(IPC) – Ss 302 and 436 – Murder by pouring kerosene in house and around the deceased and children – Circumstantial Evidence – Appellant not being injured alone cannot be held as a circumstance to hold one guilty of having set fire to the house – Since the other circumstances in the chain are not established, the same cannot be held against the appellant
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARUBAI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1154…
IBC – Dispute Section 9 – It is important to separate the grain from the chaff – so long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has no other option but to reject the application – the Court is not required to be satisfied as to whether the defence is likely to succeed or not – Court also cannot go into the merits of the dispute
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED — Appellant Vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…
IBC – Resolution plan approved by Committee of Creditors (CoC) – Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority cannot extend into entering upon merits of a business decision made by a requisite majority of the CoC in its commercial wisdom – Nor is there a residual equity based jurisdiction in the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRATAP TECHNOCRATS (P) LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MONITORING COMMITTEE OF RELIANCE INFRATEL LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya…
Rent and Eviction – Death of both partners and not having any clause permitting continuation of the partnership by the legal heirs, the non-residential tenanted premises is deemed to be vacant in law as the tenant is deemed to have ceased to occupy the building.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DAVESH NAGALYA (DEAD) AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S.…
A & C Act, Section 46 – Foreign Award – Enforcement of foreign award cannot be resisted on the sole ground that it was made against a non-signatory
“First and foremost, Section 46 does not speak of “parties” at all, but of “persons” who may, therefore, be non-signatories to the arbitration agreement” 29. A reading of Section 44…
Political Parties Have To Publish Information On ‘Candidates With Criminal Antecedents’ On Their Website Homepage – HELD Politicians With Criminal Antecedents Cannot Be Permitted To Be Law-Makers; But Our Hands Are Tied
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRAJESH SINGH — Appellant Vs. SUNIL ARORA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Contempt Petition…
IBC – There is no residual equity based jurisdiction in the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority while dealing with the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors. These authorities can not enter into the commercial wisdom underlying the approval granted by the CoC to the resolution plan.
There is no residual equity based jurisdiction in the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority while dealing with the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors. These authorities can…
Wilful Breach Of Undertaking Given To Court Is Contempt
contentions before the Apex Court in appeal were: (i) that the failure of a party to comply with an undertaking, on the basis of which a conditional order of stay…
Res judicata, rejection of plaint – “Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the ‘previous suit’, such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 (d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused.”
“Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the ‘previous suit’, such a plea will be beyond the scope of…
Motor Accident Compensation: Pranay Sethi Judgment Doesn’t Limit Operation Of Statute Providing Greater Benefits HELD If a statutory instrument has devised a formula which affords better or greater benefit, such statutory instrument must be allowed to operate unless the statutory instrument is otherwise found to be invalid
the Insurance Company had contended that sub-rule 3(iii) of Rule 220A of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 is contrary to the conclusions arrived at by the Constitution Bench of…