Anticipatory bail – Cruelty to wife – Once the chargesheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MD. ASFAK ALAM — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ.…
Practice of ‘ta khubzul badlain’ in Bihar recognises that a duly executed sale deed will not operate as a transfer in praesenti but postpones the actual transfer of title, from the time of execution and registration of the deed, to the time of exchange of equivalents, that is, registration receipt and the sale consideration, if the intention of the parties was that title would pass only on payment of entire sale consideration
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS — Appellant Vs. RAM BACHAN DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh…
Mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of theft, especially when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, should not be a sufficient ground to deny the insurance claim.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHOK KUMAR — Appellant Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Person summoned under Section 319 CrPC need not be given opportunity of hearing before being added as accused
that such a right of inquiry or hearing would accrue only to a person who has already been discharged under Section 227 of CrPC in the very same proceeding…
Cheque Dishonour – Concurrent Sentencing Rule Only When Cases Arise Out Of Single Transaction
ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.9 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for…
HELD – Taking into account the distance of the court where the case sought to be transferred is pending and the place where the petitioner-wife is presently residing, we are inclined to allow the captioned transfer petition. Consequently, Transfer Petition is allowed.
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.973 OF 2023 POONAM ANKUR PAWAR … Petitioner VERSUS ANKUR ASHOKBHAI PAWAR … Respondent O R D…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 121, 121A, 124A, 153A, 505(1)(b), 117, 120B read with Section 34 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 15(1)(b), 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39, 40 and 43D(5) – Mere holding of certain literatures through which violent acts may be propagated would not ipso facto attract the provisions of Section 15(1)(b) of the said Act – There has been no credible evidence of commission of any terrorist act or enter into conspiracy to do so to invoke the provisions of Section 43D(5) of the 1967 Act – Bail granted with conditions.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VERNON — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction of suit – Once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction – Value for court fees and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases; but it is the value for court fees stated by the plaintiff that is of primary importance.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH B.P. NAAGAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAJ PAL SHARMA — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Summoning of additional accused – At the stage of summoning an accused, there has to be a prima facie satisfaction of the Court – Evidence which was there before the Court was of an eye witness who has clearly stated before the Court that a crime has been committed, inter alia, by the revisionist- Appeal allowed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANDEEP KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Criminal…
Army Act, 1950 – Sections 39(b) and 63 – Dismissal from Service – Army driver – Unauthorizedly absent for 108 days – Habitual offender -One must be mindful of the fact that discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of service – Order dismissal from Service upheld.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EX SEPOY MADAN PRASAD — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…







