Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) – Appeal against acquittal – Being the first appellate court, the High Court was required to reappreciate the entire evidence on record and also the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court – It is well settled that the court of appeal has as wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal. Remanded
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GEETA DEVI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
High Court proceeded further with the hearing of the appeal as if the High Court was considering the appeal against the order passed on an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, whereas the appeal was against the order and decree passed by the Trial Court, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court as barred by limitation. Appeal allowed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAMTAZ AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GULSUMA ALIAS KULUSUMA — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
Finding recorded by the Trial Court against appellant that he also dragged the dead body and thrown into the courtyard of the deceased is not supported by any evidence – Trial Court as well as the High Court have committed a grave error in convicting appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC – Appeal allowed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUKESH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
For the monetary benefits accused-husband hatched a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused to kill his wife and tried to make out an accidental case – – looking to the seriousness of the offence and looking to the nature and gravity of the offence committed by accused-husband, the High Court ought not to have released accused-husband on bail – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ISHWARJI NAGAJI MALI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Criminal…
Awarding death sentence is an exception, and life imprisonment is the rule. In deciding whether a case falls within the category of the rarest of rare, the brutality, and/or the gruesome and/or heinous nature of the crime is not the sole criterion – It is not just the crime which the Court is to take into consideration, but also the criminal, the state of his mind, his socio-economic background, etc.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BHAGWANI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…
Sand is also required for construction of public infrastructural projects as well as public and private construction activities – It was necessary to permit the mining activities so as to prevent illegal mining and also to prevent loss to the public exchequer and permitted the Corporation to carry out the mining activities, and further to employ the services of the contractor
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PAWAN KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai,…
Contempt of Court – Non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court is wilful and deliberate and amounts to contempt of Court – Direction to respondent-contemnors to remain present before this Court on 22nd February 2022 and show cause as to why they should not be held guilty for having committed contempt of this Court and be punished in accordance with law.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIJAY KUMAR SINHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. TRIPURARI SHARAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…
Arbitration Act, 1940 – Sections 30, 33 and 39 – Extension of time to execute the contract – Single Judge that there was sufficient justification for the appellant-claimant to have sought extension of time for completing the work and that the decision of the respondent-Union of India to terminate the contract, was not for legitimate reasons.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ATLANTA LIMITED THR. ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF ENGINEER MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICE — Respondent ( Before :…
IBC – Word “such creditor” in Section 29A(h) has to be interpreted to mean similarly placed creditors after the application for insolvency application is admitted by the adjudicating authority. As a result, what is required to earn a disqualification under the said provision is a mere existence of a personal guarantee that stands invoked by a single creditor, notwithstanding the application being filed by any other creditor seeking initiation of insolvency resolution process.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANK OF BARODA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MBL INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh,…
Suit for specific performance – Agreement to sell – whether the agreement to sell in this case is in the teeth of Section 23 of the Contract Act – Contract was unenforceable for reason that it clearly, both expressly and impliedly, would defeat the object of the Rules, which are statutory in nature – Suit specific performance was not maintainable – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH G.T. GIRISH — Appellant Vs. Y. SUBBA RAJU (D) BY LRS AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha,…