(CPC) – Or 41 R 22 – Challenge to adverse findings of court – Cross-objection not necessary HELD it is sufficient to raise a challenge to an adverse finding of the court of first instance before the appellate court without a cross objection.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRI SAURAV JAIN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S A. B. P. DESIGN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 17(2) – Award of Emergency Arbitrator – It is wholly incorrect to say that Section 17(1) of the Act would exclude an Emergency Arbitrator’s orders. HELD A party cannot, after it participates in an Emergency Award proceeding, having agreed to institutional rules made in that regard, that thereafter it will not be bound by an Emergency Arbitrator’s ruling.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC — Appellant Vs. FUTURE RETAIL LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…
A judgment and/or decree for money in favour of the Financial Creditor, passed by the DRT, or any other Tribunal or Court, or the issuance of a Certificate of Recovery in favour of the Financial Creditor, would give rise to a fresh cause of action for the Financial Creditor, to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DENA BANK (NOW BANK OF BARODA) — Appellant Vs. C. SHIVAKUMAR REDDY AND ANR. — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian,…
Expunction of remarks against Advocate- Comments were unnecessary for the decision of the Court – Held that the offending remarks should be recalled to avoid any future harm to the Appellant ‘s reputation or his work as a member of the Bar – Order expunction of the extracted remarks in judgement – Appeal disposed of.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEERAJ GARG — Appellant Vs. SARITA RANI AND ORS. ETC — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil…
Penalty of compulsory retirement from the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge – Multiple transactions showing deposits and withdrawals of substantial amounts of money, it cannot be said that Full Court was not justified in taking the view that it did – Compulsory retirement upheld
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJINDER GOEL — Appellant Vs. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi,…
Preventive Detention Order – Mere contravention of law such as indulging in cheating or criminal breach of trust certainly affects ‘law and order’ but before it can be said to affect ‘public order’ , it must affect the community or the public at large –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANKA SNEHA SHEELA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. F. Nariman and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…
Service Law – Enhancement of age of superannuation – Ayurvedic doctors covered under AYUSH are also entitled to the benefit of enhanced superannuation age of 65 years (raised from 60 years), just like the allopathic doctors
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. DR. RAM NARESH SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hrishikesh Roy,…
REMISSION – if a prisoner has undergone more than 14 years of actual imprisonment, the State Government, as an appropriate Government, is competent to pass an order of premature release, but if the prisoner has not undergone 14 years or more of actual imprisonment, the Governor has a power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites and remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person de hors the restrictions imposed under Section 433-A of the Constitution
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAJ KUMAR @ BITTU — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…
Witness Cannot Be Prosecuted For Perjury U/s 193 CrPC For Mere Inconsistency In His Statements
“The position of law which is well established is that even in a case where the Court comes to the conclusion on the aspect of intentional false evidence, still the…
(IPC) – Ss 425, 427 & 447 – Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act 1984 – S 3(1) – (CrPC) – S 321 – Allowing the prosecution to be withdrawn would only result in a singular result, which is that the elected representatives are exempt from the mandate of criminal law. This is not being in aid of the broad ends of public justice – CJM justified in declining withdrawal of the prosecution under S 321 Cr PC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF KERALA — Appellant Vs. K. AJITH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah,…