Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder by giving poisoning – Reports of Chemical Examiner – Samples were not handed over to the Assistant Chemical Examiner who had to conduct the analysis in a sealed form – Cutting, and a fresh note regarding parcels being open also creates a doubt – Chances of tampering with the samples could not be ruled out – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH RAJBIR SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs the actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or – backing, cannot be recognised as being amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH ST. MARY’S EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD BHARGAVA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and J.B. Pardiwala,…
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act 1999 – Section 2(1)(d) – Illegal gambling – Organized crime – It is settled law that more than one charge sheet is required to be filed in respect of the organized crime syndicate and not in respect of each person who is alleged to be a member of such a syndicate.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH ZAKIR ABDUL MIRAJKAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant,…
Power Purchase Agreement – Compounded interest – Change in Law – Adani Power is justified in stating that if the banks have charged it interest on monthly rest basis for giving loans to purchase the FGD, any restitution will be incomplete, if it is not fully compensated for the interest paid by it to the banks on compounding basis
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ADANI POWER (MUNDRA) LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana,…
Discharge – Illegal gratification or disproportionate assets – Ingredients of alleged offences cannot be prima-facie established against the Appellant as neither had he been entrusted with funds
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PUSHPENDRA KUMAR SINHA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., J.K. Maheshwari and Hima Kohli, JJ. )…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – High Courts cannot entertain plea of executing award passed by arbitral tribunal
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. SHEETAL JAIDEV VADE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 – Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 – Rule 3(3) – Whether Rule 3(3) was rightly struck down as arbitrary – High Court manifestly erred in striking down the Rule 3(3) of the Pension Rules,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SMT. ANJANA BHATTACHARJEE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…
Service tax – Amounts collected by a company during post clearing activities were not liable to be computed for service tax
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE VADODARA – I — Appellant Vs. M/S JYOTI LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M. R.…
Specific performance – There is no doubt that the claim of purchaser is hit by delay and laches on their part as they did not take appropriate measures within the stipulated time and filing of the suit was delayed by almost five years – It is not an appropriate case for granting relief to the purchaser in terms of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the claim of the purchaser is barred by delay, laches and limitation.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SMT. KATTA SUJATHA REDDY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., Krishna…
Service Law – candidates have been appointed and are working for almost 2 years by this time, it will be unjust for this Court to now permit the Government to take a UTurn in compliance of the impugned judgment, and nonsuit the candidates who are working for sufficiently long time.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH BARUN KUMAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…