(81) THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. SHILPA JAIN AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-04-2024 Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Section 248 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120B – The case involves a property dispute where the State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against the quashing of an FIR related to fraudulent property transactions - The main issue was whether the High Court was correct in quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, assuming the State failed to prove its title over the disputed property - The State argued that the High Court erred in i India Law Library Docid # 1604060
(82) NAVNEET KAUR HARBHAJANSING KUNDLES @ NAVNEET KAUR RAVI RANA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-04-2024 Election Law – Caste Claim - The case involves the validation of the appellant’s caste claim as ‘Mochi Scheduled Caste’ in Maharashtra, which was crucial for her 2019 Parliamentary election win from Amravati constituency - The primary issue is the legitimacy of the appellant’s caste certificate, which was challenged by other candidates alleging it was obtained through fraudulent documents - The appellant argued that the High Court wrongly overturned the Scrutiny Committee’s decision, which had v India Law Library Docid # 1604044
(83) KRISHNADATT AWASTHY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-04-2024 Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 - Section 40(C) - Use of Position or influence directly or indirectly to secure employment for any relative in the Panchayat or any action for extending any pecuniary benefits to any relative, such as giving out any type of lease, getting any work done through them in the Panchayat by an office-bearer of Panchayat –The controversy revolves around the selection and appointment for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III in Janpad Panchayat India Law Library Docid # 1604043
(84) UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. JAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY (D) THROUGH HIS LR [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 03-04-2024 Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 – Condonation of Delay - The property in Pune was leased to the appellants by the respondent. A civil suit was filed for breach of lease terms, leading to a decree for possession and mesne profits in favor of the respondent - The appeal focuses on the High Court’s refusal to condone a 12-year delay in filing a restoration application for a dismissed writ petition - The Union of India argued for condonation of delay based on the merits of the case, emphasizing the India Law Library Docid # 1604042
(85) PREM RAJ Vs. POONAMMA MENON AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-04-2024 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque - The appellant borrowed Rs.2,00,000 from the complainant and issued a cheque that was dishonoured - A civil decree declared the cheque as security, while a criminal court convicted the appellant under Section 138 of the Act - The main issue was whether criminal proceedings can be initiated when a civil court decree already exists regarding the same transaction - The appellant argued that the criminal court is bound by the civi India Law Library Docid # 1604037
(86) SANJAY SINGH Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-04-2024 Bail - Sanjay Singh is involved in proceedings related to offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, based on ECIR no. HIU-II/14/2022 dated 22.08.2022 - The main issue is whether Sanjay Singh should be released on bail during the pendency of the proceedings - The Directorate of Enforcement has no objection to the release of Sanjay Singh on bail - The court allowed the appeal based on the respondent’s concession without commenting on the merits of the case - India Law Library Docid # 1604038
(87) LEVEL 9 BIZ PVT. LTD. Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-04-2024 Tender – The case involves a dispute over a tender process for a commercial complex in Shimla, which was canceled due to irregularities - Level 9 BIZ Pvt. Ltd., not originally a party to the proceedings, challenged the High Court’s order that allowed the tender process to resume with the original bidder, M/s Vasu Constructions - The main issue is whether the High Court could permit the withdrawal of the cancellation order and allow the project to proceed with the original terms, despite the tend India Law Library Docid # 1604039
(88) BALLU @ BALRAM @ BALMUKUND AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-04-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 302 and 34 – Murder - The appeal challenges a High Court judgment which reversed the acquittal of the appellants by a trial court for charges under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the IPC, related to a murder case involving a love affair - The main issue is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and if the High Court was right in reversing the trial court’s acquittal - The appellants argue that the High Court erred in reversing the trial co India Law Library Docid # 1604040
(89) PURNI DEVI AND ANOTHER Vs. BABU RAM AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-04-2024 J&K Limitation Act - Article 182 - Suit for Possesion - The case originates from a 1984 suit for possession, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff in 1986 - After appeals, the decree became final in 2000 - An execution application was filed in 2000 and rejected in 2005, leading to the current appeal - The primary issue is whether the execution petition is time-barred, focusing on the applicability of Article 182 of the J&K Limitation Act and Section 48 of the CPC regarding the limitation India Law Library Docid # 1604041
(90) M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED Vs. A.S. RAGHAVENDRA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-04-2024 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(s) – “workman” - The respondent was appointed as Regional Business Head at Bharti Airtel Limited, with a dispute arising over his resignation being forceful - The main issue is whether the respondent falls within the definition of a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Bharti Airtel argued that the respondent held a managerial position and was not a "workman" as per the Act - The respondent claimed his duties were clerical, India Law Library Docid # 1604061
