(561) KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER Vs. BIMAL KUMAR SHAH AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-05-2024 Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 – Sections 352, 363 and 537 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 300A - The Kolkata Municipal Corporation contested the acquisition of property under Section 352 of the Act 1980, arguing that it had the power of compulsory acquisition and complied with constitutional requirements - The Corporation argued that it had the power to acquire property for public purposes, and compensation was provided under Section 363 - The respondents argued that the power India Law Library Docid # 1604181
(562) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. M/S HYUNDAI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-05-2024 Insurance – Repudiation of Claim - The appellant challenged an order by the NCDRC to pay an insurance claim of Rs. 39,09,92,828/- related to a bridge collapse during construction by the respondent - The main issues involved the applicability of the insurance claim, the responsibility for the collapse, and the interpretation of the insurance policy's exclusion clauses - United India Insurance argued that the claim should be repudiated based on the surveyor's report and the Expert Committee's fin India Law Library Docid # 1604182
(563) SMT. SHYAMO DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-05-2024 Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Sections 122-C(i)(d) and 132 - Allotment of land for housing site for members of Scheduled Castes, agricultural labourers, etc. – Cancellation of land allotment - The case involves the cancellation of land allotment made under Section 122-C(i)(d) of the UPZALR Act, which was later challenged as being unlawful - The petitioners argued that the cancellation of a land allotment after 13 years was maintainable and if there was a time lim India Law Library Docid # 1604183
(564) MR. R.S. MADIREDDY AND ANOTHER. ETC. Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ETC. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-05-2024 Service Law - Pay Stagnation, Non-promotion, and Allowances issues - The Bombay High Court dismissed writ petitions by former Air India employees regarding pay stagnation, non-promotion, and allowances issues - The main issue was the maintainability of writ petitions after Air India's privatization, affecting employees' rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution - The appellants argued that their right to seek remedy crystallized at the time of filing the petitions and subsequent India Law Library Docid # 1604184
(565) MUKATLAL Vs. KAILASH CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-05-2024 Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14(1) - Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner - The dispute revolves around the inheritance and possession of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property after the death of family members - The Appellant claims the property based on a Will, while the Respondent, adopted by the widow 'N', seeks partition asserting rights over the s India Law Library Docid # 1604185
(566) S. SHIVRAJ REDDY(DIED) THR HIS LRS. AND ANOTHER Vs. S. RAGHURAJ REDDY AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-05-2024 Partnership Act, 1932 - Section 42 – Dissolution of firm due to death of a partner - The case revolved around the dissolution of a partnership firm following the death of a partner in 1984 - The plaintiff sought dissolution and account rendition - The main issue was whether the firm was automatically dissolved and if the suit filed in 1996 was barred by limitation - The appellants argued that the firm dissolved automatically in 1984, as per Section 42(c) of the Partnership Act, 1932, and the su India Law Library Docid # 1604186
(567) T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-05-2024 Environmental Law – Applicant is attempting to construct a health/eco-resort on two plots of land in Pachmarhi, Madhya Pradesh - The land's status within the Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary and its classification as forest land are in dispute - The petitioner argues that the land is not forest land, has valid title deeds, and is located in an urban area - The respondents argue that the land is part of the wildlife sanctuary and new construction is not permitted under the Eco-Sensitive Zone notifica India Law Library Docid # 1604187
(568) KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-05-2024 Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - 2(g)(6) - shamilat deh lies outside the abadi deh and was being used as gitwar, bara, manure pit, house or for cottage industry, immediately before the commencement of this Act – The review petition filed by respondent No.28 seeks to review a Supreme Court judgment that allowed a civil appeal by the State of Haryana - The main issues include review jurisdiction, the Full Bench of the High Court's judgment in Jai Singh II, and the application India Law Library Docid # 1604188
(569) DASARI SRIKANTH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-05-2024 Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 354D and 506-Part I — The appellant was convicted under Sections 354D and 506-Part I of the IPC by the trial court, but acquitted under the POCSO Act — The High Court reduced his sentence to three months — The appellant and the complainant married during the appeal process, raising questions about the impact of the conviction on their relationship —The Supreme Court quashed the conviction, considering the marriage and potential harm to the matrimonial relationship —Th India Law Library Docid # 2417219
(570) TRISHA SINGH Vs. ANURAG KUMAR [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-05-2024 Matrimonial Law — Transfer of Case — The petitioner-wife sought to transfer a matrimonial case from Varanasi to Pune — The case involved a settlement agreement for divorce and alimony —The petitioner-wife resiled from the settlement after receiving part of the alimony, causing complications for the respondent-husband —The Supreme Court dissolved the marriage, emphasizing the petitioner's conduct and the irrevocable breakdown of the marriage — The petition was allowed, and the respondent was orde India Law Library Docid # 2417220
