Civil suit – Declaration of ownership – Sale deed – Registration of document is always subject to adjudication of rights of the parties by the competent civil court – HELD parties with regard to the land in question will be governed by the judgment in pending suit in O.S. No.142 of 2008 on the file of the IIIrd Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore – Civil suit shall be decided on its own merits.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMUDHAVALI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. P. RUKUMANI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil…
(IPC) – Sections 224, 225, 332, 353, 392, 307, 302 and 120-B – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25, 54 and 59 – Conspiracy -alleged confessional statements of the co-accused, in absence of other acceptable corroborative evidence, is not safe to convict the accused – Prosecution has failed to prove its case, that the appellant herein, has conspired with other accused for the offences for which he was charged – Except the alleged confessional statements of the co-accused and in absence of any other corroborative evidence, it is not safe to maintain the conviction and sentence imposed upon the Appellant – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARVEEN @ SONU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Criminal…
(NDPS) – (CrPC) – Section 427 and 427(1) – Illegal trafficking of drugs – applying discretion under Section 427 of Cr.PC, the discretion shall not be in favour of the accused who is found to be indulging in illegal trafficking in the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances – considering the offences under the NDPS Act which are very serious in nature and against the society at large, no discretion shall be exercised in favour of such accused who is indulging into the offence under the NDPS Act – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD ZAHID — Appellant Vs. STATE THROUGH NCB — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1457…
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51 – Appeal to National Commission – Pre-deposit of 50 per cent of amount as ordered by the State Commission under second proviso to Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is mandatory for entertainment of an appeal by the National Commission
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…
Impleadment in execution proceedings – Order XXI Rule 97 is with respect to resistance/obstruction to possession of immovable property – Order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the applications filed by the BDA for impleadment in the execution proceedings and/or dismissing the obstruction application, and the impugned order passed by the High Court, are unsustainable and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. N. NANJAPPA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
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.…