Latest Post

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions. Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with 34 and 120B – Murder – The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the discovery of the body was solely based on the appellants’ statements and that the chain of evidence was incomplete – The Court applied the principles for circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must fully establish the guilt and exclude all other hypotheses – The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

Suit for Partition – The Court found that ‘C’ remarriage extinguished her rights to her first husband’s property, and she could not pass on any title to the plaintiff – The Court applied the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856, and relevant case law to determine the impact of Chiruthey’s remarriage on her property rights – The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff could not inherit the property through ‘C’, as her rights were nullified upon remarriage, and the deeds did not confer valid title.

2024 INSC 287 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KIZHAKKE VATTAKANDIYIL MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. THIYYURKUNNATH MEETHAL JANAKI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose…

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Acquittal -The High Court’s judgment, which upheld the acquittal, was based on the absence of valid documentary evidence of any enforceable debt or liability – Both appellate courts found no evidence of an “enforceable debt or other liability,” which is crucial for the petitioner’s case under Section 138 – The courts applied the principle of balance of probabilities and concluded that the respondent’s defence was plausible – The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, finding no perversity in the appellate courts’ findings and no point of law warranting interference.

2024 INSC 288 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S RAJCO STEEL ENTERPRISES — Appellant Vs. KAVITA SARAFF AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar,…

Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 100(1)(d)(iv) – The Court discussed the definition of ‘owner’ under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, to determine the impact of non-disclosure – The Court concluded that non-disclosure of the vehicles did not amount to undue influence and that Kri’s wealth declaration was not significantly affected by the non-disclosed assets – The final decision on the appeals is pending.

2024 INSC 289 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KARIKHO KRI — Appellant Vs. NUNEY TAYANG AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. )…

Motor Accident Claim – Enhancment of Compensation -The court found errors in the tribunal’s assessment of disability and income, leading to an increase in compensation for loss of future income and other damages – The court relied on precedents that emphasize the importance of adequate compensation for physical and emotional suffering caused by accidents – The appeal was allowed, enhancing the total compensation to Rs.2,42,120/- with directions for the insurance company to pay the balance amount with interest.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AABID KHAN — Appellant Vs. DINESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No….of 2024…

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 29 read with 20(b)(ii)(c) and 25, 67, 41 to 44 – The court discussed the applicability of Section 67 statements and the compliance with Sections 41 to 44 of the NDPS Act – By virtue of the decision in Tofan Singh, the benefit is to be granted to the appellants herein in regard to the inadmissibility of their statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act 1985 – These appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as that of the Trial Court – The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them by giving benefit of doubt.

2024:INSC:290 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. NAJMUNISHA SOLE APPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2319 OF 2009 AND ABDUL HAMID CHANDMIYA ALIAS LADOO BAPU SOLE APPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 9 Rule 7 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 –The Court found no satisfactory explanation for the delay, noting the appellant’s negligence and inconsistency in statements – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the lower courts and refusing to condone the inordinate delay.

2024 INSC 281 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.B. LAL (KRISHNA BAHADUR LAL) — Appellant Vs. GYANENDRA PRATAP AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna…

Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 – Sections 83(1)(a), 100(1)(b) and 100(1)(d)(i) – False declaration of educational qualifications and suppression of financial information – The court examined the legal requirements for an Election Petition under the RP Act and concluded that the respondent’s petition lacked concise statements of material facts and full particulars of alleged corrupt practices – The court dismissed the Election Petition, finding it deficient in terms of the mandatory requirements of material facts and particulars needed to constitute a cause of action.

2024 INSC 282 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KARIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA — Appellant Vs. AMINUL HAQUE LASKAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Bela M.…

Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 32(3) and 32(5) – Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is Relevant -The Court found inconsistencies in the respondents’ arguments and relied on evidence indicating a joint family business – The Court applied the principle of preponderance of probability and the Indian Evidence Act to assess the joint nature of the business – The Supreme Court concluded that the properties were joint family assets and should be partitioned accordingly. Cases Referred

2024 INSC 283 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VITTHALRAO MAROTIRAO NAVKHARE — Appellant Vs. NANIBAI (DEAD), THROUGH LRS, AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420 and 120B – Cheating in Land Mortgage -Court found no evidence of intentional deceit or conspiracy by the appellants, as the AICTE was aware of the mortgage from the first application – The Court referenced legal definitions of cheating and criminal conspiracy, emphasizing the lack of dishonest inducement and absence of AICTE’s complaint – The appellants were discharged from the alleged offences, with the Court concluding that the essential elements of cheating were not present.

2024 INSC 284 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIPIN SAHNI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar,…

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 Sections 65(a)(e),81,98(2) and 116(2) and Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 465, 468, 471 and 114 – Court reasoned that the appellant should have approached the criminal court under Section 451 Cr.P.C instead of directly filing a Special Criminal Application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution – The Court applied the doctrine of harmonious construction to interpret Section 98 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act in conjunction with the Cr.P.C – The appeal was dismissed, with the Court stating that the appellant is free to approach the concerned court regarding the custody of the vehicle.

2024 INSC 285 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KHENGARBHAI LAKHABHAI DAMBHALA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal,…

You missed