![Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 [BNSS Section 528] — Quashing of FIR — Abuse of process — Factual matrix for all offences arose from a single transaction — Compromise accepted as genuine for some offences should equally dilute the foundation of other charges based on the same allegations — Continued prosecution for dacoity after settlement for other offences held unjustified and quashed.](https://i0.wp.com/sclaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Code-of-Criminal-Procedure.jpg?resize=150%2C150&ssl=1)
Joint Family Property – Gift deed – A Hindu father or any other managing member of a HUF has power to make a gift of ancestral property only for a ‘pious purpose’ and what is understood by the term ‘pious purpose’ is a gift for charitable and/or religious purpose. Therefore, a deed of gift in regard to the ancestral property executed ‘out of love and affection’ does not come within the scope of the term ‘pious purpose’
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.C. LAXMANA — Appellant Vs. K.C. CHANDRAPPA GOWDA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Civil…
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Section 56 – Interest on Delayed Refunds – Award of interest at 9 per cent would be attracted only if the matter was covered by the proviso to the Section 56.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S. WILLOWOOD CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant…
(IPC) – S 302, 376A, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(m), 363 and 366 – POCSO – S 6 – Accused had not consciously caused any injury with an intent to extinguish the life of the victim, and that the offence in that case was under Clause Fourthly of Section 300 IPC, this Court had commuted the sentence of death penalty to the life imprisonment – Case could not be said to be the “rarest of rare case” – the sentence of imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the offence under section 376A, IPC.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MOHD. FIROZ — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi,…
Lakhimpur Kheri Violence Case – HELD (i) irrelevant considerations having impacted the impugned order granting bail; (ii) the High Court exceeding its jurisdiction by touching upon the merits of the case; (iii) denial of victims’ right to participate in the proceedings; and (iv) the tearing hurry shown by the High Court in entertaining or granting bail to the respondent/accused; can rightfully cancel the bail,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH JAGJEET SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ASHISH MISHRA @ MONU AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant and Hima…
Once the execution of agreement to sell and the payment of advance substantial sale consideration is admitted by the vendor, nothing further is required to be proved by the vendee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION M.R. SHAH; B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2095 OF 2022; April 11, 2022 P. Ramasubbamma Versus V. Vijayalakshmi & Ors.…
Summons/notices issued by the learned Trial Court were returned ‘unclaimed’ – exparte decree -entire decretal amount is deposited by the appellants to show their bonafides – one more opportunity granted to defend bank suit
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S JERSEY DEVELOPERS (P) LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. CANARA BANK — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 – Subsection (2) of Section 7A provided that if after holding an inquiry, the Court found the accused to be juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the Court was under a mandate to forward the juvenile to the Juvenile Justice Board for passing appropriate orders. Subsection (2) of Section 7A further provided that in such a case, the sentence passed by Criminal Court shall be deemed to have no effect in such a case. Accused shall be forthwith set at liberty
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY PATEL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…
Selection and appointment – Cancellation – Once having found that the respective writ petitioners-appellants herein were not having the requisite qualification as per the advertisement, namely, the Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History, which was the requirement as per the advertisement and thereafter their candidature was canceled.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDRESH KUMAR MISHRA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…
Bihar Private Medical (Indian System of Medicine) College (Taking over) Act, 1985 – Section 6(2) – Determination of terms of the teaching staff and other employees of the College – HELD State Government made its intention clear that as the decision has been taken to absorb the employee/teacher of the private Ayurvedic college as on 01st June, 1986,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARISH CHANDRA SHRIVASTAVA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation — HELD by the time an application is preferred u/S 12 of the Act, there is no offence committed in terms of the provisions of the Act and as such there would never be a starting point for limitation from the date of application under Section 12 of the Act – Such a starting point for limitation would arise only and only after there is a breach of an order passed under Section 12 of the Act
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMATCHI — Appellant Vs. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 627…