(81) KHENGARBHAI LAKHABHAI DAMBHALA Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-04-2024 Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 Sections 65(a)(e),81,98(2) and 116(2) and Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 465, 468, 471 and 114 - Penalty for illegal import, etc., of intoxicant or hemp - The appellant sought the release of a vehicle seized in connection with a FIR for offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and IPC - The main issue was whether the vehicle should be released before the final judgment, considering the quantity of seized liquor exceeded the prescribed limit - The appellant clai India Law Library Docid # 1604058
(82) PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L.Rs. AND OTHERS Vs. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-04-2024 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 3 - Land in Gandluru, Andhra Pradesh was acquired in 1989 for the Telugu Ganga Project - Claimants sought higher compensation, leading to a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act - The main issue was the inordinate delay of 5659 days in filing an appeal against the dismissal of the reference by the heirs of deceased claimant No. 11 - The petitioners argued they were unaware of the reference's dismissal until India Law Library Docid # 1604059
(83) ANNAPURNA B. UPPIN AND OTHERS Vs. MALSIDDAPPA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-04-2024 Consumer Law - Whether respondent file a complaint under the CPA considering the investment was made in a partnership firm attracts Consumer Protection Act - The case involves a dispute over a Rs. 5 lakh investment in a partnership firm, with allegations of non-payment and deficiency in service - The main issue is whether the complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, considering the nature of the partnership and the investment - The appellants argue they were not partners in t India Law Library Docid # 1604045
(84) DEEP MUKERJEE Vs. SREYASHI BANERJEE [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-04-2024 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 9 and 13(1) (ia) - Divorce - The parties were married and moved to the UK, living together for 7½ years - Disputes arose after returning to India, leading to separation in April 2021 - Wife sought a divorce on grounds of the husband’s impotency - The appeals challenge the High Court’s order which set aside the Trial Court’s decision allowing medical tests for the appellant/husband and respondent/wife - The appellant/husband is willing to undergo a potentiali India Law Library Docid # 1604047
(85) M/S. JAIPRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS M/S. JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD.) Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-04-2024 Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Section 32 - Companies Act, 1956 - Section 394 - The case involves perpetual lease deeds executed in favor of M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Pvt Ltd for certain plots, and subsequent events including amalgamation and name changes of the involved companies - The primary issue is whether the amalgamation of companies and the resulting transfer of leasehold rights amount to a transfer under the lease deed, requiring payment of unearned increase India Law Library Docid # 1604048
(86) MANIKANDAN Vs. STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-04-2024 Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 read with 34 – The appellants were convicted for the murder -The incident involved an altercation over undelivered idlis, leading to a fatal assault with a billhook - The main issue was the credibility of the eyewitnesses, who were related to the deceased and allegedly tutored by the police, and the timing of the incident as reported in the FIR versus the post-mortem notes - The defense argued that the incident occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation, sug India Law Library Docid # 1604049
(87) AQEEL AHMAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-04-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 336 and 427 - Murder – Cancellation of Bail - The case involves the grant of bail - The appeals challenge the High Court’s orders granting bail, with the informant contesting the decisions - The appellant (informant) argued that the accused were granted bail without proper consideration of their involvement in the serious crime and despite objections from the State counsel - The respondents (accused) claimed they were falsely implicated and t India Law Library Docid # 1604050
(88) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER Vs. NATIONAL ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-04-2024 Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 - Section 9 - Refund of stamp duty paid for an increase in share capital - The core issue was whether Form No. 5, used to notify an increase in share capital, is an instrument liable for stamp duty under the Bombay Stamp Act, and if the maximum cap on stamp duty applies to each increase or as a one-time measure - The State argued that each increase in share capital is a separate taxing event, requiring fresh stamp duty, and that the maximum cap introduced later does not af India Law Library Docid # 1604052
(89) CHANDAN Vs. THE STATE (DELHI ADMN.) [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-04-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder - The appellant was convicted for the murder -The incident occurred in daylight with a reliable eyewitness, who saw Appellant stabbing the deceased multiple times - The main issue was the credibility of the eyewitness testimony and the evidence linking Appellant to the murder, including the recovery of the murder weapon with matching bloodstains - The defence questioned the manner of recovery of the knife and argued that the prosecution failed to es India Law Library Docid # 1604053
(90) 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
(91) 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
(92) 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
(93) 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
(94) 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
(95) 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
(96) 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
(97) 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
(98) 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
(99) 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
(100) 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