High Court has exceeded jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal proceedings in exercise of the limited powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or in exercise of the powers under Article 226 – unsustainable, quashed & set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Appellant Vs. ARYAN SINGH ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Once there shall be no deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the original writ petitioner shall not be entitled to the compensation as per the Act, 2013.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T.…
Judicial Service – Dismissal – A judicial officer cannot pronounce the concluding portion of his judgment in open court without the entire text of the judgment being prepared/dictated – Penalty of dismissal from service upheld.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SRI M. NARASIMHA PRASAD — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and…
Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 – Section 65 – Transfer of case – An order under Section 167(2) of the Code had to be passed necessarily by the Magistrate “to whom an accused person is forwarded” – In fact, Section 167(2) contains the words “whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case” – Transfer petition dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KA RAUF SHERIF — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Transfer…
HELD No accused can be permitted to play with the investigation and/or the courts process. No accused can be permitted to frustrate the judicial process by his conduct – by not permitting the CBI to have the police custody interrogation for the remainder period of seven days, it will be giving a premium to an accused who has been successful in frustrating the judicial process.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Appellant Vs. VIKAS MISHRA @ VIKASH MISHRA — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
In cases where illegible documents have been supplied to the detenue, a grave prejudice is caused to the detenue in availing his right to send a representation to the relevant authorities, because the detenue, while submitting his representation, does not have clarity on the grounds of his or her detention- no man can defend himself against an unknown threat – Detention order is liable to be set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAMOD SINGLA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Income tax Act, 1961 – Sections 263 and 263(1) – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -If due to an erroneous order of the Income Tax Officer, the Revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 — Appellant Vs. M/S. PAVILLE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna,…
Petition against “unnecessary hysterectomies” were carried out under the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana as well as other government schemes related to healthcare. HELD all the States and Union Territories must take stringent action for blacklisting hospitals once it is detected that any unnecessary hysterectomy was carried out or that the procedure was taken recourse to without the informed consent of the patient. We direct that necessary action be taken in accordance with law.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR NARENDRA GUPTA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and J.B. Pardiwala,…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Reference to arbitration – Jurisdiction – While exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act, is not expected to act mechanically merely to deliver a purported dispute raised by an applicant at the doors of the chosen arbitrator – This is a case where the High Court should have exercised the prima facie test to screen and strike down the ex-facie meritless and dishonest litigation
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NTPC LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S SPML INFRA LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.…
Income Tax Act 1961- Sections 132 and 153C – Section 153C has been amended by way of substitution whereby the words “belongs or belong to” have been substituted by the words “pertains or pertain to” – Amendment by substitution has the effect of wiping the earlier provision from the statute book and replacing it with the amended provision as if the unamended provision never existed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INCOME TAX OFFICER — Appellant Vs. VIKRAM SUJITKUMAR BHATIA — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…