Prisons Act, 1894 – Section 59 – Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 – Rules 4(4), 4(6) and 4(10) – Rape Case – Prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment – Furlough Leave – Appeal against – Jail Superintendent has given a negative opinion based on the fact that the respondent kept a mobile phone inside the jail illegally and attempted to make contacts with the outside world – Rule 4(4) of the Rules provides for denial of furlough on grounds of disturbance to public peace and tranquillity – Order of High Court directed the release of respondent on furlough set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NARAYAN @ NARAYAN SAI @ MOTA BHAGWAN ASARAM @ ASUMAL HARPALANI — Respondent ( Before :…
Criminal Proceedings Should Not Become Weapons Of Harassment HELD Civil Dispute Given Colour Of Criminal Offence
There can be no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any…
HELD that the period of 90 days for filing of written statement is directory. It may be stated herein that the provisions of Order 8 Rule of CPC are mandatory in the Commercial Courts under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6304 OF 2021 (@ SLP(C) No.13129/2018) SHORAJ SINGH APPELLANT(S) VERSUS CHARAN SINGH RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Cancellation of – Murder – Order granting anticipatory bail has ignored material aspects, including the nature and gravity of the offence, and the specific allegations – Hence, a sufficient case has been made out for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court – Impugned judgments of High Court granting anticipatory bail to second respondents in these appeals – are set aside – Appeals allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRASHANT SINGH RAJPUT — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and B.V.…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 223 and 223(a) – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 34, 217, 218, 120B, 306, 328, 363A, 366 and 376 – Non-joinder of trials – Joint trial – Re-trial – Miscarriage of justice- A conviction or acquittal of the accused cannot be set aside on the mere ground that there was a possibility of a joint or a separate trial. To set aside the order of conviction or acquittal, it must be proved that the rights of the parties were prejudiced because of the joint or separate trial, as the case may be. Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NASIB SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and B.V.…
Dishonour of cheque – Quashing of complaint – Mere fact that a suit is pending before the High Court challenging the validity of the compromise deed would furnish no cogent basis to quash the proceedings under Section 138 – Once the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act are fulfilled, the statute clearly stipulates that “such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence” -Question as to whether the liability exists or not is clearly a matter of trial . serious error ofSingle Judge in allowing the petition under Section 482 to quash
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S GIMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MANOJ GOEL — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…
Service Law – Selection – HELD determining the legality of the selection list and perusing the entire selection list to determine whether the selection of the appellant was arbitrary was erroneous as the Division Bench transgressed the limits of challenge in the writ petition – Impugned judgment and order of High Court set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI SRINIVAS K GOUDA — Appellant Vs. KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Ss 363, 366, 376, 376D and 506 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Ss 3 and 4 – Kidnapping and gang rape – insofar as the incident of rape attributed to the appellant it does not disclose that all the accused had committed rape on her or had the common intention and aided the commission – Charge of gang rape has not been established with convincing evidence – Appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 376 IPC and not under Section 376D IPC, the appropriate sentence to be imposed needs consideration.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOJ MISHRA @ CHHOTKAU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…
Language used in Section 19 of the MSME Act, 2006 and the object and purpose of providing deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as a pre-deposit while preferring the application/appeal for setting aside the award, it has to be held that the requirement of deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as a pre-deposit is mandatory.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GUJARAT STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. M/S ASKA EQUIPMENTS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25B and 25F – Challenge to termination – Jurisdiction of civil court – Civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit structured on the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MILKHI RAM — Appellant Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil…