Latest Post

Passports Act, 1967 — Sections 5, 6(2)(f), 7, 8, 9, 10, and 22 — Refusal to issue or re-issue a passport due to pending criminal proceedings — Exemption under Section 22 via Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 — Section 6(2)(f) bars issuance if criminal proceedings are pending, but this is subject to “other provisions of this Act,” including Section 22 — GSR 570(E) exempts persons facing criminal proceedings if they obtain permission from the concerned criminal court — This exemption is structured, tying validity and use to the court’s order; it permits issuing a passport where the criminal court allows renewal and retains judicial supervision over foreign travel. (Paras 7.2, 7.6, 7.8, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 25) Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15) Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30) Tender and Contract — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of “prime contractor” and “in the same name and style” — Requirement of work experience — Where an NIT’s pre-qualification document requires “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer)” to have completed previous work, and the term “prime contractor” is undefined, its meaning must be derived from common parlance as the tenderer primarily responsible for the contract offer; however, the requirement must be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, considering the credentials and capacity to execute the work, not merely the name. (Paras 17, 20, 21.3)

Passports Act, 1967 — Sections 5, 6(2)(f), 7, 8, 9, 10, and 22 — Refusal to issue or re-issue a passport due to pending criminal proceedings — Exemption under Section 22 via Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 — Section 6(2)(f) bars issuance if criminal proceedings are pending, but this is subject to “other provisions of this Act,” including Section 22 — GSR 570(E) exempts persons facing criminal proceedings if they obtain permission from the concerned criminal court — This exemption is structured, tying validity and use to the court’s order; it permits issuing a passport where the criminal court allows renewal and retains judicial supervision over foreign travel. (Paras 7.2, 7.6, 7.8, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 25)

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Appointment of ad hoc Judges – High Courts are in a crisis situation – i. The Intelligence Bureau (IB) should submit its report/inputs within 4 to 6 weeks ii. It would be desirable that the Central Government forward the file(s)/recommendations to the Supreme Court within 8 to 12 weeks iii. It would be for the Government to thereafter proceed to make the appointment immediately on the aforesaid consideration and undoubtedly if Government has any reservations on suitability or in public interest

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S. PLR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI, Sanjay Kishan Kaul…

According to the learned counsel for the co-accused, they are also aged and that they are also suffering from ill health – Therefore, they contend that a transfer from Darjeeling to New Delhi will make their life miserable – If the petitioner is entitled to a fair trial, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are also equally entitled to a fair trial – Transfer dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH DEVENDRA KUMAR SAXENA — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian, J. ) Transfer Petition…

DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS -The courts in all criminal trials should, at the beginning of the trial, i.e. after summoning of the accused, and framing of charges, hold a preliminary case management hearing – This hearing may take place immediately after the framing of the charge – In this hearing, the court should consider the total number of witnesses, and classify them as eyewitness, material witness, formal witness (who would be asked to produce documents, etc) and experts

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS —…

H P G S T Rules, 2017 – Rule 159(5) – Provisional attachment – Under the provisions of Rule 159(5), the person whose property is attached is entitled to dual procedural safeguards: (a) An entitlement to submit objections on the ground that the property was or is not liable to attachment; and (b) An opportunity of being heard;

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S RADHA KRISHAN INDUSTRIES — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS RESPONDENT ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah,…

High Court misdirected itself in finding support for conviction on such unclinching evidence – The innocence of the appellants is a distinct possibility in the present matter and when two views are possible the benefit must go to the accused-Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of Proof – As the burden to prove the guilt is always on the prosecution and cannot be shifted to the accused by virtue of Section 106

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SURENDRA KUMAR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, B.R. Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Protection of two species of birds namely Great Indian Bustard ‘GIB’ and Lesser Florican – convert the overhead cables into underground powerlines the same shall be undertaken and completed within a period of one year and till such time the divertors shall be hung from the existing powerlines – Ordered accordingly.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M.K. RANJITSINH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., A.S. Bopanna and…

Gokarna Mahabaleshwara Temple Case – Court direct that the ‘Overseeing Committee’ shall function under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Justice Sri. B.N. Srikrishna, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India and manage the affairs of the temple in all respects – Ramchandrapura Math shall hand over charge of the affairs of the temple to the Assistant Commissioner who shall also act as Secretary to the ‘Overseeing Committee’.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAMACHNADRAPURA MATH — Appellant Vs. SRI SAMSTHANA MAHABALESHWARA DEVARU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., A.S. Bopanna and V.…

You missed