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.

Foundation ceremony of Central Vista project -we clarify that the authorities would be free to continue with procedural processes without altering the status of the site(s) in question in any manner, including to continue with the scheduled progmramme of foundation stone-laying on 10th December, 2020.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAJEEV SURI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. )…

(NDPS) – Ss 8(c) and 20(b) – Recovery of 6.300 kilogram ganja – Quantum of sentence – When the quantity/Ganja recovered from the appellant was 6.300 kilogram, which is between small quantity and commercial quantity HELD to the extent of imposing the sentence of six years rigorous imprisonment in place of ten years rigorous imprisonment

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ISSAK NABAB SHAH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ.…

(CrPC) – Magistrate can in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the Code order/direct the concerned Incharge/SHO of the police station to lodge/register crime case/FIR even for the offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder and at this stage the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall not be attracted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAYANT ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Service Matters

If an appointment is made illegally or irregularly, the same cannot be made the basis of further appointment and erroneous decision cannot be permitted to perpetuate further error to the detriment of the general welfare of the public or a considerable section. (See : Union of India and Another vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal and Others, (2010) 2 SCC 422)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PANKJESHWAR SHARMA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta…

Service Matters

Time bound promotional scale – Claim of the appellants of discrimination and arbitrariness on the basis of time bound promotional scale granted to juniors is not found to be sustainable – Appellants are not entitled to time bound promotional scale on the basis of parity in the other cases

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH INDERJIT SINGH SODHI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao,…

(CrPC) – Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Delay in lodging of FIR – Many a time, delay may not be fatal to the criminal proceedings. However, it always depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case – However, at the same time, a long delay like 29 years as in the present case can certainly be a valid consideration for grant of anticipatory bail.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SUMEDH SINGH SAINI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah,…

(CrPC) – Section 161 and 161(3) – Installation of CCTV cameras in police stations – State Level Oversight Committee (SLOC) and the Central Oversight Body (COB) (where applicable) shall give directions to all Police Stations, investigative/enforcement agencies to prominently display at the entrance and inside the police stations/offices of investigative/enforcement agencies about the coverage of the concerned premises by CCTV.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PARAMVIR SINGH SAINI — Appellant Vs. BALJIT SINGH AND OTHERS — RespondentS ( Before : R. F. Nariman, K.M. Joseph and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…

E P F M P Act, 1952 – Ss 1(3)(B) and 7A – Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 – Section 2(g) – Provisions of the EPF Act are applicable to a private security agency engaged in the expert service of providing personnel to its client, if it meets the requirement of the EPF Act – Merely because the client pays money does not become employer of guard

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. PANTHER SECURITY SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and…

You missed