Grant of Bail – Supreme Court found that the High Court’s order lacked legal sustenance as it did not properly consider the detailed evidence against respondent no.2. – The Supreme Court emphasized the need for brief reasons in bail decisions, as established by precedent – The appeal is allowed, the High Court’s order was set aside, and respondent no.2 was given three weeks to surrender – The order does not prejudice subsequent proceedings or bar fresh bail applications.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM MURTI SHARMA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sudhansu Dhulia and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Section 3, 7 and 10(3) – Transferring of employees between different units of the company – – The Supreme Court refers to the case of Cipla Ltd. to assert that the terms of employment and Standing Orders do not conflict, and transfers are permissible – The Court analyzes the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, particularly Sections 7 and 10, to determine the operation and modification of Standing Orders – The Supreme Court concludes that the transfers were legal, overturns the High Court’s judgment, and dismisses the writ petitions filed by the respondents – The Court does not address the broader issue of the power to modify Standing Orders.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. DIVGI METAL WARES LTD. — Appellant Vs. M/S. DIVGI METAL WARES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and Section 304 Part-I – Murder – Acquital – The Supreme Court finds that the prosecution has not fully established the circumstances necessary for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, as required by the precedent set in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 – The Supreme Court allows the appeal, acquits the appellants of all charges, and orders their immediate release, citing insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAGHUNATHA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
“Silk Sarees and Sales Tax Rates: Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Government’s Levy Under ADE Act, CST Act, and Delhi Sales Tax Act”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAREE SANSAR — Appellant Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – 3(2)(v)(1) – Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 – Rule 5(3)(d) – The Court finds the exemption to be unguided and arbitrary, lacking specific criteria for the quantity of earth extraction and the definition of linear projects – The Court concludes that the exemption under item 6 of the impugned notification is illegal and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India – The amended notification also fails to address these concerns adequately – Appeal Partly allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NOBLE M. PAIKADA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 – Section 3(2) – Power to make orders detaining certain persons – The court examined the definitions of “public order” and “Goonda” under the Act, emphasizing the need for activities to adversely affect the community at large to be considered prejudicial to public order – The court upheld the preventive detention order, concluding that the appellant’s activities did indeed affect public order and that the detention was necessary to prevent further harm to society.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NENAVATH BUJJI ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala…
Railways Act, 1989 – Section 106 – Notice of claim for compensation and refund of overcharge.- The court examines the distinction between ‘overcharge’ and ‘illegal charge,’ the requirement of notice under Section 106, and the applicability of past cases like Birla Cement Works and West Coast Paper Mills – The court analyzes the scope of Section 106, the reasons for revising freight charges, and whether the revision was due to a new methodology or an error in the existing notified freight charges – Held,, that the chargeable distance of 444 km was illegal
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil…
Customs Act, 1962 – Sections 15(1)(C) and 130E – After a thorough review of the facts and legal arguments presented by both parties, the Court decided to remand the case back to the Commissioner for re-adjudication –This Court directed the Commissioner to work out remedies for the cases of goods under Section 15(1)(c) of the Customs Act within a specified timeframe – The Court sustained the demand for customs duty and interest on certain cases while upholding the penalty imposed on the appellant for unauthorized removal of imported goods – The impugned order of the CESTAT was modified accordingly, and the appeal was allowed in part.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. BISCO LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. )…
“FIR Quashed! Supreme Court Overturns Charges of Cheating After Finding Insufficient Evidence” – The Court finds that the FIR and charge-sheet, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the ingredients to attract the provision of Section 420 of IPC against the appellant – The Court discusses the principles for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings – The Court allows the appeal, quashing the order of the High Court and the FIR and charge-sheet against the appellant.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH A.M. MOHAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY SHO AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Rajesh Bindal and Sandeep Mehta,…
“Fire Insurance Claim Revived: Manufacturer Gets Chance to Challenge Reports After Rejection” – The Court analyzed the definition of ‘person’ under the Consumer Protection Act and concluded that a company can be considered a consumer – The Supreme Court set aside the order of the National Commission and remanded the matter for reconsideration, allowing Appellant to file a rebuttal.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. KOZYFLEX MATTRESSES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep…