(561) SHAHID ALI Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 11-03-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25 and 27 – Appeal against conviction - Whether the Appellant could be held guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC as against Section 302 IPC - During a marriage ceremony on Appellant fired a shot that killed one person - The FIR revealed previous enmity, and many witnesses were present - The trial court convicted him based on evidence, including eyewitness accounts and the recovery of the weapon - How India Law Library Docid # 1603988
(562) THE STATE OF HARYANA Vs. ASHOK KHEMKA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 11-03-2024 All-India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 – Rules 5(1) and 9(7B) – Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) - The case pertains to a dispute over the performance appraisal report (PAR) of an IAS officer (Respondent herein) for the period 2016-2017 - The High Court had set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which upheld the Accepting Authority’s downgrading of Respondent’s PAR grade - The Supreme Court analyzed the timelines prescribed under the PAR Rules a India Law Library Docid # 1603989
(563) NIRMAL PREMKUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 11-03-2024 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 12 - Penal Code, 1860 - Section 506 – Review - The appellants were convicted for offences under the POCSO Act and I.P.C., with sentenced rigorous imprisonment - The case involved three incidents of alleged sexual harassment of a minor girl by the appellants, who were teachers at her school - The prosecution’s case was based on the victim’s testimony and other witnesses - The Supreme Court found significant discrepancies and contradi India Law Library Docid # 1603990
(564) SUNEETA DEVI Vs. AVINASH AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 11-03-2024 Land Dispute - Appeal Against High Court Order - The appellant challenges the High Court’s decision to quash a resolution for land allocation for a new primary school - The dispute involves land needed for a highway project, leading to the demolition and proposed relocation of a school - Respondents filed multiple writ petitions, with the latest being dismissed due to concealment of previous petitions and lack of notice to parties - The Supreme Court finds the High Court’s order arbitrary and se India Law Library Docid # 1603991
(565) STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 11-03-2024 Electoral Bond Scheme - The Supreme Court declared the Electoral Bond Scheme and certain amendments in the Finance Act 2017 unconstitutional, as they violated the right to information and were arbitrary - The State Bank of India (SBI) was directed to disclose details of Electoral Bonds purchased and redeemed, including purchaser names and bond denominations - The Election Commission of India (ECI) was ordered to publish the disclosed information on its website by a specific deadline - SBI sought India Law Library Docid # 1603993
(566) DR. SONIA VERMA AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-03-2024 The Appellants before us are aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2023 passed in CRM-M-34512-2023 (the Impugned Order) whereby the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh refused to quash FIR No. 375/2022 dated 31.10.2022 (the Subject FIR), registered against the Appellants for offences under Section(s) 506, 420, 34, 120-B and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC). The uncontested facts are as follows: (i) the Appellants are doctors who are running the Surendra Maternity and Trauma H India Law Library Docid # 1882464
(567) JAGJIT SINGH Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-03-2024 This appeal is at the instance of a convict accused and is directed against the final judgement and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 30.01.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 215 - SB of 1997 (Impugned Order) by which the High Court dismissed the appeal and thereby affirmed the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.02.1997 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Patiala in Case No. 2 of 13.06.1992, holding the appellant herein guilty of the offences pu India Law Library Docid # 1882485
(568) M/S A.K. SARKAR AND COMPANY AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-03-2024 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 - Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Section 52 - Misbranding - The Trial Court convicted the appellants, which was upheld by the District and Sessions Judge - However, ‘A’ was acquitted, and the High Court reduced the sentence for appellant no.2. - The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but considered the new Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which provides for a lesser penalty for misbranding, leading to India Law Library Docid # 1603986
(569) JAVED AHMAD HAJAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-03-2024 Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 19(1)(a) - Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 153A – Promoting enmity - The appellant challenged an FIR filed against him for an offence under Section 153-A of the IPC, which was dismissed by the High Court - Allegations were based on WhatsApp status messages that were considered to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, specifically regarding the abrogation of Article 370 and Independence Day of Pakistan - The Court analyzed the intention behind the messag India Law Library Docid # 1603987
(570) RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-03-2024 This appeal arises against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi on 12th October, 2015 in Criminal Appeal No.287 of 2015, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant herein. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under: Deceased-Meena, daughter of Mani Ram (PW.3) and Gyanwati (PW.6), got married to the appellant-Ravinder Kumar (accused No.1) on 20.06.1999. A male child named Harry was born out of the sa India Law Library Docid # 1882469
