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.

Maradu Flats Case – This Court direct that the amount of Rs.6.12 crores + 1.50 crores lying in deposit to the account of M/s.Jain Housing & Constructions Ltd. be disbursed on pro rata basis to the flat owners and agreement holders of M/s. Jain Housing & Constructions Ltd.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE KERALA STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY MEMBER SECRETARY — Appellant Vs. MARADU MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and…

Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in the public services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 as amended in 2019 granting 12% and 13% reservation for Maratha community in addition to 50% social reservation is not covered by exceptional circumstances as contemplated by Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Sup3 SCC 217.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH DR. JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL — Appellant Vs. THE CHIEF MINISTER AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer, L. Nageswara…

Held If the remand is absolutely illegal or the remand is afflicted with the vice of lack of jurisdiction, a Habeas Corpus petition would indeed lie. Equally, if an order of remand is passed in an absolutely mechanical manner, the person affected can seek the remedy of Habeas Corpus. Barring such situations, a Habeas Corpus petition will not lie.

  Thus, we would hold as follows: If the remand is absolutely illegal or the remand is afflicted with the vice of lack of jurisdiction, a Habeas Corpus petition would…

Private unaided schools in Rajasthan shall collect annual school fees from their students as fixed under the Act of 2016 for the academic year 2019-20, but by providing deduction of 15 per cent on that amount in lieu of unutilised facilities by the students during the relevant period of academic year 2020-21

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDIAN SCHOOL, JODHPUR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.…

You missed