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

Service Law – Higher Pay Scale – Grant of benefits of higher pay scale to the Central/State Government employees stand on different footing than grant of pay scale by an instrumentality of the State – Employees of Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation are entitled to pay scale equivalent to their counterparts in State of Punjab

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. BALBIR KUMAR WALIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan…

HELD – Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908. – Principle is based on the fact that family settlement only declares the rights which are already possessed by the parties – A compromise decree in respect of land which is not the subject-matter of suit but is part of the settlement between the family members does not requires compulsory registration in terms of

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RIPUDAMAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. TIKKA MAHESHWAR CHAND — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Representatives of Facebook has to appear before the Delhi Assembly panel – Any representative of Facebook who would appear before the Committee would be well within their right to refuse to answer the query and such an approach cannot be taken amiss with possibility of inviting privilege proceedingsHELD The power to compel attendance by initiating privilege proceedings is an essential power

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AJIT MOHAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul,…

In view of the Notification dated 19th March 2021 – Writ petitions are allowed. HELD Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) has granted approval to both colleges with an intake capacity of 60 students each – State Government vide Notification dated 19.3.2021 has granted conditional affiliation after considering the recommendations made by the Affiliation Committee

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SRI SAI RR INSTITUTE OF PHARMACY — Appellant Vs. DR. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman,…

(CPC) – Order 23 Rule 3A – Bar to suit – A party to a consent decree based on a compromise to challenge the compromise decree on the ground that the decree was not lawful, i.e., it was void or voidable has to approach the same court, which recorded the compromise and a separate suit challenging the consent decree has been held to be not maintainable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R. JANAKIAMMAL AND S.R. SOMASUNDARAM AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. S.K. KUMARASAMY(DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan…

You missed