Murder – Cancellation of bail – Accused is a history sheeter and is having a criminal antecedent and is involved in the double murder of having killed the father and brother of the informant – High Court releasing the accused on bail is absolutely unsustainable and the same cannot stand – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNIL KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Criminal…
Cancellation of bail – High Court has released respective accused on bail mechanically and on applying the wrong facts which even as per the accused were not their cases – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANNO LAL JAISWAL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.…
(CrPC) – Sections 372 and 378(4) – Appeal against order of acquittal – Victim has not to pray for grant of special leave to appeal, as the victim has a statutory right of appeal under Section 372 proviso and the proviso to Section 372 does not stipulate any condition of obtaining special leave to appeal like subsection (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. in the case of a complainant and in a case where an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint – Right provided to the victim to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal is an absolute right
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JOSEPH STEPHEN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SANTHANASAMY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 122 and 123 – Contract Act, 1872 – Section 16(3) – Gift deed – Ordinarily, no one is expected to sign or execute a document without knowing its contents, but if it is pleaded that the party executing the document did not know the contents thereof then it may, in certain circumstances, be necessary for the party seeking to prove the document to place material before the court to satisfy it that the party who executed the document had the knowledge of its contents
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KESHAV AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GIAN CHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
HELD – looking to the grievous injuries suffered by the claimant and permanent partial disability and prolonged hospitalisation and the operations performed for right subfrontal craniotomy and evacuation of basifrontal contusion [03.10.2011]; repair of right ear [03.10.2011]; closed unreamed tibial interlock nailing [03.10.2011]; and Tracheostomy [05.10.2011], we are of the opinion that Rs. 50,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities, joy and Rs. 50,000/- awarded towards pain/sufferings respectively can be said to be on the lower side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that under the aforesaid heads, namely, loss of amenities, joy and towards pain/sufferings respectively, if a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- [over and above Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. 50,000/- on each count)] is awarded.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHIVDHAR KUMAR VASHIYA — Appellant Vs. RANJEET SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 – Sections 45 and 49(2) – Exemption notification should be strictly construed and given meaning according to legislative intendment – Statutory provisions providing for exemption have to be interpreted in the light of the words employed in them and there cannot be any addition or subtraction from the statutory provisions – Respondent was not entitled to the exemption from payment of purchase tax on the ground that it did not fulfill the eligibility criteria/conditions and there was a breach of declaration in Form.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF GUJARAT — Appellant Vs. ARCELOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. )…
Explanation (b) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act 1984 expressly confers the Family Court with jurisdiction to determine the matrimonial status of a person – Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act 1984 grants a Family Court with the status of a District Court and Section 7(2) confers it with jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the first class under Chapter IX of the CrPC, thus enabling to collect evidence to make such a determination – HELD relying on the judgement of the Family Court which has jurisdiction to decide the gravamen of the offence alleged in the criminal complaint, would not be same as relying on evidentiary materials that are due for appreciation by the Trial Court, such as the investigation report before it is forwarded to the Magistrate
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUSSTT REHANA BEGUM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi,…
Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of civil suit in the Civil Court – National Commission has grossly erred in observing in the impugned order that the complainant would be at liberty to seek remedy in the competent Civil Court and that if he chooses to bring an action in a Civil Court, he is free to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNIL KUMAR MAITY — Appellant Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.…
If a property of a male Hindu dying intestate is a self acquired property or obtained in partition of a co-parcenery or a family property, the same would devolve by inheritance and not by survivorship, and a daughter of such a male Hindu would be entitled to inherit such property in preference to other collaterals. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Sections 14 and 15 – Partition of properties – Right of daughter to father’s property – If death of father in prior to enforcement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Law of inheritance under Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are applicable.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARUNACHALA GOUNDER (DEAD) BY LRS — Appellant Vs. PONNUSAMY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…
Held, In evaluating whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his obligations under the contract, it is not only necessary to view whether he had the financial capacity to pay the balance consideration, but also assess his conduct throughout the transaction – the escalation of the price of the suit property, and whether one party will unfairly benefit from the decree – Remedy provided must not cause injustice to a party, specifically when they are not at fault.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHENBAGAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KK RATHINAVEL — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…