Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 – Section 6(1) – Notice of forfeiture – Section 6(1) of the 1976 Act nowhere provides that it is “mandatory” to serve the convict or detenu with a primary notice under that provision whilst initiating action against the relative of the convict –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE I (2), KUMBAKONAM AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. V. MOHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar…
Agreement to sell – Joint Hindu Family Property – Agreement to sell cannot be set aside on the ground of absence of legal necessity – whether the alienation was in need for legal necessity as enumeration on what would be legal necessity is unpredictable and would depend upon facts of each case.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BEEREDDY DASARATHARAMI REDDY — Appellant Vs. V. MANJUNATH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
NDPS BAIL – In the absence of any clarity so far on the quantitative analysis of the samples, the prosecution cannot be heard to state at this preliminary stage that the petitioners have been found to be in possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances as contemplated under the NDPS Act – Bail granted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BHARAT CHAUDHARY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Petition…
(IPC) – Sections 391, 395 and 397 – Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt – Mere acquittal of some of the accused on the same evidence by itself does not lead to a conclusion that all deserve to be acquitted in case appropriate reasons have been given on appreciation of evidence both in regard to acquittal and conviction of the accused
(2021) 13 SCALE 284 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GANESAN AND OTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr.…
Waqf Act, 1995 – Sections 83 and 85 – Suit for permanent injunction – Bar of jurisdiction of civil court – to say that the Tribunal will have jurisdiction only if the subject property is disputed to be a waqf property and not if it is admitted to be a waqf property, is indigestible in the teeth of Section 83(1) – Therefore, to allow the plaintiff to ignore the Waqf Tribunal and to seek a decree of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction from a civil court, would be ignore the mandate of section 83 and 85
(2021) 13 SCALE 168 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RASHID WALI BEG — Appellant Vs. FARID PINDARI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian,…
(CrPC) – Sections 273, 275, 276, 278, 279, 299, 367 and 391 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 33 – Recording of evidence – Separate Trial – Whether the evidence recorded in a separate trial of co-accused can be read and considered by the appellate court in a criminal appeal arising out of another separate trial conducted against another accused, though for the commission of the same offence – HELD the scope of the appellate court’s power does not go beyond the evidence available before it in the form of a trial court record of a particular case, unless section 367 or section 391 of Cr.P.C. comes into play in a given case, which are meant for further inquiry or additional evidence while dealing with any criminal appeal.
(2021) 13 SCALE 109 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH A.T. MYDEEN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT — Respondent ( Before : Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud,…
(CrPC) – Section 378 – Appeal in case of acquittal – – An Appellate Court shall not expect the trial court to act in a particular way depending upon the sensitivity of the case – Rather it should be appreciated if a trial court decides a case on its own merit despite its sensitivity – District judiciary is expected to be the foundational court, and therefore, should have the freedom of mind to decide a case on its own merit
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHAN @SRINIVAS @ SEENA @TAILOR SEENA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh,…
Representation of People Act, 1951 – Sections 81, 83 and 86 – Conduct of Election Rules, 1962 – Section 94A – Dismissal of election petition – Appeal against – Non-submission of Form 25 would not lead to the dismissal of election petition – This was a curable defect and the learned Judge trying the election petition ought to have granted an opportunity to the appellant to file an affidavit in support of the petition in Form 25 in addition to the already existing affidavit filed with the election petition – Non-submission of Form 25 would not lead to the dismissal of the election petition – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. MANJU — Appellant Vs. PRAJWAL REVANNA @ PRAJWAL R AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…
Prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Sections 409, 420 and 477A IPC against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As a necessary corollary thereto, his conviction under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act can also not be sustained HELD standard of proof to establish a misconduct in a domestic enquiry i.e. even preponderance of evidence, is drastically different to those of proving a ‘criminal charge’ beyond any reasonable doubt Therefore not entitle him to initiate a second round of lis to seek his reinstatement or to claim other service benefits from the Bank.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH N. RAGHAVENDER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CBI — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ.…
(IPC) – Section 477A – Falsification of accounts – the prosecution must, therefore, prove—(a) that the accused destroyed, altered, mutilated or falsified the books, electronic records, papers, writing, valuable security or account in question; (b) the accused did so in his capacity as a clerk, officer or servant of the employer; (c) the books, papers, etc. belong to or are in possession of his employer or had been received by him for or on behalf of his employer; (d) the accused did it wilfully and with intent to defraud.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH N. RAGHAVENDER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CBI — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ.…