Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 148, 120-B, 302 read with Section 149 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 439(2) – Murder – Tampering with evidence – Bail Cancelled – Appeal against -Order of the Sessions Court by which the bail was granted to the Appellants cannot be termed as perverse as the Sessions Court was conscious of the fact that the investigation was completed and there was no likelihood of the Appellant tampering with the evidence
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MYAKALA DHARMARAJAM AND OTHERS ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant…
‘No Absolute Right Of Appointment For Minority Educational Institutions’ : SC Upholds WB Madrasah Service Commission Act
‘No Absolute Right Of Appointment For Minority Educational Institutions’ : SC Upholds WB Madrasah Service Commission Act [Read Judgment] The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of West Bengal Madrasah…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 39 – Temporary injunction – Jurisdiction – Under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction of the Court to interfere – Since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court has to show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing about the state of things complained of and that he was not unfair or inequitable in his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking relief. His conduct should be fair and honest
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. KS INFRASPACE LLP LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ.…
Punjab Civil Services Rules – Rules 4.22 and 4.23 – Grant of pension by adding interruption of service – It is clear that the case of the appellant was not covered by Rule 4.23 and further the request for granting relaxation by the Government from Rule 4.23 was not acceded to – When the State has refused to grant relaxation in the rule, the refusal by the respondent for adding the period of interruption for pensionary benefit cannot be faulted
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURINDER NATH KESAR — Appellant Vs. BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 18 and 50 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Possession of 1kg 750 grams of opium – Conviction and sentence – Appeal against – Merely because prosecution has not examined any independent witness, same would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the appellant has been falsely implicated.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SURINDER KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Criminal…
Venue Of Arbitration Will Be Seat Of Arbitration When Contrary Intention Of Parties Absent : SC Holds Earlier View Wrong
Venue Of Arbitration Will Be Seat Of Arbitration When Contrary Intention Of Parties Absent : SC Holds Earlier View Wrong [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 3 Jan 2020 6:51 PM…
H E L D – The respondents had paid 85% of the agreed consideration, together with the agreement to sell, and even the balance at the time when the sale deed was executed on 11 February 2013. Having paid the consideration, it was evidently not in their interest to delay the receipt of possession. Though the sale deed records that possession was handed over, it is clear from the contemporaneous record that it was only on 28 August 2014 that all the sets of keys of the apartment were handed over to the respondents. Consequently, the appellant would be liable to pay reasonable compensation to the respondents for the period between 9 February 2013 and 28 August 2014, in addition to the contractual payment due for the period between 8 August 2012 and 8 February 2013.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S LANCO HILLS TECHNOLOGY PARK PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MANISHA BALKRISHNA KULKARNI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud…
INJUNCTION – The division bench held that there is no documentary evidence to prima facie show that the Appellant – Developer is in physical possession of the suit property. Furthermore, the issue whether the Appellant – Developer has paid part consideration for the entire suit property was required to be determined in the trial. The division bench took the view that the Appellant – Developer had not made out a prima facie case for grant of Temporary Injunction. The Respondents being the lawful owners of the suit property, granting such an injunction would cause irreparable loss and hardship to them.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SAKETA VAKSANA LLP AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KAUKUTLA SARALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Krishna…
HELD The suit is an action for extended passing off and to prevent the respondent from using the appellants’ data and improper reference to its drug Trastuzumab’.
The suit is an action for extended passing off and to prevent the respondent from using the appellants’ data and improper reference to its drug Trastuzumab’. 2. Single Judge imposing…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 – Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Sections 3 and 5 – Unlawful assembly – Persons were armed with deadly weapons like country made bombs etc. HELD the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited, the appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court. It is obvious that the High Court also did not find material evidence to convict the accused and, therefore, set aside the judgment and remitted the matter to the trial court. In a criminal case, remand is not to be ordered as a matter of course. It is only if there is a ministrial or some technical issues have arisen that such an order may be made but in very rare circumstances. – The trial court was justified in acquitting the accused
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KOOLI SASEENDRAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal…