ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(81) KARAN TALWAR Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 25 — Admissibility of Confessional Statement — The confessional statement of a co-accused, upon which the prosecution primarily relies, is inadmissible under Section 25 — This statement cannot be used as evidence against the appellant.
India Law Library Docid # 2421008

(82) ASHOK VERMA Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 201 and 498A — Concurrent Conviction — The case involves an appeal against the concurrent conviction of the appellant by the trial court and the High Court for offences under Sections 302, 201, and 498A — The Supreme Court notes that there is little scope for interference in an appeal against such concurrent findings unless there is a vital piece of evidence overlooked, or if the finding is based on inadmissible evidence.
India Law Library Docid # 2421009

(83) THE STATE OF ORISSA Vs. PRATIMA BEHERA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 239 — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) — Scope of Section 239, Cr.P.C — The court reiterates that under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., a magistrate is obligated to discharge an accused only when the charge against them is considered to be groundless — At the stage of framing charges, the court is not required to examine the materials in detail or consider the sufficiency of evidence, but rather to assess whether a prima
India Law Library Docid # 2421010

(84) CHANDRABHAN RUPCHAND DAKALE (D) BY LR SHRI SURAJMAL CHANDRABHAN DAKALE (D) BY LR SHRI RAJESH Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 — Sections 19 and 21 — Finality of Orders Regarding Land Holdings — The court held that an individual cannot revive claims that have been previously rejected, simply due to a judgment in favour of other parties — Specifically, the appellant's claims regarding the extent of his land holdings and the alleged forcible transfer of land to landlords were considered settled by a previous High Court judgment, and could not be reopened — The
India Law Library Docid # 2421011

(85) RAJEEV KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs. SRIKANT UPADHYAY AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Protection of Dignity and Human Rights —Dignity as a Constitutional Value —The Court reaffirms that dignity is an integral part of the Constitution of India, reflecting in various rights including Article 14, 19, and 21 — Women's Rights —The judgment highlights the need for greater protection of women's rights, especially in rural areas where equality remains a challenge.
India Law Library Docid # 2421012

(86) P. MANIKANDAN Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Retrial vs. Reinvestigation — The court clearly distinguishes between a retrial and a reinvestigation — A retrial involves restarting the judicial process from the point after the investigation is complete — This means that the trial, with all the associated proceedings, is conducted again — A reinvestigation, however, means that the police and other investigating authorities must re-collect and re-examine evidence to present new charges — The court emphasised that Section 386(b) of the Cr.P.C.
India Law Library Docid # 2421013

(87) MANSOOR SAHEB (DEAD) AND OTHERS Vs. SALIMA (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Partition Under Mohammedan Law — The court establishes that, unlike Hindu law, Mohammedan Law does not recognise partition of property during the owner's lifetime — Under Mohammedan Law, the right of an heir to inherit property only arises upon the death of the ancestor — Concepts of 'joint' or 'undivided' family, 'coparcenary', and 'partition' do not exist under Islamic law — The court relies on the work of Tahir Mahmood, and on Mulla
India Law Library Docid # 2421014

(88) TIRITH KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. DADURAM AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 2(2) — Inapplicability of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA, 1956) to Scheduled Tribes – The court emphasizes that the HSA, 1956, does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government explicitly directs its application through an official notification — The judgment cites Article 366(25) of the Constitution of India, defining Scheduled Tribes, and notes that the parties in the case belong to the Sawara tribe, which is a notified Schedu
India Law Library Docid # 2421015

(89) SANJEEVKUMAR HARAKCHAND KANKARIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 — Section 43 — Refund of Court Fees — The court clarifies that refunds of court fees in Maharashtra are governed by Section 43 of the MCFA, 1959, and the notifications issued under it — This section allows for partial refunds of court fees in certain circumstances, and this is where a state notification can provide for specific instances where full refund is permissible.

B. Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 — Court Fees as a State Subject —The court determines
India Law Library Docid # 2421016

(90) T.C. JOHN @ YOHANNAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. Vs. V.J. ANTONY AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Assessment of Compensation in Motor Accident Cases — The Court affirmed that the assessment of compensation by the High Court in motor accident cases should be generally respected unless there are clear errors of law or manifest injustice — The Court considered the income of the deceased, other heads of loss, and found the High Court's award to be reasonable and not requiring interference.
India Law Library Docid # 2421004

(91) STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS Vs. SANDEEP AGARWAL[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Service Law — VRS — When employees apply for VRS and subsequently engage in prolonged absenteeism without legitimate cause, the employer can terminate their services without conducting a prior disciplinary inquiry — It also emphasizes the importance of timely processing of VRS applications and the consequences of undue delays by the employer — The decision clarifies the rights and obligations of both parties in such scenarios and provides guidance on the calculation of pension and other benefits
India Law Library Docid # 2421005

(92) RINKU BAHETI Vs. SANDESH SHARDA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 142(1) — Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage under Article 142(1) — Discretionary Power — The Court reaffirmed that the power to grant a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage under Article 142(1) is discretionary and should be exercised with great care and caution.

