Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 34 – Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 – Section 3(3) – Murder – Period of emergency parole granted during COVID-19 will not be counted towards actual sentence period
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANIL KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Writ Petition…
Lapse of Acquisition proceedings – Appeal against – A subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. VIJAY GUPTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – Rule 13 – the services rendered on a substantive post or services rendered as officiating or temporary service shall be treated as qualifying service – Service rendered as casual/contractual cannot be said to be officiating or temporary service HELD Service rendered as casual/contractual cannot be said to be service rendered on a substantive appointment.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DIRECTOR GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN PRASAR BHARTI CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SMT. MAGI H DESAI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah…
Determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim – Affinity test is not a litmus test – While referring the case to Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee must record brief reasons for coming to the conclusion that it is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant – Only after a case is referred to the Vigilance Cell for making enquiry, an occasion for the conduct of affinity test will arise.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MAH. ADIWASI THAKUR JAMAT SWARAKSHAN SAMITI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay…
HELD on the principle of restitution to the facts of the case on hand, SCOI is of the opinion that this is a fit case to apply the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit and the principle of restitution and to direct Shri Naresh Kempanna and Col. Mohinder Khaira to return the amount and deposit the same with this Court with 9% interest from the date on which the payment is received by them.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHUPINDER SINGH — Appellant Vs. UNITECH LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) I.A. Nos. 88960…
HELD Resignation can become effective either by stipulation of law or by acceptance thereof — examining in this judgment is legality of an order by which the respondents plea for withdrawal of resignation was rejected on grounds spelt out in the order itself. The Tribunal and the High Court found the reasoning of the appellant unsustainable.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KAMLESH RANI BHATLA — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari,…
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 113B – no eye-witness to the crime – Presumption – nothing specific has been stated by the complainant to bring home the guilt of the appellant for raising presumption as contained in Section 304B IPC read with Section 113B of the Evidence Act. In cross-examination, stated that he had seen his sister 4/5 months before her death – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNSHI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Modification of order to Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct a preliminary enquiry – Applicant has no locus to seek clarification/modification of an order passed in a totally unconnected matter – Application dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EDAPADDI PALANISWAMI — Appellant Vs. R.S. BHARATHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent AND RAJ KISHOR RAUT … APPLICANT ( Before : Krishna Murari and Sanjay…
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Section 10(a)(i) – Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 3(5) – Mere membership of a banned association is sufficient to constitute an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 or Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ARUP BHUYAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, JJ. )…
Plea by Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking land for construction of chamber block for lawyers – These are matters which cannot be resolved by the application of judicial standards and have to be taken up on the administrative side of the Supreme Court – Administrative functioning and decision-making, which the current issue requires, cannot be moved to the judicial side – Writ petitions disposed of
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Sanjay…