Limitation—Bar of Limitation—In order to decide the question of limitation as to whether the suit is filed within time or not, the Court is mainly required to see the plaint allegations and how the plaintiff has pleaded the accrual of cause of action for filing the suit.
2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3273 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1789 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer Civil Appeal…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.41 R.23—Remand of Case—Suit was based on legality of compromise entered between the parties—Matter was remanded back to be decided afresh on merits-Held; This implied that the question of consideration of compromise petition was required to be decided first- -It is for the simple reason that if the compromise was held to be legal and proper, there was no need to decide the second appeal on merits—In other words, the need to decide the second appeal on merits would have arisen only if the compromise would have been held illegal and not binding on the parties concerned—Matter remanded again to be decided afresh accordingly.
2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3269 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1788 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer Civil Appeal…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.300—Double Jeopardy—The whole basis of Section 300 (1) Cr.P.C. is that the person who was tried by a competent court, once acquitted or convicted, cannot be tried for the same offence—Where accused has not been tried nor was there a full fledged trial, then principles of’double jeopardy’ would not apply to the accused though earlier discharged.
2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3263 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1786 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indira Banerjee Criminal Appeal No. 1322…
Cheating—Quashing—Merely on the allegation that wife had not completed her M.C.A qualification at the time of marriage as claimed and she has completed M.C.A after the marriage, it cannot be said that the appellants had cheated husband at the time of marriage
2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3261 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1785 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Criminal Appeal…
Public Premises—Eviction Notice—Where the public premises in question is situated, proceedings can be initiated at place within local limits specified in the notification issued under S.3 of the Act and not at any other place
2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3258 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1784 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul Civil Appeal…
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.42–Secret Infor mation-Law summed up-An empowered officer under Section 42(1) is obli gated to reduce to writing the information received by him, only when an of fence punishable under the Act has been committed in any building, convey ance or an enclosed place, or when a document or an article is concealed in a building, conveyance or an enclosed place. Compliance with Section 42, in cluding recording of information received by the empowered officer, is not mandatory
2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3246 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1783 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice DipakMisra Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud Hon’ble Mrs.…
Writ Jurisdiction—Restoration of Possession—High Court not justified in issuing a writ of mandamus granting relief of restoration of the possession of flat and writ petition ought to be dismissed in limine as not maintainable Writ Jurisdiction—Scope of—High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available
2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3242 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1937 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal No.…
Service Law—Penalty—Judicial Review—The imposition of a penalty in disciplinary proceeding lies in the sole domain of the employer—Unless the penalty is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges which are proved, the element of discretion which is attributed to the employer cannot be interfered with.
2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3239 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1936 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah Civil Appeal…
Succession Act, 1963, S.63—Will-Suspicious Circumstance—Beneficiary of Will deposed that in lieu of services rendered by him testator had executed the Will in his favour-But as per evidence on record beneficiary was in Army service from year 1960-1979, where as the Will was executed in the year 1970—Apart from beneficiary no other family members gave statement in support of services rendered by them—Will though was registered but discarded — Will—Proof of Execution—For proving the Will not only statutory requirements are to be satisfied but the Will should be ordinarily free from suspicious circumstances
2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3233 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1935 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Civil Appeal No.…
Criminal Law–Detention–Writ petition before High Court to quash the order of detention–Orders were restrained to be enforced–Became infructuous by lapse of time–Writ was allowed with the observation that the respondents will be at liberty to pass any fresh order if so required to take appropriate action thereafter in accordance with law–Order of High Court set aside–The proper order required to be passed was to call upon the respondent first to surrender pursuant to detention order
2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 49 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. of 2008 (Arising…