Latest Post

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Auction Sale — Compliance with Rule 9 — Mandatory Nature — Payment of Balance 75% Beyond 15-Day Period — No Written Agreement for Extension — Sale Set Aside — Article 142 — Redemption Opportunity Granted to Legal Heirs of Deceased Guarantor. Third Judge under S. 392 CrPC cannot disturb unanimous Division Bench findings; reference confined to disagreed accused only.–Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 392 — Third Judge — Power to give independent opinion — Options available — When an appeal is heard by a Division Bench and the Judges are divided in opinion, the appeal is laid before a third Judge under S. 392 — The third Judge is not confined to choosing between the two views expressed by the Division Bench Judges — The third Judge may: (i) agree with either of the two opinions expressed; (ii) form an independent view at divergence with both opinions; or (iii) where warranted, receive additional evidence under S. 391 before forming an opinion — The opinion of the third Judge governs and the judgment follows therefrom. Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226(1) — Territorial jurisdiction — Writ petition by CAPF personnel — Delhi High Court — Jurisdiction based on situs of respondent’s office —The Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction under Art. 226(1) of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition preferred by any enrolled member of the Border Security Force or any Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) who is aggrieved by an administrative order of termination of service, by reason of the situs of the offices of the Union of India and the Director General of the concerned CAPF in New Delhi — and this jurisdictional competence subsists notwithstanding that the impugned order of termination was issued from a place outside the territorial limits of the Delhi High Court and that no part of the cause of action arose within such limits — The Union of India and the Director General, BSF are necessary parties to such a writ petition by virtue of Ss. 4 and 5 of the BSF Act and the requirement under R. 22(4) of the BSF Rules that every order of dismissal/removal be reported to the Director General; there is, moreover, a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 — Compensation — Death of homemaker — New head of ‘Loss of Domestic Care’ — Basis and quantum — The conventional method of computing compensation upon the death of a homemaker suffers from an inherent disadvantage — Notional income, as assigned by earlier decisions, fails to capture the economic, emotional and managerial contributions that a homemaker makes to the household and to nation-building at large — In recognition of the multifarious yet unquantified roles of a homemaker — (i) contribution towards smooth functioning of the household; (ii) loss of maternal support to children; and (iii) loss of spousal/parental support — a composite sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month shall be added under the head ‘Loss of Domestic Care’ — This sum shall serve as the stand-in monthly income where the homemaker has no conventional monetary income — It shall be revised cumulatively by 10% every three years — Where the homemaker is part of the paid workforce, this head shall be in addition to the proved monthly income. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — Section 8(3) — Unauthorized alienation of minor’s property — Such alienation is voidable, not void ab initio, and can be challenged by the minor upon attaining majority or by someone claiming under the minor.

(CrPC) – Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 324, 307, 342 and 506 – Quashing of FIR – the irresistible conclusion to be drawn by this court is to accept the report of the jurisdictional police where under they have arrived at a conclusion that incident projected by the complainant appears to be false, and thereby the proceedings against the appellant deserves to be quashed – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RITU TOMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

(IPC) – Sections 302, 397 and 450 – Murder – Conviction and sentence – identification of the accused by the witnesses present but also their apprehension and arrest, apart from seizure of the stolen gold ornaments and cash from their possession, it is amply clear that there was no time or possibility for the police to hoist a false case upon them

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DAKKATA BALARAM REDDY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar,…

(IPC) – Sections 302, 364A, 201, read with Section 120B – Kidnapping for ransom and murder – In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, and for the reasons, this court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to modify the sentence awarded to both appellants to a minimum term of 20 years actual imprisonment – Appeals partly allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIKAS CHAUDHARY — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Rajasthan Industrial Areas Allotment Rules, 1959 – Rules 11A and 12 – Allotment of industrial land – There has been an uninterrupted and subsisting relationship of lessor and lessee between the State Government and either J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (JKSL) or Respondent No. 1, in the context of LIA, Kota. From the first lease deed executed in 1967, till date, the State Government has maintained the position of lessor

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BISHAMBHAR PRASAD — Appellant Vs. M/S ARFAT PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, JJ. )…

Brutal rape and murder of a 14 year old girl – Rights of the victim and his family members are also to be considered – Sentence of life imprisonment for the whole of the biological life of the accused, without any benefit of remission deserves to be modified to the fixed term sentence for a period of 30 years without any benefit of remission so that prime period of his life is spent in jail – Appeal disposed of.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KASHI NATH SINGH @ KALLU SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal,…

Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 – Section 3, 45 and 46 – Bail – Complaint filed by the E D gives a valid argument that the second condition found in Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 45 of PMLA is satisfied qua the appellant – Apprehension of the Enforcement Directorate that the appellant is a flight-risk and may go out of the country if released on bail, has to be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions – Bail granted – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY RAGHUNATH AGARWAL — Appellant @ HASH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal…

Registration of migrants/unorganized workers on eShram portal – being a welfare State, it is the duty of the concerned State/UT to see that the remaining registrants on eShram, who are still not registered on ration card data and who are not issued the ration cards, they are issued ration cards and the exercise for issuance of ration cards is required to be expediated

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IN RE PROBLEMS AND MISERIES OF MIGRANT LABOURERS ( Before : M.R. Shah and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) M.A. No. 94 of 2022 In…

Power Project Agreement – Railway transportation cost – Change in Law – Cost of saving in the railway transportation on account of ‘Change in Law’ needs to be worked out and passed on to the appropriate DISCOMS, which can further be passed on to the consumers – CERC, which is a body of experts, is best suited to do so –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ADANI POWER (MUNDRA) LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai…

You missed