Latest Post

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 — Section 15Z — Appeal to Supreme Court against SAT order setting aside Adjudicating Officer’s order imposing penalties for violation of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 and Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 — Held, diversion of funds from preferential issue was in violation of Regulations and detrimental to investors — SAT’s reversal of AO’s order based on shareholder ratification was erroneous — Appeals allowed — Order of Adjudicating Officer restored. Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Right to dignified life — Includes reproductive autonomy and the right to foster a family through adoption — Restricting maternity benefit based on the age of an adopted child infringes upon this right by denying adoptive mothers the opportunity to bond and integrate with their child, compromising both maternal and child welfare. Contract Act, 1872 — Section 126 — Guarantee — Corporate Guarantee — Defendant No.1 executed a written undertaking (Corporate Guarantee) to pay a sum of USD 100,000 — This constituted a valid guarantee, not just a freight payment arrangement — Liability of surety is co-extensive with principal debtor. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 498A — Appeal against conviction for murder and cruelty — Court considered evidence of eyewitness daughter, post-mortem report, and dying declaration of the deceased — High Court reversed acquittal by Trial Court and convicted the appellant — Trial Court acquitted on grounds of inconsistent witness testimonies, unreliable dying declaration due to victim’s serious injuries and sedation, and improbability of incident occurring in a small bathroom — Supreme Court found eyewitness testimony credible, post-mortem report confirmed cause of death, and dying declaration reliable despite victim’s severe burns, supported by medical opinion that she was conscious and fit to make a statement — Recovery of kerosene tin, matchbox, and burnt cloth pieces from the scene further corroborated the prosecution’s case — Supreme Court held that the evidence unequivocally proved the appellant’s responsibility for the offences. Coal Allocation and Supply — Dispute regarding supply of coal and compensation for wrongfully suspended supply — Supreme Court clarified that Union of India and SECL were obligated to supply coal at the current price/prevalent policy as of either April 9, 2014, or May 17, 2019, and gave the choice to the Respondent/PIL to select one of these dates for the purpose of determining the current price and prevalent policy for the proposed Fuel Supply Agreement for the suspended period — The Fuel Supply Agreement was to be entered into within four weeks of the Respondent’s choice, with coal supply being on a normal coal linkage basis, not tapering.

Article 32 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing of the Detention Orders HELD that once the detention order has been made by any of the authorities competent to detain in terms of Section 3 (1) of the COFEPOSA Act, the representation to seek revocation of the detention order can be considered and decided by the Detaining Authority dehors the decision of the Advisory Board and the acceptance of recommendation by the appropriate Government. The consideration for revocation of adetention order is limited to examining whether the order conforms with the provisions of law whereas the recommendation of the Advisory Board

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ANKIT ASHOK JALAN — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Hemant Gupta,…

Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 – Section 14 – Grant of Lease – Counter-claim – High Court reiterated that it is the State which is the proprietor of all minerals beneath the land – There can be no dispute to the above proposition – HELD Additional evidence brought on record by the State before this Court which has been accepted on record fully support the counter-claim of the defendant – Counter-claim of the defendant-appellant deserves to be allowed and the judgment of courts below is to be modified – Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF GOA — Appellant Vs. NARAYAN V. GAONKAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters

Succession Act, 1925 – Section 372 – Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990 – Rule 40(6) – Family pension – Rule 40(6) is conditional in nature and does not vest an automatic statutory right in appellant no.1 to equal share in the family pension – Family pension would be payable to more than one wife only if the government servant had made a nomination to that effect and which option was open to him under the Pension Rules

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TULSA DEVI NIROLA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RADHA NIROLA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. )…

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 149(2)(a)(ii) – Accident – Willful negligence while employing driver – While hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence – If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NIRMALA KOTHARI — Appellant Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

HELD It appears to us that the absence of a comma is a mistake and in fact according to us, a comma should be read after ‘shamilat’ and before ‘taraf’ in the latter part of the section also – Word ‘shamilat’ has to be read with all four­ ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ – A land can be ‘shamilat deh’ only if it is ‘shamilat taraf’, ‘shamilat patti’, ‘shamilat panna’, or ‘shamilat thola’. In case the word shamilat is missing from any of these four terms, then the land cannot be said to be belonging to a group of people and could never become ‘shamilat deh’ land HELD This Court allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 03.07.2008 and the orders of all the authorities below – Name of the appellant be entered in the column of ownership with the entry ‘shamlat patti’.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PATRAM — Appellant Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT KATWAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed