Latest Post

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4 — Section 376 (3) IPC — Rape — Conviction upheld — Evidence of victim’s mother and medical evidence — Reliability of victim’s mother’s testimony confirmed despite lengthy cross-examination, finding it natural and trustworthy and corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence — Medical evidence, though partially presented by defense, conclusively supported sexual assault, citing perineal tear and abrasions around anus Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 6 (as amended by Amendment Act, 2005) — Retrospective application — Validity of pre-amendment sale deeds — The prohibition contained in the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not affect registered sale deeds executed prior to December 20, 2004 (date of introduction of the amending provision) — This principle aligns with the judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1. Judicial Process — Misuse of process — Challenging bail conditions previously offered voluntarily — Accused offering substantial deposits to secure bail and subsequently challenging the onerous nature of conditions or the counsel’s authority to make such offers — This practice is condemned for undermining the judicial process and preventing consideration of bail applications on their merits — Such conduct leads to setting aside of bail orders and remittal for fresh consideration. Social Media Posts — Content-Related Offenses — Retaliatory Action — Quashing of Proceedings — While the court made no final determination on the nature of the petitioner’s social media posts, it acknowledged the petitioner’s counsel’s submission that the tweets were ‘retaliatory’ and were made in response to an incident involving a social media influencer. This assertion formed part of the petitioner’s argument for quashing or consolidating the numerous FIRs, suggesting a motive beyond simple offensive content. Legal Profession — Autonomy and Independence — Administration of Justice — Role of Lawyers — Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India — Impact of direct summons to defence counsel by Investigating Agencies on the autonomy of the legal profession and the independence of the administration of justice — Need for judicial oversight.

Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 – Section 10(4) and 11(1) – Clause 2(iii) of the Merchanting Trade Transactions Guidelines was a proportionate measure in ensuring the availability of sufficient domestic stock of PPE products – Measure was validly enacted, in pursuance of legitimate state interest and did not disproportionately impact the fundamental rights – Hence, Clause 2(iii) passes muster under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AKSHAY N PATEL — Appellant Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and…

IMP : Object of seeking a mediclaim policy is to seek indemnification in respect of a sudden illness or sickness which is not expected or imminent and which may occur overseas – If the insured suffers a sudden sickness or ailment which is not expressly excluded under the policy, a duty is cast on the insurer to indemnify the appellant for the expenses incurred thereunder – Repudiation of the policy by the insurance company was illegal and not in accordance with law – Consequently, the appellant is entitled to be indemnified under the policy.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANMOHAN NANDA — Appellant Vs. UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna,…

Issue regarding prospective operation of the Judgment in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757, Constitution Bench Held, District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act – Case refers to Larger Bench:

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHASIN INFOTECH AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. NEEMA AGARWAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…

Dishonour of cheque – Quashing of criminal proceedings -There are sufficient averments in the complaint to raise a prima facie case against them – It is only at the trial that they could take recourse to the proviso to Section 141 and not at the stage of issuance of process – It is evident that the principal grounds of challenge which have been set up on behalf of the appellants are all matters of defence at the trial –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNIL TODI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna,…

Plea to live in posh home with estranged husband – Plea rejected – If This Court allow the prayer and allow the respondent­wife to move into the said house, it will rather than sub-serving the interest of the parties, would be detrimental to their interests. The record and the pendency of the criminal proceedings would show that the relations between the parties are so strained that if they are permitted to live in the said house, it would lead to nothing else but further criminal proceedings.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAIDEV RAJNIKANT SHROFF — Appellant Vs. POONAM JAIDEV SHROFF — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) I.A. Nos.…

Powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that – If the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous on merits, in that case, the remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer an appeal before the High Court, which in fact was filed by the Assessee before the High Court, but later on the Assessee withdrew the same in the instant case – Impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the common order passed by the ITAT recalling its earlier order deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT-4), MUMBAI — Appellant Vs. M/S RELIANCE TELECOM LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

High Court has acquitted the accused for the offence under the MCOCA at the interim relief stage and has granted the final relief at the interim stage exonerating the respondent from MCOCA, which is wholly impermissible – forum shopping by the accused which is highly deprecated and which cannot be approved. On this ground also, the accused is not entitled to be released on bail and the impugned order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail deserves to be quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Appellant Vs. PANKAJ JAGSHI GANGAR — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act 2013 penalizes several misconducts of a sexual nature and imposes a mandate on all public and private organizations to create adequate mechanisms for redressal. However, the existence of transformative legislation may not come to the aid of persons aggrieved of sexual harassment if the appellate mechanisms turn the process into a punishment.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MUDRIKA SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…

Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 – Section 19 – High Court’s power of revision – Revision Application to the High Court shall be maintainable only against the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal – Rejecting the reference petition as not maintainable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. K.P. DWIVEDI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

(IPC) – Sections 120B, 121, 121A and 122 – Arms Act 1959 – Section 25(1A) – Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Section 5 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 18, 20 and 40(1)(b)(c) – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Sections 13, 14 and 19 – Grant of post ­arrest bail –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHIM @ ASIM KUMAR HARANATH BHATTACHARYA @ ASIM HARINATH BHATTACHARYA @ ASEEM KUMAR BHATTACHARYA — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY — Respondent ( Before…

You missed