Latest Post

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions. Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with 34 and 120B – Murder – The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the discovery of the body was solely based on the appellants’ statements and that the chain of evidence was incomplete – The Court applied the principles for circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must fully establish the guilt and exclude all other hypotheses – The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Court emphasized the importance of timely litigation and found no sufficient cause to condone the extensive delay – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision not to condone the delay – The respondent was entitled to the decree’s benefits without further legal delays.

2024 INSC 262 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY (D) THROUGH HIS LR — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha…

“Civil vs. Criminal Standards: Supreme Court Overturns Dishonoured Cheque Conviction” – Supreme Court noted the difference in standards of proof in civil and criminal proceedings and emphasized that the criminal court should not be bound by the civil court’s decree in this case – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the criminal proceedings, and ordered the return of damages imposed by the lower courts to the appellant.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREM RAJ — Appellant Vs. POONAMMA MENON AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

“Sanjay Singh Granted Bail on Conditions: Top Court Rejects Precedent Setting in Money Laundering Case” – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed that Sanjay Singh be released on bail, with the terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court – The Order clarifies that this concession should not be treated as a precedent – Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SANJAY SINGH — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ. ) Criminal…

Tender – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the independent committee’s findings and the previous cancellation of the tender. It held that the respondents acted in collusion to misuse the court’s process – The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order, allowed the appeal with costs, and clarified that HIMUDA could initiate a fresh tender process following due legal procedures.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LEVEL 9 BIZ PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Bela M.…

Supreme Court found that the High Court’s judgment was based on conjectures and did not properly consider the trial court’s detailed analysis of evidence – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s judgment, and acquitted the appellants, stating that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALLU @ BALRAM @ BALMUKUND AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep…

Court finds merit in the petitioner’s arguments, stating that the time spent before the Tehsildar should be excluded from the limitation period, as it was pursued with due diligence and good faith – The appeal is allowed, the previous orders are set aside, and the execution application is restored for fresh consideration regarding the limitation period – The Court emphasizes the need to interpret Section 14 of the Limitation Act in a manner that advances justice.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PURNI DEVI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. BABU RAM AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Civil…

The suit raises substantial constitutional questions regarding the interpretation of Article 131 and the extent of a state’s right to borrow under Article 293 – The court finds the issues raised require interpretation by a larger bench and refers the matter accordingly – The interim injunction sought by Kerala is denied, with the court stating that the observations made are for the limited purpose of this decision and do not affect the final outcome of the suit.

(2024) INSC 253 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF KERALA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, J. )…

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Citing precedents, the Court notes that mere harassment without proximate positive action leading to suicide does not constitute abetment – The Court quashes the proceedings against the appellant, stating no offence is made out against her, but allows the trial to proceed against other accused.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMUDHA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal…

The Court considered the principles of anticipatory bail and the role of the accused, noting that the prime accused had been granted bail and the appellant’s role was secondary – The Court analyzed the factors to be considered for anticipatory bail, as laid out in previous judgments, focusing on the nature of the accusation and the role of the accused – The Supreme Court confirmed the order granting anticipatory bail to Petitioner, setting aside the order of cancellation, with the condition of cooperation in the investigation and trial.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SABITA PAUL AND OTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol,…

Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023 – Section 7(1) – Selection Committee – The Court analyzes the 2023 Act in light of the Constitution and previous judgments, particularly focusing on the principle of proportionality and the power of judicial review – The Court declines to grant a stay, citing the importance of maintaining the election schedule and the assumption that constitutional post holders will adhere to their roles in accordance with the Constitution – The observations are tentative as the matter is sub-judice. ORDE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. JAYA THAKUR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ.…

You missed