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.

PMLA – Search and seizure – If a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner – Authorised Officer is vested with sufficient power; such power is circumscribed by a procedure laid down under the statute – As such the power is to be exercised in that manner alone,

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH OPTO CIRCUIT INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. AXIS BANK AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI., A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian,…

IBC – A person having only security interest over the assets of corporate debtor, even if falling within the description of ‘secured creditor’ by virtue of collateral security extended by the corporate debtor, would not be covered by the financial creditors as per definitions contained in sub-section (7) and (8) of Section 5.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. KETULBHAI RAMUBHAI PATEL — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ.…

Housing – Allotment of plot – Non-Participation of Allotment Process – Availability of the plot does not give any entitlement to a person who has no right to claim allotment – Any allotment has to be made in accordance with the procedure prescribed and the Rules of the Parishad

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH U.P. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NAMIT SHARMA — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.…

Illegal gratification – presumption of innocence as would be there in the case of acquittal – High Court decision is based on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal position – High Court in dealing/non – dealing with the evidence was patently illegal leading to grave miscarriage of justice – Matter deserves to be remanded

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF GUJARAT — Appellant Vs. BHALCHANDRA LAXMISHANKAR DAVE — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M. R. Shah, JJ.…

IBC – – Held, Exclusion under the first proviso to Section 21(2) is related not to the debt itself but to the relationship existing between a related party financial creditor and the corporate debtor – As such, the financial creditor who in praesenti is not a related party, would not be debarred from being a member of the Committee of Creditors

1/37 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SPADE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indu…

You missed