ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(721) SHASHI BHUSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-01-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 379, 406, 407 and 420 — The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal — The primary issue is whether accused should be granted anticipatory bail in relation to the aforementioned FIR — The State acknowledged that accused is cooperating with the investigation — The Supreme Court considered the facts and circumstances and granted anticipatory bail to appellant — The court directed that in the event of his arrest, he should be released on bail by the arresting/inve
India Law Library Docid # 2421626

(722) INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Vs. M.A.S. SUBRAMANIAN AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-01-2025
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 54 — The Supreme Court heard an appeal regarding a property dispute where the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) had ruled that a sale deed was not binding on a company — The NCLAT had determined that the company was in possession of the land through part performance of a contract with the original owner, who had agreed to sell the land to the company in exchange for shares — However, the Supreme Court noted that an agreement for sale does no
India Law Library Docid # 2421630

(723) ASHUMAL @ ASHARAM Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-01-2025
Bail — Medical grounds — The court had previously stated it would not consider the merits of the case, only the medical condition of the petitioner — The petitioner's counsel argued that the 86-year-old petitioner had age-related ailments and had suffered two heart attacks — The State acknowledged the petitioner's health issues but argued that treatment could be provided in prison — The Court granted interim bail to the petitioner until March 31, 2025, citing the petitioner’s health condition an
India Law Library Docid # 2421683

(724) M/S. ANS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-01-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37 — Concession agreement — Supreme Court addressed a case regarding a concession agreement between M/S ANS Infrastructure Private Ltd and the State of Rajasthan for road improvements — Disputes arose, and an arbitrator awarded the appellant Rs. 43.7281 crores — Both parties challenged the award, but the District Court dismissed their petitions — The High Court allowed the State's appeal and dismissed the appellant's cross-appeal — The Supreme Cou
India Law Library Docid # 2421636

(725) STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) Vs. VIPIN @ LALLA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-01-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 363, 366, 376, 342 and 506 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 — Section 4 — Supreme Court reviewed a case where a man was acquitted of charges including rape and offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — The case was based on the testimony of the prosecutrix (victim), who was a minor — The Trial Court acquitted the accused, citing a delay in filing the FIR, inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements, and a
India Law Library Docid # 2421646

(726) MANISH AGGARWAL Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-01-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 313 — Punjab Courts Act, 1918 — Section 41 — Suit for specific performance — High Court erred in setting aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which had decreed the suit for specific performance in favor of the appellant — The Supreme Court found that the High Court misdirected itself while appreciating its powers under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, which allows for re-appreciation of facts and eviden
India Law Library Docid # 2422088

(727) S. JAYALAKSHMI Vs. THE SPECIAL DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-01-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Limitation on Court's Power to Modify Arbitral Awards under — The Court reaffirms its stance in the case of "Project Director, National Highways No. 45 E and 220, National Highways Authority of India vs. M. Hakeem & Another" (2021) 9 SCC 1, that courts do not have the jurisdiction to modify an arbitral award under Sections 34 and 37
India Law Library Docid # 2422158

(728) LALITA Vs. PANKAJ KUMAR SHARMA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2025
Matrimonial Law — Transfer Petition — Supreme Court addressed a transfer petition filed by a wife seeking to move her divorce case from Chirawa, Rajasthan, to Jhajjar, Haryana — The respondent-Husband, did not appear despite repeated calls — The Court allowed the transfer based on the petitioner's claims that she needs to care for her three-year-old child and is unable to effectively defend the proceedings due to the long distance — The Court ordered the transfer of the case from the Additional
India Law Library Docid # 2421647

(729) KIRTI SINGH Vs. DHANANJAY LAKSHMIKANT SINGH [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2025
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(i-a) — Transfer of Divorce Proceedings — Petitioner sought to transfer her divorce proceedings against husband from Kalyan, Maharashtra, to Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, due to the 1400 km distance causing her inconvenience — Petitioner had also filed multiple transfer petitions to Delhi, which were dismissed by the Supreme Court — The Court granted appellant’s transfer request, citing the interest of justice, and directed the Varanasi Family Court to handle t
India Law Library Docid # 2421656

(730) MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. THE ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2025
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) appealed to the Supreme Court against a High Court order, but the respondents did not appear — A related SLP challenging a Single Judge's order was also pending, with the respondents also absent — The MCD failed to inform the court about the SLP or the respondents' non-appearance — The Supreme Court found that the respondents were not heard and that both parties mishandled the information about the SLP — It detached the SLP from the disposed cases, allowed th
India Law Library Docid # 2421660