(571) BIJENDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-03-2024 Appellant a Junior Engineer (Electrical) with the Municipal Corporation, Sonepat, was accused of taking a bribe to sign a proposal for upgrading a building to a 'green building' — His plea for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court — Whether appellant should be granted anticipatory bail despite allegations of non-cooperation with the investigation — Appellant argued that he had joined the investigation and that his behavior did not justify the denial of anticipatory bail — The State op India Law Library Docid # 2417280
(572) SHARIK KHAN Vs. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-03-2024 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 67 — The petitioner filed a special leave petition against the High Court of Delhi's order dismissing his application for anticipatory bail —The main issue is the delay of 219 days in filing the special leave petition and whether the delay should be condoned —The Supreme Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the special leave petition, citing unsatisfactory explanations for the delay —The Court emphasized compl India Law Library Docid # 2417281
(573) DECCAN VALUE INVESTORS L.P. AND ANOTHER Vs. DINKAR VENKATASUBRAMANIAN AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-03-2024 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 62 —The case involves cross-appeals under Section 62 related to the resolution plan —Whether the resolution applicants can withdraw or modify the resolution plan after approval by the Committee of Creditors but before final approval by the adjudicating authority —The resolution applicants argued that they were misled by the resolution professional due to lack of information and alleged fraud —The respondents contended that the resolution applicants India Law Library Docid # 2417282
(574) T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-03-2024 This is how the importance of the tigers in the ecosystem has been succinctly described in ‘Mahabharta’. The existence of the forest is necessary for the protection of tigers. In turn, if the tiger is protected, the ecosystem which revolves around him is also protected. The tiger represents the apex of the animal pyramid and the protection of their habitat must be a priority. “A healthy tiger population is an indicator of sustainable development in the 13 tiger range countries” India Law Library Docid # 1603980
(575) VETHAMBAL AND OTHERS Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-03-2024 Motor Accident Claims - The appellants are the dependants of ‘R' who died in a road accident in 2012 - They filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- against the Insurance Company of the vehicle involved in the accident - The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 50,000/- per month and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 51,64,550/- with interest @8% per annum to the appellants - The High Court reduced the income of the deceased to Rs. 20,000/- per month and awar India Law Library Docid # 1603981
(576) XXXX Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-03-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 376(2)(n) and 506 - The appellant, XXXX, filed a petition to quash an FIR registered against him by the complainant, a married woman, for rape on false promise of marriage - The complainant claimed that she divorced her first husband and married the appellant in a temple in January 2019, after he promised to marry her - She alleged that he had physical relations with her from January 2019 to June 2020, and then refused to marry her - The appellant contended that India Law Library Docid # 1603982
(577) THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. SANDEEP KUMAR [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-03-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 419, 466, 221, 205, 109 and 120-B/ 34 - The respondent, a police officer and the investigating officer in a case of counterfeit liquor, is accused of altering the FIR and arresting the wrong person to shield the real culprit - He was denied anticipatory bail by the lower court but granted by the High Court without any reasons - The State of Jharkhand appeals against the High Court’s order, arguing that the respondent abused his position and tampered with the evi India Law Library Docid # 1603983
(578) THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD Vs. AYYAPPA SPICES AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-03-2024 Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Section 3(1)(j) - The Travancore Devaswom Board, which manages the Sabarimala Temple and prepares the Aravana Prasadam, appeals against the Kerala High Court’s orders to stop the distribution of the prasadam and to prosecute the board for violating the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - The writ petition was filed by Ayyappa Spices, a cardamom supplier, who alleged that the board procured cardamom from another supplier without proper quality check and ten India Law Library Docid # 1603984
(579) M/S SHAH ENTERPRISES THR. PADMABEN MANSUKHBHAI MODI Vs. VAIJAYANTIBEN RANJITSINGH SAWANT AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-03-2024 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Section 11 read with Order 14 Rule 2 and Section 151 - The appellant, who bought 20 acres of land in Survey No. 506, filed a contempt petition against the respondents, who filed a civil suit claiming ancestral rights over more than 2000 acres of land in Survey Nos. 505, 506, and 507, despite a consent decree in 1972 that cancelled the lease of their predecessor-in-title - The appellant contended that the filing of the suit was a brazen act to undermine the judi India Law Library Docid # 1603985
(580) U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD Vs. CHANDRA SHEKHAR AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-03-2024 The appellant-U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Board) is aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.10.2015, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, whereby acquisition in respect of Khasra No.673 (mentioned as plot No. 673 in the impugned judgment), situated within the revenue estate of village Hariharpur, Tehsil and District Lucknow, has been quashed on the ground that the respondent-tenure holders were not accorded opportunity to submit objections against India Law Library Docid # 1882468