Latest Post

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21, 32, 14, 142 — Prisoners, rights of — Elderly and terminally ill convicts — Continued incarceration despite advanced age (above 70 years) or terminal illness — Held, imprisonment does not suspend constitutional guarantees of dignity and humane treatment — Right to life under Art. 21 continues in custody and extends to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment — NALSA’s nationwide Special Campaign identifying 5,393 vulnerable prisoners, including 11 terminally ill and 84 above 70 years across 17 States and 1 Union Territory, disclosed systemic gap between executive policy and ground-level implementation — Continued detention causing avoidable suffering held constitutionally impermissible — Supreme Court, invoking Arts. 32 and 142, directed States/UTs to formulate uniform compassionate-release policy. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Distinction between “obscene” and “abusive”/”vulgar” language — Test of — Held, to attract S. 294(b) IPC, prosecution must prove: (i) an obscene act done, or obscene word/song/ballad uttered, in or near a public place; and (ii) such act/utterance caused annoyance to others — Word “obscene” undefined under IPC but judicially construed, in the context of S. 292 IPC, to mean material which, taken as a whole, is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, and tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to be exposed to it — “Community standard test” (Aveek Sarkar) applicable, not the Hicklin test — Mere vulgarity, abuse or profanity, however distasteful, uncivil or shocking, does not ipso facto constitute obscenity — Vulgarity may evoke disgust or revulsion but lacks the depraving/corrupting tendency essential to obscenity — Appellant’s utterance of abusive and expletive-laden words against complainant during a quarrel, though coarse and offensive, held neither lascivious nor appealing to prurient interest nor shown to have caused annoyance to others in the public place — Conviction under S. 294(b) IPC set aside. Railways Act, 1989 — Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A — Compensation on account of untoward incidents — ‘No-fault’ liability — Accidental falling of a passenger from a running train constitutes an “untoward incident” — Liability under S. 124A arises irrespective of wrongful act, neglect or default of the Railway Administration, subject only to statutory exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury or the passenger’s own criminal act — Provision held to be beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 31 — ‘Clean slate’ doctrine — Effect of approved Resolution Plan on claims — Upon approval under S. 31(1), claims provided in the Plan stand frozen and are binding on the Corporate Debtor and all stakeholders — Claims not incorporated in the Plan stand extinguished, withdrawn or abated — Resolution Applicant entitled to commence operations free from unforeseen liabilities — Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons v. Edelweiss ARC, (2021) 9 SCC 657, followed. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 299 — Record of evidence in absence of accused — Scope and applicability — Exception to the rule that a witness must be examined in presence of the accused and to the principle under S. 33, Evidence Act — Being an exception, all prescribed conditions must be strictly complied with — Deposition recorded in absence of an absconding accused admissible against him upon arrest, if deponent is dead, incapable of giving evidence, cannot be found, or cannot be produced without unreasonable delay, expense or inconvenience.

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21, 32, 14, 142 — Prisoners, rights of — Elderly and terminally ill convicts — Continued incarceration despite advanced age (above 70 years) or terminal illness — Held, imprisonment does not suspend constitutional guarantees of dignity and humane treatment — Right to life under Art. 21 continues in custody and extends to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment — NALSA’s nationwide Special Campaign identifying 5,393 vulnerable prisoners, including 11 terminally ill and 84 above 70 years across 17 States and 1 Union Territory, disclosed systemic gap between executive policy and ground-level implementation — Continued detention causing avoidable suffering held constitutionally impermissible — Supreme Court, invoking Arts. 32 and 142, directed States/UTs to formulate uniform compassionate-release policy.

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Distinction between “obscene” and “abusive”/”vulgar” language — Test of — Held, to attract S. 294(b) IPC, prosecution must prove: (i) an obscene act done, or obscene word/song/ballad uttered, in or near a public place; and (ii) such act/utterance caused annoyance to others — Word “obscene” undefined under IPC but judicially construed, in the context of S. 292 IPC, to mean material which, taken as a whole, is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, and tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to be exposed to it — “Community standard test” (Aveek Sarkar) applicable, not the Hicklin test — Mere vulgarity, abuse or profanity, however distasteful, uncivil or shocking, does not ipso facto constitute obscenity — Vulgarity may evoke disgust or revulsion but lacks the depraving/corrupting tendency essential to obscenity — Appellant’s utterance of abusive and expletive-laden words against complainant during a quarrel, though coarse and offensive, held neither lascivious nor appealing to prurient interest nor shown to have caused annoyance to others in the public place — Conviction under S. 294(b) IPC set aside.

