Latest Post

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21, 32, 14, 142 — Prisoners, rights of — Elderly and terminally ill convicts — Continued incarceration despite advanced age (above 70 years) or terminal illness — Held, imprisonment does not suspend constitutional guarantees of dignity and humane treatment — Right to life under Art. 21 continues in custody and extends to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment — NALSA’s nationwide Special Campaign identifying 5,393 vulnerable prisoners, including 11 terminally ill and 84 above 70 years across 17 States and 1 Union Territory, disclosed systemic gap between executive policy and ground-level implementation — Continued detention causing avoidable suffering held constitutionally impermissible — Supreme Court, invoking Arts. 32 and 142, directed States/UTs to formulate uniform compassionate-release policy. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Distinction between “obscene” and “abusive”/”vulgar” language — Test of — Held, to attract S. 294(b) IPC, prosecution must prove: (i) an obscene act done, or obscene word/song/ballad uttered, in or near a public place; and (ii) such act/utterance caused annoyance to others — Word “obscene” undefined under IPC but judicially construed, in the context of S. 292 IPC, to mean material which, taken as a whole, is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, and tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to be exposed to it — “Community standard test” (Aveek Sarkar) applicable, not the Hicklin test — Mere vulgarity, abuse or profanity, however distasteful, uncivil or shocking, does not ipso facto constitute obscenity — Vulgarity may evoke disgust or revulsion but lacks the depraving/corrupting tendency essential to obscenity — Appellant’s utterance of abusive and expletive-laden words against complainant during a quarrel, though coarse and offensive, held neither lascivious nor appealing to prurient interest nor shown to have caused annoyance to others in the public place — Conviction under S. 294(b) IPC set aside. Railways Act, 1989 — Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A — Compensation on account of untoward incidents — ‘No-fault’ liability — Accidental falling of a passenger from a running train constitutes an “untoward incident” — Liability under S. 124A arises irrespective of wrongful act, neglect or default of the Railway Administration, subject only to statutory exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury or the passenger’s own criminal act — Provision held to be beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 31 — ‘Clean slate’ doctrine — Effect of approved Resolution Plan on claims — Upon approval under S. 31(1), claims provided in the Plan stand frozen and are binding on the Corporate Debtor and all stakeholders — Claims not incorporated in the Plan stand extinguished, withdrawn or abated — Resolution Applicant entitled to commence operations free from unforeseen liabilities — Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons v. Edelweiss ARC, (2021) 9 SCC 657, followed. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 299 — Record of evidence in absence of accused — Scope and applicability — Exception to the rule that a witness must be examined in presence of the accused and to the principle under S. 33, Evidence Act — Being an exception, all prescribed conditions must be strictly complied with — Deposition recorded in absence of an absconding accused admissible against him upon arrest, if deponent is dead, incapable of giving evidence, cannot be found, or cannot be produced without unreasonable delay, expense or inconvenience.

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21, 32, 14, 142 — Prisoners, rights of — Elderly and terminally ill convicts — Continued incarceration despite advanced age (above 70 years) or terminal illness — Held, imprisonment does not suspend constitutional guarantees of dignity and humane treatment — Right to life under Art. 21 continues in custody and extends to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment — NALSA’s nationwide Special Campaign identifying 5,393 vulnerable prisoners, including 11 terminally ill and 84 above 70 years across 17 States and 1 Union Territory, disclosed systemic gap between executive policy and ground-level implementation — Continued detention causing avoidable suffering held constitutionally impermissible — Supreme Court, invoking Arts. 32 and 142, directed States/UTs to formulate uniform compassionate-release policy.

