Latest Post

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 374 — Appeal against dismissal of criminal appeal by High Court — Conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act — Prosecution case based entirely on circumstantial evidence — No eyewitnesses — Reliability of prosecution witnesses critically examined — Admission by key witness regarding darkness and identification by voice only, materially undermining credibility — Evidence found insufficient to meet standard of proof in criminal law and exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence — Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Conviction for uttering obscene words — Held, mere use of the word “bastard” is not sufficient to constitute obscenity, especially in heated conversations during the modern era — Conviction under Section 294(b) IPC is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Medical negligence — Consent for surgery — Allegation of interpolation in consent form for Orchidectomy — Medical Board’s opinion that Orchidectomy was an appropriate procedure in cases of undescended testicle and that consent should have been obtained — No evidence of interpolation in consent form (different ink or handwriting) — Consent form indicated both Orchidopexy and Orchidectomy as options. Held, continuance of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of court and liable to be quashed. Appeals allowed, impugned High Court judgment set aside, and proceedings quashed Extraordinary Jurisdiction of Supreme Court (Article 136) — Equitable relief — Not granted to litigants whose conduct is callous, lackadaisical, and in clear violation of applicable rules and regulations — Commercial decisions of State Government not substituted by court. Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 — Public power, allocation of public resources, award of public contracts, execution of public works — State bound to act transparently, fairly, and consistently with equality — Process must withstand objective scrutiny and be free from arbitrariness, favouritism, or undisclosed conflicts of interest — Public confidence in governance requires equality, integrity, and accountability.

Civil Contempt – Seniority list, which is purportedly published in accordance with the order of this Court, is totally in breach of the directions of this Court – A first glance at the list would reveal that various selectees, who have received much less marks, are placed above the selectees who have received higher marks – No hesitation to hold that the nine persons named in order, are guilty of having committed contempt of order of this Court.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V. SENTHUR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M. VIJAYAKUMAR, IAS, SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L.…

Service Matters

Only issue which is required to be considered is whether the arrears ought to have been restricted to three years preceding the filing of the writ petition? Every time the teachers were not supposed to approach the appropriate authority for getting the benefit as and when there is a revision of pay as per the pay commission recommendations. Appeal dismissed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KERALEEYA SAMAJAM AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PRATIBHA DATTATRAY KULKARNI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S.…

Defendants have denied that the plaintiff is their brother or the son of their parents – High Court directed the plaintiff to undergo the DNA test — Respondent cannot compel the plaintiff to adduce further evidence in support of the defendants’ case – In any case, it is the burden on a litigating party to prove his case adducing evidence in support of his plea and the court should not compel the party to prove his case in the manner, suggested by the contesting party

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHOK KUMAR — Appellant Vs. RAJ GUPTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Death in accident – Driven negligently by not maintaining sufficient distance – Compensation – Appeal against Enhancement – It is to be noted that PW–1 herself travelled in the very car and PW–3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eye–witness – In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the First Information Report – High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. CHAMUNDESWARI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil…

Loss of dependency – Enhancement of compensation – Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of deceased, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income – Deceased was in possession of heavy vehicle driving licence and was driving such vehicle on the day of accident – the income of the deceased at Rs.8000/­ per month for the purpose of loss of dependency – By applying the multiplier of ’16’ the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,33,664/­.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHANDRA @ CHANDA @ CHANDRARAM AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MUKESH KUMAR YADAV AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and…

Evidence Act S 92 – Exclusion of evidence or oral agreement – The feigned ignorance about the nature of document cannot be said to be an instance of fraud. In the absence of any plea or proof of fraud, respondent is bound by the written document on which he admitted his signatures and of his wife. There is no oral evidence which could prove fraud, intimidation, illegality or failure of consideration to permit the respondents to lead oral evidence to dispute the sale deed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PLACIDO FRANCISCO PINTO (D) BY LRS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JOSE FRANCISCO PINTO AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and…

Service Matters

HELD upper age limit as directory would be conferring unbridled power in the executive to choose persons of their choice by relaxing the age beyond 35 years. In such case, the provision would have to be declared as unconstitutional – High Court has correct in opinion that 35 years is the upper age limit for appointment as Rehbar-e-Taleem (Recruitment of teachers in primary schools across the state of Jammu and Kashmir) scheme and cut-off date was not eligible for appointment.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHAHEENA MASARAT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…

(CPC) – Section 100 – Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Section 41 – Findings of fact – Second appeal – Jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in second appeal is not to interfere with the findings of fact on the ground that findings are erroneous, however, gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be – Findings of fact will also include the findings on the basis of documentary evidence – Jurisdiction to interfere in the second appeal is only where there is an error in law or procedure and not merely an error on a question of fact.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AVTAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BIMLA DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. )…

IMP : When a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement “refused” or “not available in the house” or “house locked” or “shop closed” or “addressee not in station”, due service has to be presumed – Defendant cannot seek setting aside of an ex-parte decree – Orders passed by the High Court set aside and dismiss the application preferred by defendant under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code – Appeal allowed. Counsel for Appearing Parties

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VISHWABANDHU — Appellant Vs. SRI KRISHNA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed