Latest Post

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 223(1) first proviso — Applicability of — Proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) filed before commencement of BNSS — Cognizance taken after commencement of BNSS — Accused not given opportunity of hearing at cognizance stage — Provision mandates hearing of accused before taking cognizance — Non-compliance is an illegality vitiating cognizance order — High Court judgment set aside. Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 142 — Extraordinary powers of Supreme Court — Directions issued by Supreme Court cannot supplant substantive law or disregard express statutory provisions unless necessary for complete justice, considering public policy and balancing equities. [Paras 50-54] – Stray Dog Management — Public Safety vs. Animal Welfare — Supreme Court must strike a balance between public safety under Article 21 and humane treatment of stray animals, prioritising human life and safety Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Offences under Sections 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv), and 38(1) — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B — Poisons Act, 1919 — Section 6 — Foreigners Act, 1946 — Section 14(c) — Passport Act, 1967 — Section 3 read with Section 12(1)(a) — Conviction for charges including conspiracy to revive banned organization LTTE — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Supreme Court’s finding that appellant was falsely implicated due to mistaken identity — Reliance on oral testimony of two key witnesses who introduced crucial alias name “Ranjan” years after the alleged incident and only after appellant’s arrest — Inconsistencies and material improvements in their testimonies — Failure of prosecution to establish identity with reliable oral or documentary evidence — Absence of any contemporaneous description, documentary linkage, or independent corroboration connecting appellant to the alleged absconding accused “Sri” — Appellant residing openly and lawfully as a refugee, pursuing visa to Switzerland inconsistent with being an absconding accused — Conviction and sentence set aside — Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted. Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) — Section 126(1)(b) — Transferable Development Rights (TDR) — Compensation for land acquisition reserved for public purpose — Landowner entitled to TDR against land surrendered and ‘further’ TDR for development of amenity on the surrendered land — Corporation’s argument that agreements (LOI, Undertaking, Maintenance Agreement) waived landowner’s right to claim additional amenity TDR rejected — Held, statutory rights cannot be derogated from by executive circulars or agreements. Contract Law — Tender Documents — Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) — Interpretation of Tender Clauses — Mandatory vs — Optional Conditions — Clause 2.13(a)(xiii) and Clause 2.13(b) of the tender document specifying the form of EMD for out-of-state bidders used the word “may submit”, indicating an optional, not mandatory, requirement.
Service Matters

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…

Service Matters

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.…

You missed