HELD When a reasonable doubt arises in a matter, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. In the present case, the doubts reasonably arising in the matter had been brushed aside by the High Court on the logic that itself remains unacceptable.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH DIBAKER NUNIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. )…
Arbitration Law – Unilateral determination of fees by Arbitrators – A unilateral determination of fees violates the principles of party autonomy and the doctrine of the prohibition of in rem suam decisions, i.e., the arbitrators cannot be a judge of their own private claim against the parties regarding their remuneration
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. — Appellant Vs. AFCONS GUNANUSA JV — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant and…
Companies Act, 1956 – Section 430 – Civil Court’s jurisdiction – Nothing in the Companies Act 2013 or any other law for the time being in force vests either the National Company Law Tribunal or the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal with the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a challenge to the RBI Circular – Hence, the bar in Section 430 is not attracted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. RAJKUMAR NAGPAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 2 Rule 2 – Order II Rule 2 of the CPC cannot apply to an amendment which is sought on an existing suit. Bar of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC applies only to the subsequent suits.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and J.B. Pardiwala,…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 31(7)(b) – Post-award interest – If the arbitrator does not grant postaward interest, the award holder is entitled to post-award interest at eighteen percent.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH MORGAN SECURITIES AND CREDITS PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and AS Bopanna,…
Cr P C – HELD Quashing – being the members of the Selection Committee, who relied on the documents placed on record without any verification on the assumption that the documents being genuine, recommended his case for appointment and because they are the members of the Selection Committee, that in itself would not, in any manner, implicate them in the commission of crime,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH MUNNA PRASAD VERMA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal…
Mandatory nature of the twin conditions has to be satisfied before an auction sale can be set aside under Order 21 Rule 90(3) – No sale could be set aside unless the Court is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of irregularity or fraud in completing or conducting the sale.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S. JAGAN SINGH AND CO. — Appellant Vs. LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat…
Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 HELD Respondent No. 2 validly exercised its powers under the MMC Act to direct the acquisition of the Appellants’ land. The argument by the Appellants that the MRTP Act maintains supremacy over the MMC Act is not the correct position of law, in our opinion, and the two statutes exist side-by-side with some degree of overlap. The powers under the MMC Act remain intact even in cases where they cover a subject that is also provided for in the MRTP Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH DR. ABRAHAM PATANI OF MUMBAI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and…
HELD the minimum sentence provided for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC would be imprisonment for life and fine – There cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life, if an accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. NANDU @ NANDUA — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Criminal…
Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 HELD we are of the opinion that Rule 5 cannot be said to be inconsistent with Section 15(2) of the Act. However, on merits and for the reasons stated above, we are in complete agreement with the ultimate view taken by the learned Single Judge confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court upholding the acquisition in question.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M. MOHAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…