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.

Appellate Tribunal reversed the findings recorded by the Commission regarding commissioning of plant by relying upon certificate issued by the KPTCL that the Solar Plants were commissioned on 16.10.2017 – No dispute about power injected – Judgment of Appellate Tribunal upheld – Appeals dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) — Appellant Vs. E.S. SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao…

Election Laws – Declaration of results – State Government through learned counsel as well as the State Election Commission, Uttar Pradesh that necessary measures have been put in place in terms of the guidelines issued from time to time, including the recent Notifications dated 29.04.2021 and 30.04.2021 issued by the State Election Commission – No interference.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SACHIN YADAV — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Special Leave…

Contract load/sanctioned load – Reduction of – Fresh agreements may have been executed at the stage of enhancement of load of the same electricity connection, the same cannot be treated as anything but an extension/amendment or modification of the initial agreement granting the electricity connection

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S RAMKRISHNA FORGING LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran,…

Land Acquisition – Specific performance – Power to award compensation-Decree for compensation is passed as an alternate decree and in lieu of the decree for specific performance – High Court has rightly observed and held that the plaintiff shall be entitled to the entire amount of compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act together with interest and solatium.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUKHBIR — Appellant Vs. AJIT SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 1653…

Service Matters

Termination – Back wages -The High Court in fact set aside the direction of the Tribunal to reinstate by creating a supernumerary post – This is not challenged by Respondent No. 1 – It directed only that the appointment of the Respondent No. 1 be made in the vacancy – Therefore, the claim of Respondent No. 1 for back wages from the date of termination is at any rate clearly untenable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KAMALINI KHILAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and K.M. Joseph, JJ.…

You missed