“The aspect of sentencing should not be taken for granted, as this part of Criminal Justice System has determinative impact on the society. “
Tests To Be Applied While Sentencing In A Criminal Case; SC Explains [Read Judgment] BY: ASHOK KINI22 Oct 2019 7:01 PM “The aspect of sentencing should not be taken for…
Supreme Court On Tuesday granted bail to Chidambaram in the INX Media Case – Flight Risk Of Economic Offenders Cannot Be Looked At As A National Phenomenon To Deny Bail: SC
Flight Risk Of Economic Offenders Cannot Be Looked At As A National Phenomenon To Deny Bail: SC BY: LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK22 Oct 2019 12:51 PM “Flight risk” of economic offenders…
“We fail to understand as to how a dispute with regard to the inheritance under a will and deed of confirmation can be decided in a criminal proceeding. “
Disputed Property Claim Based On Inheritance Cannot Be Decided In A Criminal Proceeding: SC BY: LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK21 Oct 2019 7:49 PM “We fail to understand as to how a…
HC Cannot Modify Order Affirmed By SC Invoking Its Inherent Powers U/s 482 CrPC: SC ” …..does not enable the High Court to alter, add to, modify or vary any order that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.””
HC Cannot Modify Order Affirmed By SC Invoking Its Inherent Powers U/s 482 CrPC: SC BY: LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK21 Oct 2019 8:43 PM “The inherent power of the High Court…
(Rape) Conviction Cannot Be Solely Based On Statements Made To Police U/s 154/161 CrPC
(Rape) Conviction Cannot Be Solely Based On Statements Made To Police U/s 154/161 CrPC: SC [Read Order] BY: LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK21 Oct 2019 4:45 PM “It is the statement made…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 97, Order 21 Rule 99, Order 7 Rule 11, Order 21 Rule 25 and Order 21 Rule 35(3) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 – Delivery of possession by police help to the decree holder cannot be granted and stands vitiated in absence of any orders by the Court for providing such police assistance. In peculiar circumstances delivery of land not interfered with
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OM PARKASH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. AMAR SINGH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B 418, 420, 448 and 380 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 156(3) and 482 – Forgery and fabricationWhere the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose any offence and make out a case against the accused, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. SRIKANTH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 – Sections 50, 51, 59, 55, 85 and 86 – Declaration of undisclosed foreign asset -The penal provisions under Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act would come into play only when an assessee has failed to take benefit of Section 59 and neither disclosed assets covered by the Black Money Act nor paid the tax and penalty thereon. As such, we find that the High Court was not right in holding that, by the notification/order impugned before it, the penal provisions were made retrospectively applicable.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GAUTAM KHAITAN — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M. R. Shah and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…
Service Law – Promotion – Tribunal was right in holding that no prejudice is caused to the Appellant by applying Navy Order. Violation of every provision does not furnish a ground for the Court to interfere unless the affected person demonstrates prejudice caused to him by such violation – Appeals dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURGEON REAR ADMIRAL MANISHA JAIPRAKASH — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta,…
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 11A and 33(2)(b) – Misconduct – Order of dismissal – Domestic enquiry -The Labour Court or Tribunal, therefore, while holding enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) cannot invoke the adjudicatory powers vested in them under Section 10(i)(c) and (d) of the Act nor can they in the process of formation of their prima facie view under Section 33(2)(b), dwell upon the proportionality of punishment, as erroneously done in the instant case, for such a power can be exercised by the Labour Court or Tribunal only under Section 11A of the Act – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JOHN D’SOUZA — Appellant Vs. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Surya Kant, JJ. ) Civil…