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.

Misappropriation of public funds – Bank Employee – In banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee. High Court has committed an apparent error in setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent confirmed in departmental appeal by order – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and…

Whether the acceptance of a conditional offer with a further condition results in a concluded contract, irrespective of whether the offerer accepts the further condition proposed by the acceptor, Held, Acceptance of a conditional offer with a further condition does not result in a concluded Contract.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. PADIA TIMBER COMPANY(P) LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST THROUGH ITS SECRETARY — Respondent ( Before :…

Original claimants are permitted to withdraw 25% of the enhanced amount of compensation, as awarded together with proportionate interest and cost, without furnishing any security and the balance 75% together with proportionate cost and interest, as awarded is permitted to be invested in a fixed deposit in any nationalised bank with cumulative interest, it will meet the end of justice and take care of the interest of both the parties.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NAYARA ENERGY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R.…

Admission in Medical Courses – Benefit of ‘First Priority’ Policy – Candidates whose parents were domiciles of the UT of Dadra and Nagar Haveli or Daman and Diu and had studied the same place(s) mentioned above for at least the classes of 8th to 12th standards, their children are eligibile for the same

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUSKAN SAMIR MODASIA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Petition(s)…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – HELD – this is a case where the inferences drawn are a non-sequitur to the plain and simple words of the e-mails/communications read in evidence, which were before the Tribunal and which do not support the inferences drawn. In this view of the matter, clearly the approach of the majority of arbitrators is arbitrary and capricious; and therefore cannot pass judicial muster. (See : Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANGLO AMERICAN METALLURGICAL COAL PTY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MMTC LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman and K.M. Joseph, JJ. )…

You missed