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Distinction between “obscene” and “abusive”/”vulgar” language — Test of — Held, to attract S. 294(b) IPC, prosecution must prove: (i) an obscene act done, or obscene word/song/ballad uttered, in or near a public place; and (ii) such act/utterance caused annoyance to others — Word “obscene” undefined under IPC but judicially construed, in the context of S. 292 IPC, to mean material which, taken as a whole, is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, and tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to be exposed to it — “Community standard test” (Aveek Sarkar) applicable, not the Hicklin test — Mere vulgarity, abuse or profanity, however distasteful, uncivil or shocking, does not ipso facto constitute obscenity — Vulgarity may evoke disgust or revulsion but lacks the depraving/corrupting tendency essential to obscenity — Appellant’s utterance of abusive and expletive-laden words against complainant during a quarrel, though coarse and offensive, held neither lascivious nor appealing to prurient interest nor shown to have caused annoyance to others in the public place — Conviction under S. 294(b) IPC set aside.

Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 – IPC – Earlier the FIR thereof having been quashed by the High Court, even prior to the filing of the charge-sheet, even for the sake of argument, if accepted, helps the Appellant and tilt the balance in his favour – The Appellant has succeeded in making out a prima facie case for the grant of bail – Appeal Allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ATULBHAI VITHALBHAI BHANDERI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal…

Murder of Children by administrating poison – Illicit Relationship – Benefit of Premature Release – It cannot be simply bracketed as a ‘cruel and brutal’ offence as the Appellant herself was trying to end her life but was prevented by her niece in the nick of time – Appeal Allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  NAGARATHINAM — Appellant Vs. STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Mere broad-basing of the entries in Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 of the First Schedule to the Act 1985, by itself, could not have been the justification for an attempt at re-classification of the product – anything which is prepared for being used on the hair and carries the name “Hair Oil”, would lose its character as medicament if otherwise it has been prepared for therapeutic or prophylactic uses – Moreover, rewording and regrouping of different entries in medicaments are hardly of any impact on the character of the product in question.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD — Appellant Vs. ASHWANI HOMEO PHARMACY — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram…

Mercy Petition – Supreme Court has rejected the request to reduce Balwant Singh Rajoana’s death sentence, but has permitted the central government to determine when to consider the mercy petition if needed — however, directed that the competent authority, in due course of time, would again as and when it is deemed necessary, may deal with the Mercy Petition, and take a further decision.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BALWANT SINGH — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, JJ. )…

Companies Act, 2013 – Section 164(2)(b) – Insolvency Resolution Process – Unless a categorical finding was recorded in the competent forum as regards any such default and unless specific order disqualifying the resolution applicant as director because of such default came into existence, it could not have been taken by way of any process of assumption that the appellant-resolution applicant was disqualified

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M.K. RAJAGOPALAN — Appellant Vs. DR. PERIASAMY PALANI GOUNDER AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil…

UOI directing to Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) against respondents – protection sought u/section 140(5) Companies Act being ultra vires – HELD application/proceedings under section 140(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 are maintainable even after the resignation of the concerned auditors – Appeal accepted against Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS LLP AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 120-B, 506 read with 34 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Conviction and sentence – Acquittal – The question is whether a convict has a fair chance of being acquitted based on palpable evidence – If the answer is yes, the convict should not be kept in custody for a long time until the appeal is decided

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OMPRAKASH SAHNI — Appellant Vs. JAI SHANKAR CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. ) Criminal…

Service Matters

Service Law – Dismissal from Service – Certain irregularities – Powers/Jurisdiction of Municipal Commissioner – Nature of Penalties – HELD per resolution the Commissioner was authorized to take action against any officer with regard to the lapses and/or negligence on the part of the officers in various works and purchases is concerned

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, JAMNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. R.M. DOSHI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. )…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Distribution of the assets – Companies Act, 2013 – Sections 326 and 327 of Companies act shall not be applicable – the distribution of the assets shall have to be made as per Section 53 of the IBC subject to Section 36(4) of the IBC, in case of liquidation of company under IBC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOSER BAER KARAMCHARI UNION THR. PRESIDENT MAHESH CHAND SHARMA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah…

You missed