Latest Post

Haryana School Education Act, 1995, Section 22 — Civil Court Jurisdiction — Ouster of jurisdiction by statute must be express or implied — Section 22 only ousts jurisdiction where Government or its officers have power to adjudicate — Recovery of fees by a school is not a power conferred on Government/authorities — Civil court jurisdiction not ousted in matters of reasonable fee recovery. Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband — Allegations in FIR were vague, general, and filed one year after admitted separation of the parties — No specific instances of cruelty were mentioned — Criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Court can quash FIR if allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute any offence — Vague and general allegations of marital discord, without specific instances, do not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC. Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 376(2), 450 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4 — Sexual assault on a minor — Evidence of prosecutrix — Conviction can be based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony if it inspires confidence — Corroboration of testimony of prosecutrix is not a requirement of law, but a guidance of prudence — Minor contractions or small discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out the evidence of the prosecutrix. State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 — Section 29 — Liability of Financial Corporation taking possession of industrial unit for dues — Corporation acts as a trustee, liable only to the extent of funds in its hands after settling its dues, not personally liable. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 80 — Notice to Government or public officer — Mandatory requirement before instituting suit — Failure to issue notice or obtain leave renders suit not maintainable and decree a nullity, even if impleaded later. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 62; Section 14(1)(d) — Appeal against NCLAT order setting aside NCLT order directing return of property — NCLT had directed return of property based on CoC decision that property not required by corporate debtor — NCLAT set aside NCLT order invoking Section 14(1)(d) barring recovery of property during CIRP — Supreme Court held that Section 14(1)(d) not applicable as CoC and Resolution Professional initiated the process for returning property due to financial burden of rentals, and not a simple recovery by owner — Commercial wisdom of CoC regarding non-retention of property given primacy — NCLAT order set aside, NCLT order restored.

Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 – Section 9 – Refund of stamp duty paid for an increase in share capital – The Supreme Court examined whether Form No. 5 is an “instrument” under the Stamp Act and if the notice of increased share capital materially alters the Articles of Association, requiring fresh stamp duty – The Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that the Articles of Association are the only instruments liable for stamp duty and that the maximum cap applies as a one-time measure – The appellants were directed to refund the stamp duty with interest.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale,…

– The Appellant claimed ‘Mochi’ caste, which was validated and granted by the Scrutiny Committee – The Respondents’ argument that a reserved category in one state cannot be granted reservation in another state has no relevance in this case, as the Appellant’s claim was based on her forefathers’ genealogical caste history – The Scrutiny Committee verified the Appellant’s claim as applicable to Maharashtra – Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the instant appeals stand allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAVNEET KAUR HARBHAJANSING KUNDLES @ NAVNEET KAUR RAVI RANA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari…

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Court emphasized the importance of timely litigation and found no sufficient cause to condone the extensive delay – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision not to condone the delay – The respondent was entitled to the decree’s benefits without further legal delays.

2024 INSC 262 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY (D) THROUGH HIS LR — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha…

“Civil vs. Criminal Standards: Supreme Court Overturns Dishonoured Cheque Conviction” – Supreme Court noted the difference in standards of proof in civil and criminal proceedings and emphasized that the criminal court should not be bound by the civil court’s decree in this case – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the criminal proceedings, and ordered the return of damages imposed by the lower courts to the appellant.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREM RAJ — Appellant Vs. POONAMMA MENON AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

“Sanjay Singh Granted Bail on Conditions: Top Court Rejects Precedent Setting in Money Laundering Case” – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed that Sanjay Singh be released on bail, with the terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court – The Order clarifies that this concession should not be treated as a precedent – Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SANJAY SINGH — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ. ) Criminal…

Tender – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the independent committee’s findings and the previous cancellation of the tender. It held that the respondents acted in collusion to misuse the court’s process – The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order, allowed the appeal with costs, and clarified that HIMUDA could initiate a fresh tender process following due legal procedures.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LEVEL 9 BIZ PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Bela M.…

Supreme Court found that the High Court’s judgment was based on conjectures and did not properly consider the trial court’s detailed analysis of evidence – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s judgment, and acquitted the appellants, stating that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALLU @ BALRAM @ BALMUKUND AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep…

Court finds merit in the petitioner’s arguments, stating that the time spent before the Tehsildar should be excluded from the limitation period, as it was pursued with due diligence and good faith – The appeal is allowed, the previous orders are set aside, and the execution application is restored for fresh consideration regarding the limitation period – The Court emphasizes the need to interpret Section 14 of the Limitation Act in a manner that advances justice.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PURNI DEVI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. BABU RAM AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed