(CrPC) – Section 313 – NDPS,1985 – Indeed, the appellant may not have earlier raised the issue regarding the inadequacy of examination under Section 313 of CrPC – However, in this case, the omission goes to the root of the matter as far as the appellant is concerned – Appellant has undergone incarceration of five and a half years – If, after the lapse of more than twentytwo years, he is again subjected to examination under Section 313 of CrPC, it will cause prejudice to him – Appellant’s conviction cannot be sustained – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NABABUDDIN @ MALLU @ ABHIMANYU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…
Customs Act, 1962 – Sections 22 and 23 – Abatement and remission of duty – Privileges enshrined in Sections 22 and 23 of the Customs Act, pertaining to abetment and remission, extend exclusively to those classified as ‘importers’ of insured goods.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S. MUDIT ROADWAYS — Respondent ( Before : Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…
Quashing of FIR – Mixing hydrocarbons in different proportions by using mixing machines create a mixture that looks exactly like petrol and diesel – Non-production an expert’s report -Unless there was a material forming part of the chargesheet to show the nature of the liquid, no offence is made out – Now, it is too late for the State to file a report after a gap of more than two years – FIR quashed – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal…
Reconvening A Sitting Of Vidhan Sabha Which Isn’t Prorogued Permissible In Law & Within Exclusive Domain Of Speaker
“The Constitution and established legislative practice distinguish between adjournment sine die and prorogation of the session of the House. In the case before us the Vidhan Sabha was adjourned on…
FIRs In Multiple States Can’t Be Clubbed When Offences Under State Enactments Also Involved
“In the instant case, the FIRs have been filed against the petitioner in the respective States not only invoking the provisions of the IPC but also the provisions of the…
Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To IPS Officer Who Allegedly Got Conman To Pose As HC Chief Justice To Influence Corruption Probe
The Supreme Court recently denied anticipatory bail to IPS officer and former Superintendent of Police Aditya Kumar who had allegedly involved a conman to pose as the Chief Justice of…
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 80HHC – Claim for deduction -The assessee’s attempt to broaden the deduction sources is considered impermissible, as strict interpretation aligns with specific terms in Section 80HHC – Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 80HHC emphasize that deductions are intended exclusively for profits derived from exporting goods and merchandise outside India, and including other income contradicts the section’s intended scope and purpose – Appeal Dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAH ORIGINALS — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-24, MUMBAI — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Section 16 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 25 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Rule 12 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 – Murder – – the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, but all the sentences which have been awarded to him are hereby quashed as such sentences cannot be given to a juvenile, in view of Section 16 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – The appeal is partially allowed concerning the issue of juvenility – The High Court’s order is modified accordingly.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PAWAN KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. )…
Held, the appellant may have accidentally caused the death of the deceased while intoxicated, there is no evidence to prove that the appellant, due to intoxication – The absence of such evidence, combined with the appellant not claiming to have been intoxicated against his will, leads to the conclusion that Section 86 of the (IPC) does not apply – Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to a reduction of the sentence from Section 302 IPC (murder) to a charge falling under Part II of Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) – Appeal Dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NANHE — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 2791…
IBC, 2016 – Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction only under Section 31(2) of the Code, which gives power not to approve only when the Resolution Plan does not meet the requirement laid down under Section 31(1) of the Code, for which a reasoned order is required to be passed – NCLT’s jurisdiction and powers as the Adjudicating Authority under the Code, flow only from the Code and the Regulations thereunder.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAVINDRA LOONKAR, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF ACIL LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin…