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.
Service Matters

Qualifications and Mode of Recruitment – Rules were issued by the High Court in exercise of the power under the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir – These Rules had the approval of the Governor also – Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the office order issued by the Chief Justice was ultra vires, is completely untenable.

1/8 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A.…

As per guidance note dated 11.11.2020 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Women and Child Development, all States/Union Territories who have not yet opened Anganwadi Centres shall take a decision to open Anganwadi Centres on or before 31.01.2021 situated outside the containment zone.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DIPIKA JAGATRAM SAHANI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah,…

Illegal Gratification – Reduction in sentence – Accused is a senior citizen aged about 70 years and already dismissed from service – Sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment as imposed by the Special Court, confirmed by the High Court, is reduced to one year and one month rigorous imprisonment – Appeal partly allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH S. SUNDARA KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before…

Appellant the importer of goods & cleared them for home consumption, the natural consequence of raising of such debit notes on the end-buyers situated in different States and movement of goods to such end-buyers would be to take these transactions in the category of inter-State sales in terms of Section 3(a) of the CST Act – Appellant was not entitled to the exemption of Section 5(2) of the CST Act

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S VELLANKI FRAME WORKS — Appellant Vs. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ )…

You missed