ive
India Law Library (Website) is free for India Law Library Offline customers only, Please Don't Pay for this website.

User not Logged..
IP Address :34.207.247.69
Latest Cases

(921) NATHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-05-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 438 and 438(1) - Rejection of anticipatory Bail - An application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. is rejected is found in the proviso to Section 438(1), Cr.P.C., which specifically provides that once an application is rejected, or the Court seized with the matter refuses to issue an interim order, it is open to the police to arrest the applicant
(2021) AIRSC 2606 : (2021) ALLMRCri 2686 : (2021) 2 ALTCrl 259 : (2021) 2 AndhLDCriminal 299 : (2021) 3 CriCC 468 : (2021) CriLJ 2593 : (2021) CriLR 810 : (2021) 2 Crimes 427 : (2021) 2 JLJR 415 : (2021) 5 JT 424 : (2021) 4 KHC 173 : (2021) 2 LawHeraldSC 1584 : (2021) 2 PLJR 423 : (2021) 7 SCALE 291 : (2021) 6 SCC 64 : (2021) 2 SCCCri 757

(922) KRISHNA MOHAN TRIPATHI Vs. STATE THROUGH ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-05-2021
By way of this appeal, the appellant who is the accused in Complaint No. 8 of 2017 relating to offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('the PMLA Act') and who is in custody since 27.11.2019, has questioned the order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Misc. Case No. 12568 of 2019, whereby the High Court rejected his prayer for bail while providing for expeditious proceedings in the trial and whil
(2021) AIRSC 2929

(923) SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-05-2021
In these appeals, the informant of Case Crime No. C-37 of 1997, under Sections 364, 304 and 506 IPC, Police Station -Phoolpur, District - Varanasi, has challenged the order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1195 of 2021, granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2-Shankhdhar Dwivedi in SLP(Crl.) No. 1928 of 2021; and another order of even date by the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipa
(2021) AIRSC 2968

(924) SUNIL KUMAR @ SUDHIR KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-05-2021
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 376(1), 366 and 363 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 31(1) - Kidnapping and rape - Multiple punishments of imprisonment - Whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively? - Held, It is legally obligatory upon the Court of first instance, while awarding multiple punishments of imprisonment, to specify in clear terms as to whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively.
(2021) 2 Crimes 419 : (2021) 2 LawHeraldSC 1591 : (2021) 2 PLJR 338 : (2021) 3 RCRCriminal 207 : (2021) 7 SCALE 281 : (2021) 5 SCC 560 : (2021) 2 SCCCri 659

(925) ANUSHA SHRIVASTAVA Vs. VIKASH NIGAM [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-05-2021
The marriage of the parties to this petition was solemnised at Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 ('the Act of 1954') on 23.03.2018. It is not in dispute that the parties had lastly lived together as husband and wife at Gurugram (Haryana). On 29.09.2018, the respondent-husband filed a petition for annulment of marriage under Sections 25(i) and 25(iii) and for declaring the marriage void under Section 24(1)(i) of the Act of 1954 before the Principal District Judge, Famil
(2021) AIRSC 2984

(926) KANUMURI RAGHURAMA KRISHNAM RAJU Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-05-2021
This appeal has been filed challenging the order of the High Court dated 15.05.2021 passed in Criminal Petition No.2998/2021, on the application of the appellant herein filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to enlarge the appellant/accused on bail in Crime No.12/2021 of CID, Police Station Mangalagiri, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh registered for offences punishable under Sections 124-A, 153(A), 505 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). By the
(2021) AIRSC 2827

(927) PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-05-2021
This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in MCRC No. 52294 of 2020 rejecting the request of the parties to quash the FIR in Crime No. 552 of 2017, Police Station, Indarganj, District, Gwalior for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 120-B, Indian Penal Code.
(2021) AIRSC 2926 : (2021) 3 JabLJ 1

(928) LALIT KUMAR JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (S)[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-05-2021
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 31 - Approval of a resolution plan does not ipso facto discharge a personal guarantor (of a corporate debtor) of her or his liabilities under the contract of guarantee - Release or discharge of a principal borrower from the debt owed by it to its creditor, by an involuntary process, i.e. by operation of law, or due to liquidation or insolvency proceeding, does not absolve the surety/guarantor of his or her liability, which arises out of an independe
(2021) 5 JT 545 : (2021) 2 LawHeraldSC 1462 : (2021) 7 SCALE 227

(929) KANUMURI RAGHURAMA KRISHNAM RAJU Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-05-2021
This appeal has been filed challenging the order of the High Court dated 15.05.2021 passed in Criminal Petition No.2998/2021, on the application of the appellant herein filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to enlarge the appellant/accused on bail in Crime No.12/2021 of CID, Police Station Mangalagiri, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh registered for offences punishable under Sections 124-A, 153(A), 505 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). By the
(2021) AIRSC 2827

(930) KANUMURI RAGHURAMA KRISHNAM RAJU Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-05-2021
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 124A - Sedition - Custodial torture - Medical examination - Petitioner shall forthwith be taken to the Army Hospital Secunderabad, Telangana for medical examination - Petitioner be medically examined in the presence of a Judicial Officer, who may be nominated by the Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court - Medical examination of the petitioner shall be conducted by the medical board of three doctors of the hospital to be constituted by the head of the Army Hos
(2021) 7 SCC 732 : (2021) 3 SCCCri 114