(731) NIBIN KHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 109 and 312 — Cancellation of his bail — Appellant was initially granted bail by the High Court of Kerala with certain conditions, including not intimidating witnesses or contacting the victim and not committing similar offenses — However, this bail was later cancelled by a lower court for violating those conditions — The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision to cancel the bail, stating that the High Court was not justified in doing
India Law Library Docid # 2421681

(732) SURESH KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A — The Supreme Court of India heard a criminal appeal regarding a conviction for negligent driving — The appellant's jeep collided with a tree on a village road during a rainy day, causing injuries to passengers and the death of one — The appellant was initially convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to one year — The Supreme Court noted the vehicle was traveling at 60-65 kmph when the
India Law Library Docid # 2421571

(733) AARTI KUMARI AND OTHERS Vs. SHAILENDRA KUMAR VERMA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 323, 307, 341, 379, 498-A and 120-B —Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 and 4 — Transfer of Matrimonial Case — The Supreme Court has allowed a transfer petition filed by the petitioner-wife, seeking to move a case filed by the respondent-husband from the court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Aurangabad, Bihar — The court noted
India Law Library Docid # 2421590

(734) R.H.N. MATHUR Vs. K.S. SUBRAHMANYAM (DIED) AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2025
Suit for Specific performance of an Agreement to Sell — Despite the appellant not claiming any alternative relief, the Supreme Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondents to repay a sum of Rs. 4,66,000/- with 12% simple interest per annum from 01.01.1992 until the date of payment — The Court essentially read an alternative prayer into the plaint through an oral application by the appellant’s counsel — The amount was to be deposited in the ex
India Law Library Docid # 2421538

(735) SOUMYA AWASTHI Vs. PRASHANT SHUKLA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2025
Matrimonial Law — Settlement — However, the parties reached a settlement where they agreed to resume their marital life — Key elements of the settlement included the parties agreeing to live together as husband and wife, forgive past differences, and the husband depositing money for their son's maintenance — They also agreed to cooperate on the wife's transfer to Kanpur and to withdraw all litigation — The key legal point is that the Supreme Court disposed of the transfer petition after the part
India Law Library Docid # 2421539

(736) STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER Vs. SATYANARAYAN[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2025
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Delay in filing an application to restore a first appeal that had been dismissed for non-prosecution — The original suit concerned the respondent's claim of ownership over a temple and 15 hectares of land — The State's appeal before the District Judge was dismissed for non-prosecution due to negligence, and their application to restore the appeal was also delayed — The High Court also rejected the State's appeal — The Supreme Court, witho
India Law Library Docid # 2421540

(737) SANGEETA RAJENDRA SHARMA Vs. SHRIKANT SHRIRAM NARSARIA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2025
Partition Suit — Family Property Dispute — The petitioner initially claimed a 1/9th share of the ancestral property, which was later revised to 1/6th — The High Court had permitted the redevelopment of the property, including directing the execution of agreements for alternate accommodation for the petitioner and another defendant, along with payments of a corpus, transit rent, and other fees — The Supreme Court, in its intervention, focused on the petitioner’s need for temporary accommodation w
India Law Library Docid # 2421545

(738) BHARAT AAMBALE Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2025
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 52 — Substantial Compliance is Key — The court has consistently held that what is required is substantial compliance with the procedure laid out in Section 52A of the NDPS Act and its related rules, not necessarily strict, letter-by-letter adherence — This means that the core purpose of the procedure, which is to ensure the integrity of the evidence, must be met.
India Law Library Docid # 2421809

(739) EDAKKANDI DINESHAN @ P. DINESHAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KERELA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 149 — Explosive Substance Act, 1908 — Section 5 — Violent clash between members of the Communist Party of India (M) (CPI(M)) and the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh/Vishva Hindu Parishad (RSS/VHP) — Eleven individuals who had defected from CPI(M) to RSS were attacked by a mob, resulting in the fatal injuries — An FIR was registered, and investigations led to the arrest of several individuals — The trial court convicted all accused, but the High Court reduce
India Law Library Docid # 2421390

(740) ATUL TIWARI Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Notional income and the addition for future prospects — 60% permanent disability — MACT allowed compensation of Rs. 19,43,800 — Both the petitioner and the insurance company filed cross-appeals — High Court partially allowed them, enhancing the loss of income compensation but not adequately addressing other heads — The primary issues revolved around whether the compensation awarded by the MACT and High Court was adequate, particularly under heads like lo
India Law Library Docid # 2421391