Latest Post

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 — Conviction and Sentence — Separate punishments for offences under Section 20 as well as offences under Sections 25 and 29 are permissible, as these are distinct and independent offences, even if they arise from the same transaction. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33C(2) — Maintainability of claim petition — Labour Court and High Court dismissed the appellant’s case on the technical ground of non-maintainability of the petition under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, primarily because proceedings under this section are in the nature of execution proceedings — The issue of grant of pension was disputed by the respondent-Bank and therefore could not be held to be a pre-existing right — Dismissal of the case at the threshold by both the Labour Court and High Court was upheld. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 1 Rule 10 — Impleadment of parties — Principles for impleadment — A necessary party is essential for effective order, while a proper party aids complete adjudication — In writ proceedings, a person directly affected by an interim order can be joined even if not an original party. 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.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 17(2) – Award of Emergency Arbitrator – It is wholly incorrect to say that Section 17(1) of the Act would exclude an Emergency Arbitrator’s orders. HELD A party cannot, after it participates in an Emergency Award proceeding, having agreed to institutional rules made in that regard, that thereafter it will not be bound by an Emergency Arbitrator’s ruling.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC — Appellant Vs. FUTURE RETAIL LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

A judgment and/or decree for money in favour of the Financial Creditor, passed by the DRT, or any other Tribunal or Court, or the issuance of a Certificate of Recovery in favour of the Financial Creditor, would give rise to a fresh cause of action for the Financial Creditor, to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DENA BANK (NOW BANK OF BARODA) — Appellant Vs. C. SHIVAKUMAR REDDY AND ANR. — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian,…

Expunction of remarks against Advocate- Comments were unnecessary for the decision of the Court – Held that the offending remarks should be recalled to avoid any future harm to the Appellant ‘s reputation or his work as a member of the Bar – Order expunction of the extracted remarks in judgement – Appeal disposed of.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEERAJ GARG — Appellant Vs. SARITA RANI AND ORS. ETC — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters

Penalty of compulsory retirement from the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge – Multiple transactions showing deposits and withdrawals of substantial amounts of money, it cannot be said that Full Court was not justified in taking the view that it did – Compulsory retirement upheld

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJINDER GOEL — Appellant Vs. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi,…

REMISSION – if a prisoner has undergone more than 14 years of actual imprisonment, the State Government, as an appropriate Government, is competent to pass an order of premature release, but if the prisoner has not undergone 14 years or more of actual imprisonment, the Governor has a power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites and remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person de hors the restrictions imposed under Section 433-A of the Constitution

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAJ KUMAR @ BITTU — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

(IPC) – Ss 425, 427 & 447 – Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act 1984 – S 3(1) – (CrPC) – S 321 – Allowing the prosecution to be withdrawn would only result in a singular result, which is that the elected representatives are exempt from the mandate of criminal law. This is not being in aid of the broad ends of public justice – CJM justified in declining withdrawal of the prosecution under S 321 Cr PC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF KERALA — Appellant Vs. K. AJITH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah,…

Arbitral award – Ground of Patent Illegality – No evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality – Impugned Award would come under the realm of ‘patent illegality’ and therefore, has been rightly set aside by the High Court – Appeal Dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PSA SICAL TERMINALS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF V.O. CHIDAMBRANAR PORT TRUST TUTICORIN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…

You missed