Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 386 – Power of the Appellate Court – Section 386 then enumerates powers of the Appellate Court which inter alia includes the power to “reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial”. The powers of Appellate Court are equally wide. The High Court in the present case was exercising powers both under Chapters XXVIII and XXIX of the Code. If the power can go to the extent of ordering a complete re-trial, the exercise of power to a lesser extent namely ordering de novo examination of twelve witnesses with further directions as the High Court has imposed in the present matter, was certainly within the powers of the High Court. There is, thus, no infraction or jurisdictional error on the part of the High Court.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ATMA RAM AND OTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Indu Malhotra, JJ. ) Criminal…
Dabhol Power Corporation Limited case—— HELD In view of the long delay and in view of the fact that due to non-availability of many persons involved, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the judicial commission of inquiry, we close the petition in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CENTER OF INDIAN TRADE UNIONS, A FEDERATION OF REGISTERED TRADE UNIONS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : Ranjan Gogoi,…
Film Bhobishyoter Bhoot.-Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14,19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 – Police are not in a free society the self-appointed guardians of public morality. The uniformed authority of their force is subject to the rule of law.– When the ability to portray art in any form is subject to extra constitutional authority, there is a grave danger that fundamental human freedoms will be imperiled by a cloud of opacity and arbitrary state behaviour.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH INDIBILITY CREATIVE PVT LTD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GOVT OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 11 – Res judicata contained in Section 11 of the Code, which has also application to the labour/industrial proceedings – State had no jurisdiction to make a reference(s) to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the ID Act to re-examine the question of age reduction made by the appellant(PSU). A fortiori, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference(s) to adjudicate the question(s) referred in the reference(s).
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRANVANCORE LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. GENERAL SECRETARY FACT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Respondent…
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Sections 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) – Eviction–“Nagar Palika, Almora in the year 1996/1997 stating that the building was in a dilapidated condition and therefore the same is required to be demolished and still even after period of approximately 24 years, the building stands and as the tenants are ready and willing to get the building in question repaired at their own cost and the same is not to be deducted from the rent, This Court is of the opinion that one opportunity is required to be given to the tenants to get the building repaired “
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM PRAKASH AND ANOTHER — Appellant PUTTAN LAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Civil…
Police Act, 1861 – Sections 3 and 4 – Indian High Courts Act, 1861 – Sections 9 and 10 – Government of India Act, 1915 – Section 106 – Government of India Act, 1935 – Section 223 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 154 and 482 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 136, 142 and 226 –Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can appoint a police officer after his superannuation to head a Special Investigation Team (S.I.T.) to carry out investigations and other functions, which can be exercised by a police officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure- This Court conclude that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 can very well direct respondent No.2 to head the Special Investigation Team to carry out investigation and other functions after attaining the age of superannuation.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ELEPHANT G. RAJENDRAN AND OTHERS ETC — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and…
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 – Sections 22 and 24 – Entitlement of the land–we are of the opinion that if the appellants are directed to pay some more reasonable amount considering the fact that number of years have passed and even the price of the land has also increased, it would meet the ends of justice. At the same time, to direct the appellants to pay the present market value/market price would also be unreasonable. Therefore, taking into over all facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that if the appellants are directed to pay Rs. 3,66,30,000/- towards the cost of the land and Rs. 20,00,000/- towards the cost of construction of the existing building, it will meet the ends of justice–we are of the opinion that if the appellants are directed to pay some more reasonable amount considering the fact that number of years have passed and even the price of the land has also increased, it would meet the ends of justice. At the same time, to direct the appellants to pay the present market value/market price would also be unreasonable. Therefore, taking into over all facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that if the appellants are directed to pay Rs. 3,66,30,000/- towards the cost of the land and Rs. 20,00,000/- towards the cost of construction of the existing building, it will meet the ends of justice
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURDEV SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, JJ.…
In the facts and circumstances of the case and after having been satisfied that the original writ petitioner was fulfilling all the eligibility criteria including one year’s experience of translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa and having found that the original writ petitioner ranked 6th in the merit list and therefore otherwise found to be meritorious, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly set aside the action of the FCI in rejecting the case of the original writ petitioner–This Court specifically observed and held that “what is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. RIMJHIM — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and M.R Shah, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
RAFALE CASE — Official Secrets Act, 1923 – Sections 3, 5 and 5(1) – Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 8(1)(a) and 8(2) – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 123 – Rafale case – Publication of documents – There is no provision in the Official Secrets Act and no such provision in any other statute has been brought to our notice by which Parliament has vested any power in the executive arm of the government either to restrain publication of documents marked as secret or from placing such documents before a Court of Law which may have been called upon to adjudicate a legal issue concerning the parties
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YASHWANT SINHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS DIECTOR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ranjan Gogoi and…
Benami Transactions (Prohibition of Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988 – Section 2 – Financial assistance to buy a property cannot be the sole determinative factor/circumstance to hold the transaction as benami in nature.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. P. LEELAVATHI (D) BY LRS — Appellant Vs. V. SHANKARNARAYANA RAO (D) BY LRS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…