Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Benefit of exclusion of period during which Court is closed is available only when application for setting aside the award is filed within ‘prescribed period of limitation’ and it is not available in respect of period extendable by the Court in exercise of its discretion.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHIMASHANKAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITA — Appellant Vs. WALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED (WIL) — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…
Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 17(1A) and 49 – Unregistered Agreement to Sell shall be admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance and the proviso is exception to the first part of Section 49
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R. HEMALATHA — Appellant Vs. KASHTHURI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 2535 of 2023…
(CrPC) – Section 167(2) – Default bail – When the chargesheet has been filed within the period of extension, the accused is not entitled to be released on statutory/default bail.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH QAMAR GHANI USMANI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
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,…