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Will – Proof of – Mere proof of the document in accordance with the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act is not final and conclusive for acceptance of a document as a Will – When suspicious circumstances exist and the suspicions have not been removed, the document in question cannot be accepted as a Will – Appeal dismissed

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SHIVAKUMAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHARANABASAPPA & ORS. — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…

Service Matters

Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 – Rule 27 – Constitutional validity – Criteria for appointment of a member of higher judicial service to the post of District Judge and Sessions Judge or its equivalent – HELD “while raising grievances with regard to the impact and effect of ACR gradings, the appellant appears to have missed out the fundamental factor that for the promotions in question, an individual”s minimum merit, by itself, was not going to be decisive, but the relevant factor was going to be comparative merit of the persons in the zone of consideration”.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUJATA KOHLI — Appellant Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari,…

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement – Articles 5(3)(e) and 7 – Liability to tax under DTAA – Meaning of expressions “business connection” and “business activity” has been articulated. HELD And since by a legal fiction it is deemed not to be a PE of the respondent in India, it is not amenable to tax liability in terms of Article 7 of the DTAA – High Court justly reckoned the same as being of preparatory or auxiliary character, falling under Article 5(3)(e) – Appeal dismissed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. U.A.E. EXCHANGE CENTRE — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. )…

Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 – Sections 4 and 6 – Arbitration Act, 1940 – Section 17 – Contract Act, 1872 – Section 23 – Execution of Award – Execution of an award can be only to the extent what has been awarded/decreed and not beyond the same – Arbitrator in its Award had only declared the price of land and nothing more – Thus, the question of execution of a sale deed of the land at the price so declared by the Arbitrator in its Award, could not be directed

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FIRM RAJASTHAN UDYOG AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet…

Chit Funds Act, 1982 – Section 64 (1)(A) – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 89 and Section 151 – Auction – Merely a guarantor and not a borrower and that the entire due amount was deposited by respondent No. 1 with the respondent No. 2 – Chits Company, HELD since the Revision had been filed within less than a week of the auction and entire dues had been settled, the confirmation of the auction was not justified. – Appeal dismissed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PAUL — Appellant Vs. T. MOHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules, 2011 – Rule 133(1) – Membership – It is clear that besides the initial amount of Rs. 3.86 lakhs, the petitioners did not deposit any further amount and kept disputing the demands raised by the Housing Society – HELD the order of the Society expelling the petitioners had come into effect and thereafter the six flats have already been allotted to six different persons, who have deposited the requisite amounts – Application dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SK JALALUDDIN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and Vineet Saran,…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 34, 302, 363, 364A – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 65(B) and 114 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Kidnapping and death – Modification in sentence – Motive of the accused to take life was to become rich by not doing hard work but by demanding ransom after kidnapping a young, innocent boy of 8 years – Present case falls short of the “rarest of rare” cases where a death sentence alone deserves to be awarded to the appellants – SC Commutes Death Sentence To Life Imprisonment Without Remission For 25 Yrs

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ARVIND SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Hemant Gupta, JJ.…

Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Section 21(1)(a) – Release of Shop – Mere receipt of notice having been sent under certificate of posting, in itself, may not be sufficient proof of service, but if the same is coupled with other facts and circumstances which go to show that the party had notice, the same could be held to be sufficient service on the party.

    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD. ASIF NASEER — Appellant Vs. WEST WATCH COMPANY THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and Vineet Saran,…

SC Upholds The Constitutional Validity of Clause(f) of Section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961 HELD that clause (f) seeks to mitigate a mischief i.e. the absence of this clause would entail in a double benefit to the employer- advance deduction from tax liability without any burden of actual payment and refusal to pay as and when occasion arises.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta and Dinesh…

You missed