(IPC) – Sections 308 and 338 – The appellant, as a conductor, had a duty to take care of the passengers on the overcrowded bus – However, he failed to verify if all passengers had safely boarded the bus before signaling the driver to start – Despite knowing that many students were waiting at the bus stop, he neglected his duty and acted recklessly – As a result, PW-1 suffered a fractured pelvis, putting human life in danger
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABDUL ANSAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Re-instatement – Back wages – The appellant established unemployment at least until August 1997 – Based on the salary figures provided, the appellant’s gross salary on the date of reinstatement was Rs. 18,830, while it was approximately Rs. 4,000 per month at the time of removal – An amount of Rs.3 lakhs is ordered to be paid to the appellant in lieu of back wages.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMESH CHAND — Appellant Vs. MANAGEMENT OF DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil…
Evidence Act, 1872 – Ss 4 and 18 – Testimony of a child witness – Before taking the testimony of a minor, it is the responsibility of the Judicial Officer to ask preliminary questions to ensure that the minor can comprehend and respond rationally & record the preliminary questions and answers for review by the Appellate Court to assess the Trial Court’s opinion accurately.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRADEEP — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
The right to enjoy possession of any land notified under Section 4 is not only limited to Adivasi communities and other forest dwelling communities, but is also based on proof of residence, date of original possession, etc – If the right to inhabit the said lands is not restricted only to certain communities, how can the right to be heard on such claims be restricted to the same.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARI PRAKASH SHUKLA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin…
Motor Accident Claims – Future prospects should be added with the income depending upon the age of the deceased – If the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years, there should be an addition of 15% towards future prospects.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAHUL GANPATRAO SABLE — Appellant Vs. LAXMAN MARUTI JADHAV (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath,…
An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARUN DEV UPADHYAYA — Appellant Vs. INTEGRATED SALES SERVICE LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath, JJ. )…
Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 11A (1) – Differential duty – Incorrectly determination of the assessable value of finished goods – Determination is required to be made on the basis of judgment and in a bonafide manner – An assessee can be accused for suppressing only such facts which it was otherwise required to be disclosed under the law.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 41 Rule 22 – Cross-Objections – In circumstance wherein the cross objections filed by the appellant therein was not considered by the court of first appeal, matter must be remanded to the High Court.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHEERAJ SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Bela M.…
(CrPC) – Section 438 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 420 – Anticipatory Bail – Cheating – inclusion of a condition for payment of money by the applicant for bail tends to create an impression that bail could be secured by depositing money alleged to have been cheated. That is really not the purpose and intent of the provisions for grant of bail.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMESH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. )…
(CrPC) – Section 162 – No statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr. PC, which is reduced to writing, is required to be signed by the person making the statement.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUPRIYA JAIN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Special…