(NDPS) – Sections 8, 21, 27A, 29, 37(1)(b), 37(1)(b)(ii), 42 and 67 – Cancellation of bail -A finding of the absence of possession of the contraband on the person of the respondent by the High Court in the impugned order does not absolve it of the level of scrutiny required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act – A confessional statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will not be admissible in evidence – Contention that Section 42 of the NDPS Act was not complied with is prima facie misplaced
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA THROUGH NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, LUCKNOW — Appellant Vs. MD. NAWAZ KHAN — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and…
HELD Our answer with respect to the first prayer in Miscellaneous Application No. 1465 of 2021 will be sufficient to take care of the issue of special audit dealt with in the resolution dated 27.10.2020. The urgency spelt out in the report dated 31.08.2021, however, calls for immediate action. We, therefore, direct that the special audit, as referred to hereinabove, with respect to Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and SPSTT be completed as early as possible and preferably within three months from the date of this order.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) TH. LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit,…
HELD direct the respondent(s) to give effect to the judgment of the High Court dated 04.11.2011 which had affirmed the order of the Tribunal dated 08.04.2010 by recalling orders of reversion, if any, and extending monetary benefits to the appellants herein and thereafter, to consider their cases under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) if they have so applied and if their applications are in order. No costs.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MEDINI. C AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara…
IPC Section 302/34 – no contra evidence on behalf of the defence to explain as to why they all went together to the spot with fire-arms and shot at the deceased – On the other hand, the antecedent enmity between the accused and the victims as narrated in detail by PW-1 clearly brings out the fact that there existed a common intention on the part of the accused inasmuch as they went together armed with guns in broad day light to the land where the victims were engaged in irrigation – Also the manner in which the crime was executed clearly establishes a concerted action on part of the accused – Conviction under section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC uphold – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH INDRAPAL SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14 and 16 – Educational qualification is a valid ground for classification between persons of the same class in matters of promotion and is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. HELD Separate eligibility conditions for promotion to supernumerary Assistant Engineers posts on the basis of educational qualification is in line with the past promotion practices of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and is not an unreasonable classification.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CHANDAN BANERJEE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KRISHNA PROSAD GHOSH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and…
Tribunal has not looked into the merits of the appeals at all on the facetious ground that the show cause notice did not contain any basis to doubt the classification of the goods and that while issuing the notice, the adjudicating authority had not examined the classification based on the report of the laboratory – Findings of the Tribunal are contrary to the record and cannot therefore be sustained – The goods were leviable to confiscation in terms of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act 1962 – The goods were chargeable to anti-dumping duty; and respondent was liable to pay interest under Section 28AB and penalty under Section 112(a) read with Section 118(a) of the Customs Act 1962.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PUNE — Appellant Vs. M/S BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli,…
High Court ought not to have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304 PartI IPC – In absence of any intention on the part of the appellant, It is a clear case where the conviction of the appellant is to be modified to one under Section 304 PartII IPC by maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 201 IPC. HELD converting conviction from the one under Section 304 PartI IPC to the one under Section 304 PartII IPC – Appeals are allowed in part and conviction of the appellant is modified from the one under Section 304 Part I /34 IPC to the one under Section 304 Part II /34 IPC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KALA SINGH @ GURNAM SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…
Second Appeal – Substantial question of law – High Court erred in not recording a finding on the question of law formulated later, to account for the Court Surveyor’s report, vis-à-vis the legal battle over the suit land. Without the decision on the relevant aspect which goes to the root of the dispute, the impugned judgment in our assessment, fails the scrutiny of law.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MATADIN SURAJMAL RAJORIA (DECEASED) THROUGH SOLE LEGATEE LALITA SATYANARAYAN KHANDELAWAL — Appellant Vs. RAMDWAR MAHAVIR PANDE (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent (…
(CPC) – Rejection of plaint – Underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings. It has been held that in such a case, it will be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA BAJORIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HEMANT KUMAR JALAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…
Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 – Section 11 – Discharge or adoption of third party contracts with prior allottees – Successful allottee or bidder has complete freedom to decide as to whether he desires to continue or adopt any such existing contracts in relation to coal mining operation – If the successful bidder or allottee elects not to adopt or continue with the existing contracts, all such contracts shall cease to be enforceable against the successful bidder or allottee in relation to Schedule I coal mines.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. EMTA COAL LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and…