B. Misuse of Criminal Laws in Matrimonial Disputes — Caution Against Vague Allegations — The Court cautioned against making vague and general allegations in criminal compl
India Law Library Docid # 2421006

(93) BHERULAL BHIMAJI OSWAL(D) BY LRs. Vs. MADHUSUDAN N.KUMBHARE[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Consumer Law — Medical Negligence — Medical negligence was established due to the doctor's failure to diagnose and treat a post-operative infection (endophthalmitis) in a timely manner, which led to the patient's loss of vision — The doctor's claim that the patient caused the infection by changing his own bandage was not supported by credible evidence — The court emphasized that medical professionals have a responsibility to provide proper post-operative care and to diagnose and treat complicati
India Law Library Docid # 2421048

(94) AJITH G. DAS AND OTHERS ETC Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Service Law — Recruitment Process — Post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II in Kerala — Autonomy of KPSC vs. Government's Role in Determining Vacancies — The Court clarifies that while the KPSC is an autonomous body responsible for conducting the selection process, the determination of the number of vacancies and the requisition for employees remain the prerogative of the State Government, which is the employer. The High Court had previously held that the KPSC had full autonomy in deciding on m
India Law Library Docid # 2421049

(95) AMUTHA Vs. A.R. SUBRAMANIAN[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) — Cruelty — Mental Cruelty — The court affirms that lodging false complaints against a spouse constitutes mental cruelty — In this case, the wife filed a criminal complaint alleging dowry harassment against the husband and his family but later abandoned it without pursuing the matter — The court inferred that the complaint was baseless and filed with the intent to harass, causing mental agony to the husband — This reinforces the principle tha
India Law Library Docid # 2421050

(96) MUSKAN ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of Cheque — The appellants were convicted under Section 138 and ordered to pay compensation — The Sessions Court suspended the sentence but ordered a 20% deposit of the compensation amount — The appellants challenged this in the High Court, which was withdrawn, and then filed a fresh petition after a change in the interpretation of Section 148 of the N.I. Act — The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court was unjustified in dismissing the
India Law Library Docid # 2421416

(97) M/S BHAGWATI MEDICAL HALL AND ANOTHER Vs. CENTRAL DRUGS STANDARD CONTROL ORGANIZATION AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Section 26A — “prohibited article” — Only the Central Government has the power to regulate, restrict, or prohibit the manufacture, sale, and distribution of drugs through a notification in the Official Gazette under Section 26A — The High Court and the Respondent authorities erred in treating aromatic tincture of cardamom as a "prohibited article" because no such prohibition existed under the D&C Act, 1940 or any notification issued by the Central Government — The
India Law Library Docid # 2421485

(98) ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY ETC. Vs. GEETANJALI TIWARI (PANDEY) AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 18-12-2024
University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 — Regulation 10(f)(iii) — The Supreme Court upheld Allahabad University's decision not to count Respondent 1's past teaching experience for shortlisting under Regulation 10(f)(iii), rejecting her claim that it violated Article 14 — The Court found that courts cannot alter s
India Law Library Docid # 2420862

(99) COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM Vs. M/S. MADHAN AGRO INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 18-12-2024
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 — Alignment with HSN — The Court reaffirmed that when the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is aligned with the HSN, the Explanatory Notes and General Notes of the HSN become binding for the purpose of classification — Courts should refer to the HSN when interpreting tariff entries, especially when the Act's headings and notes are consistent with the HSN.
India Law Library Docid # 2420863

(100) PAWAPURI RICE MILLS Vs. THE BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 18-12-2024
Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 — Sections 3(6) and 7 — A government agency acting as a nodal agent for public procurement, such as the Civil Supplies Corporation, can initiate recovery proceedings under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 for amounts due as 'public demand' if the transaction falls under the definition of 'public demand' in the Act, even in the absence of a specific clause in the agreement authorizing such recovery proceedings.
India Law Library Docid # 2420864