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.…
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Section 30 -if landlord serves notice of demand against the higher rate and expresses his willingness to accept the rent, the tenant after receipt of notice is under an obligation to tender the rent at least at the rate admitted to him to the landlord and has got no right to straight away deposit the same under Section 30(1) of the Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. SHAMIM AHMAD (DEAD) THR. LRS. — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Media One case – while public interest immunity claims conceivably impact the principles of natural justice, sealed cover proceedings infringe the principles natural justice and open justice;
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MADHYAMAM BROADCASTING LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and Hima Kohli,…
CPC – S 11- Res Judiciata – to apply, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit & the suit should have been decided on merits and the decision should have attained finality
Code of Civil Procedure – Section 11 – Res judicata- An order closing the proceedings is not final decision of the suit within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 8…
(CPC) – Or 23 R 3 – Compromise of suit – must be in writing and signed by the parties and there must be a completed agreement between them – To constitute an adjustment, the agreement or compromise must itself be capable of being embodied in a decree.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRASANTA KUMAR SAHOO AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. CHARULATA SAHU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. )…
Rule 3 of Order 17 of the CPC, also known as Or 17 R 3, gives courts the authority to proceed with a case even if one of the parties fails to provide evidence. This power can significantly limit the options for the losing party to seek justice, and is considered a drastic measure. Therefore, courts should exercise this power only in rare and exceptional situations.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREM KISHORE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BRAHM PRAKASH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. ) Civil…
(IPC) – Sections 300-Exception 4, 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Nature of the injuries caused by dangerous weapons like sickle and sword which, were applied on the vital part of the body, there is no escape from the conclusion that it is a case of Section 302 of the IPC – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALU SUDAM KHALDE AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. )…
(IPC) – Ss 394 and 397 – Arms Act, 1959 – S 25 – Robbery with voluntarily causing hurt – Presence of accused at the scene of crime and recovery of pistol from him becomes highly doubtful and the guilt of the accused having not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, conviction and sentence cannot be upheld.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANWAR @ BHUGRA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…