Latest Post

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 449, 376, 394 — Appeal against High Court’s upholding of conviction and sentence — Case based on circumstantial evidence — Absence of direct evidence connecting appellant to offense — Falsely implicated — Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt — No scientific evidence linking appellant — Important witnesses not associated in investigation or produced in court — Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of cheque — Quashing of proceedings — Cheques issued as security and not for consideration — Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) clearly stated cheques were for security purposes to show banks and not for deposit — Complainant failed to read the complete terms of MOU in isolation and misinterpreted it to claim cheques were converted into debt — Court empowered to consider unimpeachable documents at pre-trial stage to prevent injustice — Complaints under Section 138 NI Act liable to be quashed. Insurance Law — Fire Insurance — Accidental Fire — Cause of fire is immaterial if the insured is not the instigator and there is no fraud. The objective of fire insurance is to indemnify the insured against loss by fire. Tender Conditions — Interpretation — Ambiguity — The terms of a tender must be clear and unambiguous — If a tendering authority intends for a specific document to be issued by a particular authority, it must be clearly stated in the tender conditions — Failure to do so may lead to rejection of the bid being deemed arbitrary and dehors the tender terms. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — Environmental Protection — Monitoring Committee — Powers and Scope — A PIL was filed concerning environmental issues in Delhi, leading to the appointment of a Monitoring Committee. The Supreme Court clarified that the committee was appointed to prevent misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes and not to interfere with residential premises used as such. Their power was limited to making suggestions to a Special Task Force regarding encroachments on public land, not to summarily seal premises.

It is no doubt true that Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. is a subsidiary of the petitioner, namely, Coal India Ltd. But both are different and distinct legal entities. When no relief is sought against the petitioner herein in the writ petition and the company against whom relief is sought in the writ petition is not seeking a transfer, I do not know how the petitioner is entitled to seek transfer

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH COAL INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S. VASUNDHARA COAL CARRIERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian, J. ) Transfer…

No State run university can afford to have a laidback attitude, when their own performance is being measured by international standards – Therefore, the power of the universities to prescribe enhanced norms and standards, cannot be doubted – While universities cannot dilute the standards prescribed by AICTE, they certainly have the power to stipulate enhanced norms and standards.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JAI BHARATH COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…

(IPC) – Sections 148 and 307 – ideal that independent witnesses come forward to substantiate the prosecution case but it would be unfair to expect the presence of third parties in every case at the time of incident, for most violent crimes are seldom anticipated. Any adverse inference against the non – examination of independent witnesses thus needs to be assessed upon the facts and circumstances of each case

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ROHTAS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal…

Service Matters

Respondent could not be treated to be part of Category ‘C’ from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 1.8.1985 as he was neither a graduate nor a trained teacher when he was appointed. Also, Respondent was not even a trained teacher on the date of his appointment and thus cannot claim seniority on such ground from the date of his initial appointment – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MADHAVI — Appellant Vs. CHAGAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 8(3) – Disqualification- petitioner was disqualified from contesting the elections in terms of Section 8(3) of the Act. In such circumstances, she could not have maintained an election petition as “a candidate at such election” in terms of Section 81(1). Therefore, the High Court was right in not venturing into an exercise in futility, by taking up the election petition for trial, though the High Court was wrong in rejecting the election petition on the ground of existence of incurable of defects – Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SARITHA S. NAIR — Appellant Vs. HIBI EDEN — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI., A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Special…

Possession of Indian Flap Shell Turtle — the Turtle which has been seized is not that which is included in Part II of Schedule I. In the facts of the present case, on the face of it, the Turtle seized is not included in Schedule I Part II and the Turtle having already been freed on the second day of its seizure, the High Court did not commit any error in quashing the criminal proceedings

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TITTY ALIAS GEORGE KURIAN — Appellant Vs. THE DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Indu Malhotra, JJ. )…

Prior environmental clearance – It is not necessary for the Central Government or for that matter, NHAI, to apply for prior environmental/forest clearances or permissions, as the case may be, at the stage of planning or taking an in principle decision to formalize the Project of constructing a new national highway manifested in notification under Section 2(2), including until the stage of issuing notification under Section 3A of the 1956 Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT — Appellant Vs. P.V. KRISHNAMOORTHY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, B.R. Gavai and Krishna…

You missed