Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Husband and wife had lived together only for 40 days – It takes time to settle down in marriage – Petition dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELMA LUBNA COELHO — Appellant Vs. EDMOND CLINT FERNANDES — Respondent ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Transfer Petition (C)…
HELD the accused having secured the acquittal, the presumption of their innocence gets further reinforced and strengthened. Therefore, the appellate court ought not to lightly interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court unless there is gross perversity in the appreciation of the evidence and even if two views are possible, it should follow the view taken by the trial court rather than choosing the second possible version.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FEDRICK CUTINHA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 2251…
Power Purchase Agreement – the finding of the CERC and the learned APTEL is to the effect that Adani Power Mundra Limited would not be entitled to any benefit of Change in Law beyond 70% of the installed capacity i.e. 1386 MW – Findings cannot be said to not be based on the material on record, or based on extraneous considerations.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ADANI POWER (MUNDRA) LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai…
HELD government employees cannot claim double overtime allowance as per the Factories Act, if the service rules do not provide for it – whether employees working as supervisors at the Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India (a company under the Ministry of Finance responsible for minting currency notes) are entitled to double overtime allowance as per the Factories Act 1948 – No
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS ETC. — Appellant Vs. VIJAY D. KASBE AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before…
Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – Sections 118 and 121 – Partition – When a decision is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118 on the question as to the property to be divided and the mode of partition, the rights and status of the parties stand decided and the partition is deemed to have completed – At this stage, such decision is required to be treated as the “decree”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JHABBAR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AN OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JAGTAR SINGH S/O DARSHAN SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and…
HELD allotment of an identified plot in favour of Shashi Bala did not crystallize by the date of the Full Bench judgment and was at the stage of the Governments approval- FB judgement held invalidating the actual allotments made under the discretionary quota and directing the Government to draw up a policy in relation to reservation for various categories – Appeal dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IMPROVEMENT TRUST, ROPAR THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, ROPAR, PUNJAB — Appellant Vs. SHASHI BALA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sanjay…
(CrPC) – Section 391 – Additional evidence – Appellate court must be equally, if not more cautious, of the desire to delay the hearing of the appeal, or the attempt to lead additional evidence to explore a chance of contradictory evidence.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Appellant Vs. ASHARAM @ ASHUMAL — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) – Unless both demand and acceptance are established, offence of obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means covered by clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) cannot be proved – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOUNDARAJAN — Appellant Vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIGILANCE ANTICORRUPTION DINDIGUL — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh…
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Sections 7, 16(1)(a)(i) and 19(2) – Appellant who sold the article of food after purchasing the same from the manufacturer through the invoices which contained the warranty as prescribed under the Act and the Rules – Hence, he had the protection available under Section 19(2)(a) of the Act – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SRI MAHAVIR AGENCY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…
There are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellants of commission of offence under the UAPA are prime facie true – Embargo on the grant of bail under proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 43D will not apply in this case – Bail granted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YEDALA SUBBA RAO AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…