Latest Post

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions. Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with 34 and 120B – Murder – The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the discovery of the body was solely based on the appellants’ statements and that the chain of evidence was incomplete – The Court applied the principles for circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must fully establish the guilt and exclude all other hypotheses – The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Service Matters

EPF Pension – Principal questions arise for consideration are whether there would be a cut-off date under paragraph 11(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme and whether the decision in R.C. Gupta & Ors. Etc. etc. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization & Ors. Etc., (2018) 4 SCC 809 would be the governing principle on the basis of which all these matters must be disposed of. Referred to a larger bench.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION AND ETC. — Appellant Vs. SUNIL KUMAR B AND ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and…

Bank guarantee – ICBC, which is a Scheduled Bank, carrying on business in India, with a Bank Guarantee of equivalent amount issued by a “Scheduled Indian Bank” – Hon’ble Justice Indira Banerjee allowed the appeal and Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian dismiss the Special Leave Petitions as not giving rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution – Appeal referred to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. POWER MECH PROJECTS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. )…

Service Matters

‘ Creamy layer’ HELD Economic criterion cannot be the sole criterion for identifying ‘creamy layer’ – In spite of Section 5(2) of the 2016 Act making it mandatory for identification and exclusion of ‘creamy layer’ to be on the basis of social, economic and other relevant factors, the State of Haryana has sought to determine ‘creamy layer’ from backward classes solely on the basis of economic criterion and has committed a grave error in doing so

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PICHRA WARG KALYAN MAHASABHA HARYANA (REGD.) AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara…

Quashing of criminal proceedings – Stage of framing of charge – High Court has entered into the appreciation of the evidence and considered whether on the basis of the evidence, the accused is likely to be convicted or not, – HELD it is not a court conducting the trial and/or was not exercising the jurisdiction as an appellate court against the order of conviction or acquittal.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SARANYA — Appellant Vs. BHARATHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Summoning additional accused – HELD As per the settled preposition of law, the powers under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised at any stage before the final conclusion of the trial. – dismissing the application under Section 319 CrPC submitted on behalf of the complainant to summon the private respondents herein as additional accused are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANJEET SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…

(IPC) – Sections 302, 120B, 147, 148 and 324 – Murder – HELD In the face of appellant’s such identification by name in the testimony of eye witnesses, it can be safely concluded that the failure to conduct the Test Identification Parade (TIP) for the appellant will not vitiate his conviction – Conviction of the appellant u/S 302, 120B, 147, 148 and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LALA @ ANURAG PRAKASH AASRE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Service Matters

Reservation – Employees who are members of the SC/ST/OBC – HELD Person is entitled to claim the benefit of reservation in either of the successor State of Bihar or State of Jharkhand but would not be entitled to claim the privileges and benefits of reservation simultaneously in both the States and if that is permitted, it will defeat the mandate of Articles 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PANKAJ KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Civil…

(IPC) – S 302 r/with S 34 – Murder – Recovery of weapons – Prosecution has not established either through the report of FSL or otherwise, that the blood stains contained in the knife and lathis were that of the deceased – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MADHAV — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 852…

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 24A – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 64- UM(c) – Fire Insurance Claim – Surveyor report – HELD the reliance placed on the surveyor’s report by the NCDRC without giving credence to the investigation report in the facts and circumstances of the instant case cannot be faulted – Accordingly, the amount as ordered by the NCDRC shall be payable with interest at 9% per annum instead of 12% per annum – Appeal allowed in part.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. — Appellant Vs. M/S. HARESHWAR ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna,…

Rented land – Use of land as club for a pavilion is in interest of section of public – Eviction petition – Maintainability – – Therefore, use of land as club for a pavilion is in interest of section of the public – Thus, land let out to a club which for the purpose of construction and use of pavilion falls within the scope of Section 2(f) of the Act and thus eviction petition is maintainable under the Act – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJINDER KUMAR BANSAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…

You missed