HELD Anardana’ is a dried product of local ‘daru’ or wild pomegranate – well-settled principle that words in a taxing statute must be construed in consonance with their commonly accepted meaning in the trade and their popular meaning – Policy which specifically states – ‘import of pomegranate seeds will be free’
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, AMRITSAR (PUNJAB) — Appellant Vs. M/S D.L. STEELS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela…
SEBI – Appellate Tribunal is an appellate forum and not the authority empowered to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 15-H or suo moto issue directions under Section 11, 11B or 11(4)(d) of the Act. It can uphold or set aside the direction issued, or modify and substitute the direction issued under Regulation 44 of the Takeover Regulations 1997 read with Sections 11, 11B and 11(4)(d) of the Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. SUNIL KRISHNA KHAITAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M.…
It would not be safe and/or prudent to convict the accused solely on the basis of their identification for the first time in the Court – Conviction under Sections 302/34 and 392 of IPC is set aside.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH AMRIK SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 14(1) – There cannot be a fetter in a owner of a property to give a limited estate if he so chooses to do including to his wife but of course if the limited estate is to the wife for her maintenance that would mature in an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the said Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JOGI RAM — Appellant Vs. SURESH KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
(CrPC) – Section 482 – At the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. mini trial is not permissible – Order of quashing criminal proceedings is unsustainable.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. AKHIL SHARDA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…
(IPC) – S 302/34 – Murder – Common intention- HELD the evidence available on record was not looked into as the witnesses had already been exposed to the accused in the police station – After all, the test identification parade is only a part of an investigation, and therefore, nothing more can be attached to it – Acquittal
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SHISHPAL @ SHISHU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. )…
Last seen theory – When the last seen theory is found to be not true, there has to be much more concrete and clinching evidence to implicate the accused. HELD when a large number of persons were available near the dead body, it is incomprehensible as to how all of them refused to sign the documents prepared by the police – Order of conviction is set aside.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH RAVI SHARMA — Appellant Vs. STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and M.M. Sundresh,…
Recovery having not been proved in the manner known to law, coupled with inadequate evidence on record to implicate the appellant – Prosecution has failed in its attempt to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant has committed the offence
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH VIRENDRA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Accused has failed to explain the aforesaid incriminating material/circumstances found against him namely the purchase of pesticides by him, prior to the occurrence and that the very bottle of pesticide which was purchased by him was found from the place of occurrence – Conviction and sentence id upheld.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH HAJABHAI RAJASHIBHAI ODEDARA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Appeal allowed – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Even the evidence of a hostile witness can be considered to the extent, it supports the case of the prosecution –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH MALTI SAHU — Appellant Vs. RAHUL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 471…