Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120B, 408, 409, 420 and 149 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Merely because some other persons who might have committed the offences, but were not arrayed as accused and were not charge-sheeted cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused who is charge-sheeted after a thorough investigation.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SUVARNA COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…
(IPC) – Ss 201, 302 506-B – Gruesome murder of two of his siblings and one nephew – Conversion of death sentence to life imprisonment for a period of 30 years — It cannot therefore be said that there is no possibility of the appellant being reformed and rehabilitated foreclosing the alternative option of a lesser sentence and making imposition of death sentence imperative – This Court convert the sentence imposed on the appellant from death to life – Death sentence awarded to the appellant is converted to life imprisonment for a period of 30 years:
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BHAGCHANDRA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal…
(IPC) – 120A, 120B, 107 and 109 – P C Act, 1988 – S 13(1)(e) r/with S 13(2) – Disproportionate Assets- no allegation of a legal act being done in an illegal manner – Therefore, the alleged offence under Section 120-B IPC against the respondent is also not made out from the charge-sheet – Terms of both the chargesheet and the final report, Respondent is not involved with the money trail or the transaction for the purchase of the property which was acquired by A-1, according to the prosecution – It is a fact that not only is the investigation complete, depositions of prosecution witnesses too have been recorded – There cannot be any question of introducing any further evidence – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE BY S.P. THROUGH THE SPE CBI — Appellant Vs. UTTAMCHAND BOHRA — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat,…
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(g) – Mediclaim policy – Deficiency in service – Failure to disclose changes in policy conditions at time of renewal of the policy – Insurer was clearly under a duty to inform the policy holders about the limitations which it was imposing in the policy renewed – Its failure to inform the policy holders resulted in deficiency of service.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH JACOB PUNNEN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindrabhat, J. ) Civil Appeal No.…
IMP : Central Excise Act, 1944 Section 35L(1)(b) – HELD allegation of wilful suppression, I find no merit given that this was not the allegation or scope of the Show-Cause Notices issued. Moreover, the representations sent by the Indian Bank Association to the Joint Secretary, TRU, Central Board of Excise and Customs confirm that there was a lack of clarity with regards to the method of payment of this tax, for which there was an ongoing dialogue between the banking institutions and Central Government, negating any claims of “wilful suppression”. One cannot also be oblivious of the fact that the position of law, was in a state of flux, at the relevant period. Hence, and in view of the reasons given above, the present case does not warrant remand to the Tribunal, and this dispute should, in my opinion, stand finally concluded at this stage.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE — Appellant Vs. M/S CITI BANK N.A — Respondent ( Before : K.M Joseph, J. ) Civil Appeal…
Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 – Rule 5 and 8 – Challenge to seniority – It is well settled that impleadment of a few of the affected employees would be sufficient compliance of the principle of joinder of parties and they could defend the interest of all affected persons in their representative capacity – Non-joining of all the parties cannot be held to be fatal
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AJAY KUMAR SHUKLA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ARVIND RAI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and B.V.…
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Acquisition of Land – Compensation – Suppression of material facts -appellants have not disclosed the filing of the suit and its dismissal and also the dismissal of the appeal against the judgment of the civil court, the appellants have to be non-suited on the ground of suppression of material facts – They have not come to the court with clean hands and they have also abused the process of law – Therefore, they are not entitled for the extraordinary, equitable and discretionary relief.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRI K. JAYARAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari,…
HELD we are of the view that in order to curtail the pendency before the High Courts and for speedy disposal of the appeals concerning payment of compensation to the victims of road accident, it would be just and proper to consider constituting ‘Motor Vehicle Appellate Tribunals’ by amending Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act so that the appeals challenging the award of a Tribunal could be filed before the Appellate Tribunal so constituted. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this Judgement to the Secretary, Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, forthwith.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RASMITA BISWAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and…
In National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, this Court has awarded a total sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses – The said Judgment of the Constitution Bench was pronounced in the year 2017. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to 10% enhancement. Rs.16,500/- is awarded towards loss of estate and conventional expenses and Rs.44,000/- is awarded towards spousal consortium. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants is Rs.31,01,000 – Appeal disposed of.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RASMITA BISWAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and…
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 11A – Misconduct – Conductor not issue tickets to 17 passengers -The initiation of criminal proceedings against an employee or not initiating the proceedings has no bearing to prove misconduct in departmental proceedings – Order of removal from service cannot be said to be unfair and unjust in any manner which would warrant an interference at the hands of the Tribunal and the High Court – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. GAJADHAR NATH — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…