A sweeping statement has been made that the husband and in-laws of the deceased had inflicted cruelty or it has been stated that the husband and his mother had done so, without specifying their roles – However, the said evidence would be sufficient to hold the appellant No.1 guilty but same would be insufficient to hold the appellant No.2 guilty – Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant No.1 is affirmed, while the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant No.2 is set aside – Appeal allowed in part.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KULJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli,…
Service Law – Regularization of Ad-hoc employees – Seniority – employees qualified typing test at the later stage, in absence of the scheme of rules in determining seniority, at least could not have a right to march over such of the employees who were appointed on substantive basis after going through the process of selection for holding regular selection and their right of seniority in no manner be relegated qua such of the ad-hoc employees
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHYAM SUNDER OBEROI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay…
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of cheque – When a cheque is drawn out and is relied upon by the drawee, it will raise a presumption that it is drawn towards a consideration which is a legally recoverable amount; such presumption of course, is rebuttable by proving to the contrary – Onus is on the accused to raise a probable defence and the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is on preponderance of probabilities – Conviction under Section 138 of NI Act uphold.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH K.S. RANGANATHA — Appellant Vs. VITTAL SHETTY — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
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,…