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…
(IPC) – Ss 147, 148, 149, 201 and 302 – Unlawful assembly – Acquittal – Role assigned to appellant was only of having pointed out the house where the victim was hiding – Mere fact that the appellant was not brave enough to conceal where the victim was hiding did not make him a part of the unlawful assembly – Appellant is entitled to a clean acquittal in the given facts – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TAIJUDDIN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Dissolution of marriage – no useful purpose shall be served to further enter into the merits of the findings recorded by the courts below on “cruelty” and “desertion” by the wife – Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the decree passed by the learned Family Court, confirmed by the High Court, dissolving the marriage between the wife and the respondent-husband is not required to be interfered with on account of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEHA TYAGI — Appellant Vs. LIEUTENANT COLONEL DEEPAK TYAGI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 12 – the insolvency resolution process shall mandatorily be completed within a period of 330 days from the insolvency commencement date, including any extension of the period of corporate insolvency resolution process granted under Section 12 of the IBC and the time taken in legal proceedings in relation to such resolution process of the Corporate Debtor. has not been completed within a period stated hereinabove, i.e., within a period of 330 days, such resolution process shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of commencement of the IBC amendment Act, 2019, i.e., 16.08.2019.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF AMTEK AUTO LIMITED THROUGH CORPORATION BANK — Appellant Vs. DINKAR T. VENKATSUBRAMANIAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R.…