(571) PRABIR PURKAYASTHA Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-05-2024 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 13, 16, 17, 18 and 22C - Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 153A and 120B - The primary issue was the legality of the appellant's arrest and the subsequent police custody remand, which were alleged to be in violation of constitutional rights and procedural laws - The appellant's counsel argued that the arrest was illegal due to the absence of written 'grounds of arrest' and that the remand order was passed without proper legal representation or cons India Law Library Docid # 1604169
(572) C. SUBBIAH @ KADAMBUR JAYARAJ AND OTHERS Vs. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-05-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 420, 120B, 294(b), 506(ii) read with Section 114 – Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – Section 4 - The case revolves around a real estate dispute where a government teacher was allegedly defrauded by an accused who induced him to invest in land deals with promises of high returns - The primary legal issue is whether the allegations constitute a criminal offence of fraud and breach of trust or if they are purely civil disputes - The appellants argue tha India Law Library Docid # 1604170
(573) DINESH AND OTHERS ETC. Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ETC. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-05-2024 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 11, 15(2) and 15(3) - The State of Madhya Pradesh acquired land for a Multi-Model Logistics Park but appellants objected - The State Development Office dismissed their objections, leading to writ petitions in the High Court - The main legal question was whether the SDO had the authority to hear and decide objections under Section 15 of the Act of 2013 and direct the publication India Law Library Docid # 1604172
(574) SHIVENDRA PRATAP SINGH THAKUR @ BANTI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-05-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 447, 427, 294, 506 read with 34 – Quashing of FIR - The FIR was vague about the incident date, lodged after a 39-day delay without explanation, and the alleged damages were not substantiated by evidence - The FIR and chargesheet were false and fabricated, with no complaint from the landowner whose property was allegedly damaged - The State opposed the appeal, asserting that the complainant had no motive to falsely implicate the accused and the allegations were a India Law Library Docid # 1604173
(575) STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAGHUBIR SINGH AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-05-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 376(2)(g) read with Section 34 – Conviction and Sentence - The appeals challenge the adequacy of the sentence and the conviction based on the evidence presented - The State argues the sentence is less than the minimum prescribed and that the evidence clearly shows the intercourse was without consent - The accused argue that there were two acquittals previously, and the evidence suggests consensual intercourse, highlighting discrepancies in the prosecutrix's test India Law Library Docid # 1604174
(576) RAJENDRA S/O RAMDAS KOLHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-05-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder of Wife - The appellant was convicted for the murder of his police constable, who was set on fire after pouring kerosene over her - The main issue was whether the conviction was justified based on evidence, including the dying declarations - The appellant argued that there were contradictions in the evidence and that the dying declaration recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate was not reliable - The respondent supported the India Law Library Docid # 1604175
(577) SOLAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. SHANKARRAO GOVINDRAO PATIL AND OTHERS ETC. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-05-2024 Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - Section 493(5)(c) - Transitory Provisions – The case revolves around the employment status of respondents who were engaged by Majarewadi Gram Panchayat and later regularized by Solapur Municipal Corporation - The dispute revolves around whether their service should be considered regular from the merger date, 05.05.1992, or from the regularization date, 01.02.2003 - The main issue is whether the respondents were regular employees of the gram pa India Law Library Docid # 1604176
(578) S. NITHEEN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-05-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 494 read with 34 - The case involves bigamy charges for marrying while still married to the complainant, with other appellants accused of aiding the offence - The primary legal issue is whether the appellants other than A-1 and A-2 can be charged under Section 494 IPC for bigamy, considering their alleged roles in the second marriage - The appellants argue that there is no evidence of their presence or knowledge of the first marriage at the time of the second mar India Law Library Docid # 1604177
(579) PUKHRAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 14-05-2024 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 63 — The appellant's vehicle was confiscated in connection with an NDPS Act case — The trial court ordered the vehicle's auction without hearing the appellant, who was absconding at the time — Whether the trial court could order confiscation and auction of the vehicle without giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard — The appellant argued that the trial court violated Section 63 of the NDPS Act by not providing him an opportun India Law Library Docid # 2417221
(580) M/S. SAS INFRATECH PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 14-05-2024 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 156(3) — The appellant filed an appeal against the High Court's decision to set aside a docket order by the Trial Court, which had directed an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. — Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Trial Court's order directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. — Petitioner's Arguments — The Trial Court had correctly exercised its judicial discretion in directing the investigati India Law Library Docid # 2417222