additional amount of penal interest must be paid in place of shifting the date for determination of the amount of compensation or to determine the compensation as per 2013 Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH REDDY VEERANA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vineet Saran and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil…

Section 124A of IPC – – All pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to other Sections, if any, could proceed if the Courts are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused. HELD We hope and expect that the State and Central Governments will restrain from registering any FIR, continuing any investigation or taking any coercive measures by invoking Section 124A of IPC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION N.V. RAMANA; CJI., SURYA KANT; J., HIMA KOHLI; J. MAY 11, 2022 S.G. VOMBATKERE Versus UNION OF INDIA Indian Penal Code,…

Quashing of proceedings – Money Laundering – HELD till the allegations are proved, the appellant would be innocent – High Court by the impugned order has recorded the finding without due consideration of the letter of the I.T. Department and other material in right perspective – Proceedings quashed – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH J.SEKAR @SEKAR REDDY — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Vineet Saran and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Appointment of Arbitrator – Absence of Written Agreement – HELD the parties themselves agreed on a procedure for appointment of the arbitrator and appointed and nominated an arbitrator by mutual consent – Therefore, the application under section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 was not maintainable at all.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SWADESH KUMAR AGARWAL — Appellant Vs. DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL AND OTHERS, ETC., ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

You missed