Latest Post

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 154, 173 — Clubbing/Transfer of FIRs — Multiple FIRs registered against petitioners in different jurisdictions arising from same set of transactions relating to a real estate project — Held, multiplicity of FIRs and parallel investigations on same facts leads to avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the accused — Principle laid down in T.T — Antony v — State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, that there cannot be multiple FIRs for the same occurrence or transaction, squarely applies — FIR No. 30/2019 (EOW, Delhi) directed to be transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024 (Gurugram, Haryana) for investigation — Blanket direction restraining coercive steps in future FIRs declined, but petitioners permitted to avail remedies in law if future FIRs are based on the same transaction. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Abuse of Process of Court — Discharge of Accused — Vague Allegations — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet are general and do not specify the role of the accused, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court and may cause prejudice. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 2(2), Order 20 Rule 18 — Preliminary vs. Final Decree — A Preliminary Decree declares rights and liabilities, leaving actual results to be worked out in further proceedings — A Final Decree is passed after further inquiries, completely disposing of the suit — A Preliminary Decree cannot be executed directly unless it is partly final — Provisions of Order 20 Rule 18 allow a court to pass a Preliminary Decree declaring rights and giving further directions if partition cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry in suits for partition of immovable property — The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erred by focusing on the nomenclature of the decree rather than its executable portions, especially when the property was not divisible by metes and bounds. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Section 43-D(5) — Bail — Constitutional Courts’ power to grant bail — The Supreme Court reiterated that statutory restrictions on bail under the UAP Act do not oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution — The Court emphasized that the rigors of Section 43-D(5) can “melt down” when there is no likelihood of trial completion within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration is substantial. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 304-A — Causing death by negligence — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 134(b) and Section 187 — Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person and Punishment for offences relating to accident — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Driver convicted under Section 304-A IPC and Sections 134(b) and 187 MVA — High Court partly allowed revision, setting aside conviction for Section 279 IPC but maintaining conviction for Section 304-A IPC.

There was a re-count of the rejected votes and, therefore, no grievance could be made on that count and so far as the dead electors are concerned, only at the best, four persons took the ballot papers as deposed by the Tehsildar and even if it is assumed that those four persons voted for the successful candidate, it does not materially affect the election – Appeal dismissed.

  (1998) 8 SCC 695 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SATHI ROOP LAL — Appellant Vs. MALTI THAPAR (MRS) — Respondent ( Before : A. M. Ahmadii, C.J; B. N. Kirpal,…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 34, 120B, 302, 364A, 386, 511 —Conviction for offence — The Appellant aggrieved by his conviction for offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced — the recovery of The dead body on the statements made by the accused from the house in their possession has been proved.

  (2014) 1 CCR 398 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VIJAY KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : J.S. Khehar, J; C.K. Prasad, J )…

House Tax— State Government has given exemption to the self occupied residential houses from the payment of house tax—But not to self occupied commercial premises—Whether proper ? YES. Jurisdiction of High Court— The court cannot usurp the functions assigned to the legislative bodies under the Constitution and even indirectly require the legislature to exercise its power of law making in particular manner.

  2007(3) LAW HERALD (SC) 2429 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia The Hon’ble Mr. JusticeB. Sudershan Reddy Civil Appeal No. 684 of…

You missed