(931) IN RE : PROBLEMS AND MISERIES OF MIGRANT LABOURERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 13-05-2021
Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers - Directions issued : Dry ration to migrant workers in National Capital Region under Atma Nirbhar Bharat Scheme or any other scheme be provided by the Union of India, NCT of Delhi, State of U.P. and State of Haryana utilising the Public Distribution System prevalent in each State with effect from May, 2021. While providing dry ration the authorities of the States shall not insist on an identity card for those migrant labourers who do not possess for the

(932) INDIA RESURGENCE ARC PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. M/S. AMIT METALIKS LIMITED AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 13-05-2021
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 30(4) - Approval of resolution plan - Such amendment to sub-section (4) of Section 30 only amplified the considerations for the Committee of Creditors while exercising its commercial wisdom so as to take an informed decision in regard to the viability and feasibility of resolution plan, with fairness of distribution amongst similarly situated creditors; and the business decision taken in exercise of the commercial wisdom of CoC does not call for int
(2021) 2 LawHeraldSC 1722 : (2021) 3 RCRCivil 225 : (2021) 7 SCALE 214

(933) UTTAR PRADESH POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. CG POWER AND INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 12-05-2021
Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 - Sections 3, 3(1) and 3(2) - Levy and assessment of cess - Audit objection of CAG - If cess were leviable under the Cess Act, it would be necessary for the concerned authorities to undertake the exercise of assessment and levy of cess under the Cess Act of 1996 as amended, before the same could be realized from a contractor - High Court found that in the absence of any order for levy and assessment under the Cess Act of 1996 recover
(2021) AIRSC 2411 : (2021) 2 JLJR 388 : (2021) 5 JT 43 : (2021) 2 PLJR 396 : (2021) 7 SCALE 187 : (2021) 6 SCC 15

(934) GAUTAM NAVLAKHA Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 12-05-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 167(2) - Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 120B 153A, 505(1B) and 34 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38 and 40 - National Security Act, 1980 - Section 5 - Default bail - Appellant included the 34-day period of house arrest while computing the period for filing charge-sheet - House-arrest period was declared to unlawful custody by High Court - It is an indispensable requirement to claim the benefit of
(2021) 2 ALTCrl 321 : (2021) 3 BomCR(Cri) 103 : (2021) 2 Crimes 295 : (2021) 6 JT 289 : (2021) 3 RCRCriminal 314 : (2021) 7 SCALE 379

(935) TRIDHARA MOHANTY @ PATTNAIK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 11-05-2021
These appeals filed by appellants Braja Mohan Pattnaik and Tridhara Mohanty @ Pattnaik, take exception to the conditions imposed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, while granting them bail and submit inter alia that the conditions are onerous and impossible to be complied with, and consequently, the relief of bail would stand denied to the appellants.
(2021) AIRSC 2712

(936) TRIDHARA MOHANTY @ PATTNAIK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 11-05-2021
These appeals filed by appellants Braja Mohan Pattnaik and Tridhara Mohanty @ Pattnaik, take exception to the conditions imposed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, while granting them bail and submit inter alia that the conditions are onerous and impossible to be complied with, and consequently, the relief of bail would stand denied to the appellants.
(2021) AIRSC 2712

(937) TRIDHARA MOHANTY @ PATTNAIK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 11-05-2021
These appeals filed by appellants Braja Mohan Pattnaik and Tridhara Mohanty @ Pattnaik, take exception to the conditions imposed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, while granting them bail and submit inter alia that the conditions are onerous and impossible to be complied with, and consequently, the relief of bail would stand denied to the appellants.
(2021) AIRSC 2712

(938) SUDHIR KUMAR KAD Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-05-2021
The appellants before us, Sudhir Kumar Kad and Dinesh Kumar are accused in a case of embezzlement of about Rs. 4 Crores. The substance of the allegation so far as the subject case is concerned is that these two accused persons as the Branch Manager and the Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank, Kanthal Branch, Ujjain, participated in the process of extending cash credit facility to a firm which did not have at that point of time adequate asset coverage as safeguard against default, which would h
(2021) AIRSC 2614

(939) RAHUL SHARMA AND ANOTHER Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-05-2021
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 140 - Compensation - Deceased was self­employed and was 37 years old - Annual income of the deceased was Rs. 2,55,349 - After deducting personal and living expenses and adding future prospects, the annual income is determined at Rs. 2,38,326 - Multiplier of 15 is appropriate, considering the age of the deceased - Accordingly, the total loss of dependency, is calculated to be Rs. 35,74,890/­ Not find any reason to interfere with any other heads as dete
(2021) ACJ 1430 : (2021) AIRSC 2255 : (2021) 4 ALLMR 781 : (2021) 3 AndhLD 153 : (2021) 2 DNJ 638 : (2021) 5 JT 7 : (2021) 2 LawHeraldSC 1398 : (2021) 2 RCRCivil 894 : (2021) 7 SCALE 30 : (2021) 6 SCC 188 : (2021) 2 SCCCri 806

(940) MANGALA WAMAN KARANDIKAR (D) THROUGH LRS. Vs. PRAKASH DAMODAR RANADE [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-05-2021
Evidence Act, 1872 - Proviso 6 of Section 92 - Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement - When a document is a straightforward one and presents no difficulty in construing it, the proviso does not apply
(2021) AIRSC 2272 : (2021) 4 ALLMR 376 : (2021) 3 CivCC 281 : (2021) 4 CTC 852 : (2021) 2 DNJ 633 : (2021) 5 JT 1 : (2021) 2 LawHeraldSC 1735 : (2021) 5 MLJ 90 : (2021) 1 RCRRent 513 : (2021) 7 SCALE 59 : (2021) 6 SCC 139

IP Address :34.207.247.69