(91) THE GENERAL MANAGER, M/S BARSUA IRON ORE MINES Vs. THE VICE PRESIDENT UNITED MINES MAZDOOR UNION AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-04-2024 Service Law – Back Wages - The case involves a dispute over the date of birth of respondent no.3, an employee of Barsua Iron Ore Mines, which affected his retirement date - The main issue is whether the respondent no.3's date of birth should be considered as 27.12.1948 (initially declared) or 12.03.1955 (later claimed) - The appellant argued that the respondent cannot resile from the initially declared date of birth after 9 years, which would have made him underage for employment at the time - T India Law Library Docid # 1604062
(92) STATE OF KERALA Vs. UNION OF INDIA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 01-04-2024 Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2003 - Section 4 - Fiscal management principles - The State of Kerala filed a suit against the Union of India, challenging actions related to fiscal management, including an amendment to the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act and restrictions on borrowing - The suit raises substantial constitutional questions regarding the interpretation of Article 131 and the extent of a state’s right to borrow under Article 293 – State of Kerala arg India Law Library Docid # 1604036
(93) AMUDHA Vs. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-03-2024 Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Abetment of suicide - The appellant, is charged under Section 306 IPC - The deceased, her uncle, committed suicide after a family dispute over property - The main issue is whether the appellant instigated the deceased to commit suicide, as she was in the USA from September 2019 until after the suicide in March 2020 - The appellant argues that no evidence shows she instigated the suicide, as she was abroad and had no contact with the deceased - The State contends India Law Library Docid # 1604029
(94) SABITA PAUL AND OTHER Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-03-2024 Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376, 354, 389, 506, and 120-B - Information & Technology Act, 2000 - Section 67A - Anticipatory bail -The case involves allegations against Petitioners taking and using obscene photographs to extort money from the complainant - The core issue is the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Appellant who is accused of conspiring with her son in the alleged crime - The petitioner had suppressed material facts regarding her previous attempts to secure anticipatory ba India Law Library Docid # 1604030
(95) DR. JAYA THAKUR AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-03-2024 Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023 – Section 7(1) - Selection Committee - The order discusses applications for stay regarding the selection and appointment of Election Commissioners, challenging the vires of Section 7(1) of the 2023 Act - The main issues are the alteration of the Selection Committee’s composition and the impact on transparent elections, along with procedural irregularities in the selection process - The petitioners argue tha India Law Library Docid # 1604031
(96) M/S ACME PAPERS LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. M/S. CHINTAMAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-03-2024 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sections 10, 16 and 20 - Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate - The case involves a dispute over a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the sale of land, with the petitioner seeking to transfer a suit from Sehore, Madhya Pradesh to Calcutta, West Bengal - The primary issue is the appropriate jurisdiction for the suit concerning the MoU and the suit property - The petitioner contends that the MoU was executed in Calcutta and that the validity and enfor India Law Library Docid # 1604032
(97) THIRUMOORTHY Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-03-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 302, 363,342 and 201 - Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 2(13) and 6 – The appellant was convicted for various offences including kidnapping, murder, and offences under the POCSO Act - The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for different terms - The appeal challenges the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s criminal appeal, affirming his conviction and sentences - The key issue is the non-adherence to th India Law Library Docid # 1604033
(98) AWUNGSHI CHIRMAYO AND ANOTHER Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-03-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 306 –The case involves the death of a 25-year-old girl from Manipur, found dead in her rented accommodation in Delhi - The cause of death was unclear, with post-mortem reports showing post-mortem injuries but no cause of death - The main issue is the ineffective investigation into the death, initially registered as a suicide and later converted to a murder case - The appellants, cousins of the deceased, seek a thorough investigation by the CBI - The appe India Law Library Docid # 1604034
(99) RAM MURTI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-03-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Grant of Bail - An FIR was registered for the murder of the appellant’s son, and the respondent no.2 was implicated during the investigation - The main issue is the challenge against the High Court’s order granting bail to respondent no.2. - The appellant argued that the High Court failed to consider relevant facts and allowed the bail application without adequate reasoning - Respondent no.2 argued that he was not named in the FIR and had already suffered i India Law Library Docid # 1604035
(100) M/S. DIVGI METAL WARES LTD. Vs. M/S. DIVGI METAL WARES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-03-2024 Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - Section 3, 7 and 10(3) – Transferring of employees between different units of the company - The case involves Appellant Company. and its employees’ association, concerning the legality of transferring employees between different units of the company - The main issue is whether the company’s Standing Orders, allowing transfers anywhere within India, are valid under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - The company argues that t India Law Library Docid # 1604023