Latest Post

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4 — Section 376 (3) IPC — Rape — Conviction upheld — Evidence of victim’s mother and medical evidence — Reliability of victim’s mother’s testimony confirmed despite lengthy cross-examination, finding it natural and trustworthy and corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence — Medical evidence, though partially presented by defense, conclusively supported sexual assault, citing perineal tear and abrasions around anus Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 6 (as amended by Amendment Act, 2005) — Retrospective application — Validity of pre-amendment sale deeds — The prohibition contained in the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not affect registered sale deeds executed prior to December 20, 2004 (date of introduction of the amending provision) — This principle aligns with the judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1. Judicial Process — Misuse of process — Challenging bail conditions previously offered voluntarily — Accused offering substantial deposits to secure bail and subsequently challenging the onerous nature of conditions or the counsel’s authority to make such offers — This practice is condemned for undermining the judicial process and preventing consideration of bail applications on their merits — Such conduct leads to setting aside of bail orders and remittal for fresh consideration. Social Media Posts — Content-Related Offenses — Retaliatory Action — Quashing of Proceedings — While the court made no final determination on the nature of the petitioner’s social media posts, it acknowledged the petitioner’s counsel’s submission that the tweets were ‘retaliatory’ and were made in response to an incident involving a social media influencer. This assertion formed part of the petitioner’s argument for quashing or consolidating the numerous FIRs, suggesting a motive beyond simple offensive content. Legal Profession — Autonomy and Independence — Administration of Justice — Role of Lawyers — Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India — Impact of direct summons to defence counsel by Investigating Agencies on the autonomy of the legal profession and the independence of the administration of justice — Need for judicial oversight.

CONSTITUTION BENCH :: Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 – Section 16 – Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Section 3(2)(c) – Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 HELD By virtue of Entries 33 and 34 List III of seventh Schedule, both the Central Government as well as the State Government have the power to fix the price of sugarcane. The Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 which has been issued under Section 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 confers power upon the State Government to fix the remunerative/advised price at which sugarcane can be bought or sold which shall always be higher than the minimum price fixed by the Central Government; Section 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 is not repugnant to Section 3(2)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH WEST U.P. SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun…

The question involved in the present appeal is the enforceability of the foreign award, against NAFED. HELD the award is ex facie illegal, and in contravention of fundamental law, no export without permission of the Government was permissible and without the consent of the Government quota could not have been forwarded to next season. The export without permission would have violated the law, thus, enforcement of such award would be violative of the public policy of India.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. ALIMENTA S.A. — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah and B.R.…

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Sections 5A and 11B – Determination of refund of excise duty – Subsequent notifications/industrial policies which were impugned before the respective High Courts are clarificatory in nature and are issued in public interest and in the interest of the Revenue and they seek to achieve the original object and purpose of giving incentive/exemption while inviting the persons to make investment on establishing the new undertakings and they do not take away any vested rights conferred under the earlier notifications/industrial policies and therefore cannot be said to be hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. M/S V.V.F LIMITED AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Arun…

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) – Sections 2(viia), 2(xxiiia) and 21 – Mixture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance – Determination of Small quantity or commercial quantity – HELD In case of seizure of mixture of Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances with one or more neutral substance(s), the quantity of neutral substance(s) is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with actual content by weight of the offending drug, while determining the “small or commercial quantity” of the Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HIRA SINGH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee and M.R.…

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that both the Centre and the State have concurrent powers to fix the prices of sugarcane. At the same time, the price’ fixed by the State Government for sugarcane cannot be lower than the ‘minimum price’ fixed by the centre, the Court added. Also, it is open to the States to fix the price higher than the price fixed by the Centre.

State & Centre Have Concurrent Power To Fix Sugarcane Prices; No Conflict If State’s Price Is Higher Than Centre’s ‘Minimum Price’ : SC [Read Judgment] Live Law News Network 22…

100% ST Reservations For Teacher Posts In Scheduled Areas Unconstitutional: SC Constitution Bench HELD interpreted the judgement prospectively and not “retrospectively” and held that the existing appointments made in excess of the 50 per cent reservation shall survive but shall cease to be effective in the future, thereby providing a relief to those who had already been appointed basis the saif government order.

100% ST Reservations For Teacher Posts In Scheduled Areas Unconstitutional: SC Constitution Bench [Read Judgment] Mehal Jain And Sanya Talwar 22 April 2020 1:58 PM The Supreme Court on Wednesday…

Development Control Rules for Greater Bombay, 1967 – Claim for construction of open spaces – Open spaces are required to be left for an approval of layout or for the purpose of creating lung space for the owners of other plots where constructions are permitted. HELD It is fairly well settled that in an approved layout, the open spaces which are left, are to be continued in that manner alone and no construction can be permitted in such open spaces. Appeal dismissed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANJUMAN E SHIATE ALI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. GULMOHAR AREA SOCIETIES WELFARE GROUP AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M.…

Service Matters

Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 – Eligibility criteria – Post of Director of medical institutions – HELD This Court fail to understand as to how such direction can be given by the High Court for providing a relaxation which is not notified in the advertisement – While it is open for the employer to notify such criteria for relaxation when sufficient candidates are not available, at the same time nobody can claim such relaxation as a matter of right

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. THINGUJAM ACHOUBA SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DR. H. NABACHANDRA SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and…

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Section 26 – HELD The High Court, mainly on the ground that the Planning Authority has not prepared a draft development plan within the time prescribed under Section 26 of the MRTP Act, has allowed the writ petition with a further direction that the competent authority shall undertake the remaining work relating to preparation of draft development plan and submit to the State Government for sanction. – We are of the view that the said aspects need not be gone into at this stage by this Court. Chapter III of the MRTP Act deals with the preparation of development plan and as per Section 38 of the MRTP Act development plan is to be revised at least once in twenty years. We are of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE MAYOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. GOVIND BAJIRAO NAVPUTE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash…

You missed