Criminal Law–Unlawful assembly–Common object–Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141–Where common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with the help of Section 149–|Penal Code, 1860, Section
2009(3) LAW HERALD (SC) 1652 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly Criminal Appeal No. 472 of…
Consumer Law–Negligence–Meaning of–Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do–Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (SC) 1640 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi Civil Appeal No. 6168 of…
Bribe–Once there is a presumption under Section 20, Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, it is for the accused to establish that the amount was not received as bribe.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (SC) 1635 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma…
Criminal Law–FIR–A cryptic telephonic message of a cognizable offence received by the police agency would not constitute a FIR–Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154 and 162
State of A.P. v. V.V. Panduranga Rao 2009(3) LAW HERALD (SC) 1633 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 96 – Leave to appeal – It is well settled that a person who is not a party to the suit may prefer an appeal with the leave of the Appellate Court and such leave should be granted if he would be prejudicially affected by the Judgment – Mere saying that the appellants are prejudicially affected by the decree is not sufficient – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SRI V.N.KRISHNA MURTHY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SRI RAVIKUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Krishna Murari and…
IN RE PRASHANT BHUSHAN & ANR. ([FOR HEARING ON SENTENCE]) – Order reserved. We have given time to the contemnor to submit unconditional apology, if he so desires. Let it be filed by 24.08.2020. In case, apology is submitted, the case to be posted for consideration on the same, on 25.08.2020.
ITEM NO.2 Court 2 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 HELD It is clear that in case HSBC was to enforce the Foreign Final Award in India in accordance with section 48 of the 1996 Act, irreparable loss would be caused to it unless at least the principal sum were kept aside for purposes of enforcement of the award in India. Accordingly, we dismiss Civil Appeal No.5145 of 2016 filed by Avitel India and the Jain family, and allow Civil Appeal No.5158 of 2016 filed by HSBC.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R. F. Nariman and…
Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Act 1956 – Section 6(1)(viii) – Nomination – Powers of Diwan – It was not open to the State Government to arrogate the power of nomination to itself or to usurp the powers of the Diwan – Section 6(1)(viii) entrusts that authority to the collective body of members of the Diwan which is entitled to select the four individuals to be nominated to the statutory Board
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SARDAR BAHGINDER SINGH S/O GURUCHARAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. SARDAR MANJIEETH SINGH JAGAN SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya…
Vikas Dubey Encounter Case – Allegations of bias made by petitioner against inquiry commission merely on the basis of newspaper reports – There is no other material on record to confirm the truth or otherwise of the statement made in the newspaper – Allegations liable to be rejected – Appeal Dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GHANSHYAM UPADHYAY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI, A. S. Bopanna and…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – S 8 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Ss 31 and 34 – Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed – But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non est, or illegal & not binding on him, executant can approach the Court u/s 31, non-executant file suit u/s 34, HELD anomalies only highlight the impossibility of holding that an action instituted under section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is an action in rem.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – S 8 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Ss 31 and 34 – Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled,…