Abetment of suicide – Cruelty – Conviction of the appellants is solely based on the oral evidence of mother and sister of the deceased, who are interested witnesses – Complaint against the appellants was filed after 3 weeks of the death of the deceased -deceased was also undergoing treatment for depression -Appeal allowed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MARIANO ANTO BRUNO AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ.…
HELD a chiller machine is attempting to masquerade as a heat pump, to gain concessional tariff benefits – Conclusion therefore is inevitable that the MVAC machine must not be categorized as a Heat Pump – falls in Sub-heading 8418.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, in the category of refrigerating equipment.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S THERMAX LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-1 — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy,…
Death of child in accident – Under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MEENADEVI — Appellant Vs. NUNU CHAND MAHTO @ NEMCHAND MAHTO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. )…
Order VIII Rule 6A CPC — No Bar In Taking On Record A Counter Claim Filed Long After Filing Of Written Statement But Before Framing Of Issues
“While proceeding on the fundamental principles that the rules of procedure are intended to subserve the cause of justice rather than to punish the parties in conduct of their case,…
U/S 56 r w S 15 of the N I Act, 1881, an endorsement may be made by recording the part-payment of the debt in the cheque or in a note appended to the cheque – If the unendorsed cheque is dishonoured on presentation, the offence u/ S 138 would not be attracted since the cheque does not represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DASHRATHBHAI TRIKAMBHAI PATEL — Appellant Vs. HITESH MAHENDRABHAI PATEL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli, JJ.…
Right of the husband to cross-examine the witnesses of the wife was closed, as he had failed to appear before the Family Court despite the issuance of warrants – HELD the family court could not rely on oral arguments of husband. Maintenance granted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: Dinesh Maheshwari & Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. Criminal Appeal No. 1693 of 2022 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 10353 of 2018] Decided on : 28.09.2022…
The deceased husband paid the amount of premium of Rs. 4,000/- with authorised agent to collect premium – Agent delaying deposit HELD for the same insured cannot be made to suffer entitled to the claim amount under the policies along with the interest
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: M.R. Shah & Krishna Murari, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 6731 of 2022 Decided on : 23.09.2022 Smt. Sulakshna – Appellant(s) Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.…
(i) Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court? (ii) what is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry?” First Question answer NEGATIVE second question resolved in (2005) 4 SCC 370
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka & Vikram Nath, JJ. Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2020 Decided on: 15.09.2022 The State of Punjab – Appellant…
Criminal Law – Delay in trial – Even after 11 years of FIR trial not started – Any attempt on the part of the accused to delay the trial of serious offences is to be dealt with iron hands – More the delay, more the possibilities of influencing the witnesses
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH GALI JANARDHAN REDDY — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…
Murder — Confession before police – Videography of statement by police – Held, both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements — Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: Uday Umesh Lalit CJI., S. Ravindra Bhat & Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. Criminal Appeal Nos.1597-1600 of 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.8792-8795 of…