Jurisdiction of the High Court to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of determination of any dispute by the Tribunal is reserved with the High Court – Nomenclature of the proceedings as a petition under Article 226 or a petition under Article 227 is wholly inconsequential and immaterial.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KIRAN DEVI — Appellant Vs. THE BIHAR STATE SUNNI WAKF BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer and…
Medical prescription, of Ayurvedic doctor and the remedies prescribed belie claim that there was no serious ailment – Serious allegations in the FIR in regard to the harassment suffered by the deceased -High Court not justified in granting bail – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SONU — Appellant Vs. SONU YADAV AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah, JJ. ) Criminal…
Recovery of huge quantity (3332 kgs.) of ‘Ganja’ (cannabis) carried on truck – Appellant was helper of truck – He was only 22/23 years of age at the time of incident and first time offender – Nothing was recovered from his custody – appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. SAMPAT — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Seriousness Of Charge Relevant Factor : Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted To Man Accused Of Murdering Lady Doctor
“The High Court, in our opinion, clearly erred in not appreciating that the apprehension of the Prosecution that the Respondent Accused would influence witnesses, could not be put to rest,…
Senior counsel for the petitioner referred WhatsApp chat between the petitioner and prosecutrix of December 2020 which has been brought on the record from page 47 to page 54 of the paper book – Petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of anticipatory bail
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JUDE LOBO — Appellant Vs. STATE, NCT OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ. ) Petition(s) for…
Insolvency Process – Payment of debt – Proceedings under Section 7 of the Code can be initiated against a corporate person in respect of guarantee to the loan amount secured by person not being a corporate person, in case of default in payment of such a debt.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH LAXMI PAT SURANA — Appellant Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari,…
Insolvency Process – Reference to arbitration – Where the petition under Section 7 of IB Code is yet to be admitted and, in such proceedings, if an application under Section 8 of the Act, 1996 is filed, the Adjudicating Authority is duty bound to first decide the application under Section 7 of the IB Code
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. KOTAK INDIA VENTURE (OFFSHORE) FUND (EARLIER KNOWN AS KOTAK INDIA VENTURE LIMITED) AND OTHERS — Respondent (…
Only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses – It is clear that the assault was intentional which resulted in the death of the deceased and all accused had a common object, as such the High Court has rightly convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section 302/149, IPC etc.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA @ RAJAPPA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.…
Mohd. Mukhtar Ansari case – It is a well settled principle of law that the Statute must be interpreted to advance the cause of the Statute and not to defeat the same – State Government being a prosecuting agency in the Criminal Administration, is vitally interested in such administration – Petition under section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Appellant Vs. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.…
Appellant was not entitled to claim benefit of military service for purpose of seniority for appointment to Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) since the benefit of Rule 4(1) of 1972 Rules was not continued in 1982 Rules. His seniority was to be governed by statutory rules applicable after the enforcement of 1982 Rules – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH JAGMOHAN SINGH DHILLON ETC.ETC. — Appellant Vs. SATWANT SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer and Hemant Gupta,…