Latest Post

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21, 32, 14, 142 — Prisoners, rights of — Elderly and terminally ill convicts — Continued incarceration despite advanced age (above 70 years) or terminal illness — Held, imprisonment does not suspend constitutional guarantees of dignity and humane treatment — Right to life under Art. 21 continues in custody and extends to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment — NALSA’s nationwide Special Campaign identifying 5,393 vulnerable prisoners, including 11 terminally ill and 84 above 70 years across 17 States and 1 Union Territory, disclosed systemic gap between executive policy and ground-level implementation — Continued detention causing avoidable suffering held constitutionally impermissible — Supreme Court, invoking Arts. 32 and 142, directed States/UTs to formulate uniform compassionate-release policy. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Distinction between “obscene” and “abusive”/”vulgar” language — Test of — Held, to attract S. 294(b) IPC, prosecution must prove: (i) an obscene act done, or obscene word/song/ballad uttered, in or near a public place; and (ii) such act/utterance caused annoyance to others — Word “obscene” undefined under IPC but judicially construed, in the context of S. 292 IPC, to mean material which, taken as a whole, is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, and tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to be exposed to it — “Community standard test” (Aveek Sarkar) applicable, not the Hicklin test — Mere vulgarity, abuse or profanity, however distasteful, uncivil or shocking, does not ipso facto constitute obscenity — Vulgarity may evoke disgust or revulsion but lacks the depraving/corrupting tendency essential to obscenity — Appellant’s utterance of abusive and expletive-laden words against complainant during a quarrel, though coarse and offensive, held neither lascivious nor appealing to prurient interest nor shown to have caused annoyance to others in the public place — Conviction under S. 294(b) IPC set aside. Railways Act, 1989 — Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A — Compensation on account of untoward incidents — ‘No-fault’ liability — Accidental falling of a passenger from a running train constitutes an “untoward incident” — Liability under S. 124A arises irrespective of wrongful act, neglect or default of the Railway Administration, subject only to statutory exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury or the passenger’s own criminal act — Provision held to be beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 31 — ‘Clean slate’ doctrine — Effect of approved Resolution Plan on claims — Upon approval under S. 31(1), claims provided in the Plan stand frozen and are binding on the Corporate Debtor and all stakeholders — Claims not incorporated in the Plan stand extinguished, withdrawn or abated — Resolution Applicant entitled to commence operations free from unforeseen liabilities — Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons v. Edelweiss ARC, (2021) 9 SCC 657, followed. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 299 — Record of evidence in absence of accused — Scope and applicability — Exception to the rule that a witness must be examined in presence of the accused and to the principle under S. 33, Evidence Act — Being an exception, all prescribed conditions must be strictly complied with — Deposition recorded in absence of an absconding accused admissible against him upon arrest, if deponent is dead, incapable of giving evidence, cannot be found, or cannot be produced without unreasonable delay, expense or inconvenience.

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21, 32, 14, 142 — Prisoners, rights of — Elderly and terminally ill convicts — Continued incarceration despite advanced age (above 70 years) or terminal illness — Held, imprisonment does not suspend constitutional guarantees of dignity and humane treatment — Right to life under Art. 21 continues in custody and extends to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment — NALSA’s nationwide Special Campaign identifying 5,393 vulnerable prisoners, including 11 terminally ill and 84 above 70 years across 17 States and 1 Union Territory, disclosed systemic gap between executive policy and ground-level implementation — Continued detention causing avoidable suffering held constitutionally impermissible — Supreme Court, invoking Arts. 32 and 142, directed States/UTs to formulate uniform compassionate-release policy.

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Distinction between “obscene” and “abusive”/”vulgar” language — Test of — Held, to attract S. 294(b) IPC, prosecution must prove: (i) an obscene act done, or obscene word/song/ballad uttered, in or near a public place; and (ii) such act/utterance caused annoyance to others — Word “obscene” undefined under IPC but judicially construed, in the context of S. 292 IPC, to mean material which, taken as a whole, is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, and tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to be exposed to it — “Community standard test” (Aveek Sarkar) applicable, not the Hicklin test — Mere vulgarity, abuse or profanity, however distasteful, uncivil or shocking, does not ipso facto constitute obscenity — Vulgarity may evoke disgust or revulsion but lacks the depraving/corrupting tendency essential to obscenity — Appellant’s utterance of abusive and expletive-laden words against complainant during a quarrel, though coarse and offensive, held neither lascivious nor appealing to prurient interest nor shown to have caused annoyance to others in the public place — Conviction under S. 294(b) IPC set aside.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 25 – Matrimonial Case – Transfer of – Family Court at Thane, Maharashtra, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Mangalore, Dakshin Kannada District, Karnataka – No objection by Husband – It is needless to observe that both the parties will cooperate with the competent court of jurisdiction at Mangalore for expeditious disposal of the petition.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH RASHMI ROHAN SHETTY — Appellant Vs. ROHAN RAGHUNATH SHETTY — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna, J. ) Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No. 3044 of 2019…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 405, 419 and 420 – Quashing of proceedings – Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction – Proceedings quashed – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  MITESH KUMAR J. SHA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari,…

Compensation – Claim petition filed by mother in law ‘dependent’ – Maintainability – Mother ­in ­law was living with the deceased and his family members – In order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish his loss of dependency – Section 166 of the MV Act makes it clear that every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realization of compensation – Mother in law of deceased is legal representative under Section 166 of MV Act and entitled to maintain the claim petition.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  N. JAYASREE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari,…

Rejected the constitutional challenge to the validity of Sections 52 (1)(a), Section 55(b)(1) and Section 56 of the UP Water Supply and Sewerage Act. Appeals allowed HC judgement set aside. Writ petition dismissed. The appellants entitled to recover balance of dues to be recovered per notice of demand, interest at 9 per cent p a.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  JALKAL VIBHAG NAGAR NIGAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PRADESHIYA INDUSTRIAL AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

Murder – Organized crime – High Court quashed charge sheet against accused for KCOCA offences – Appeal against – High Court has completely glossed over the crucial fact that the writ petition was filed only after the sanction was accorded by the competent authority under Section 24(2) and more so cognizance was also taken by the competent Court of the offence of organized crime committed by the members of organized crime syndicate including the writ petitioner

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KAVITHA LANKESH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…

Procedure adopted by the High Court disposing writ petition by permitting / allowing the original writ applicant to modify its offer and that too in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is unsustainable and unknown to law -HELD Once the writ of mandamus was issued, instead of disposing of the writ petition, the High Court ought to have allowed the writ petition – Impugned order passed by the High Court is unsustainable in as such no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the High Court on merits.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VAIBHAVI ENTERPRISE — Appellant Vs. NOBEL CERA COAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed