(741) KRISHNADATT AWASTHY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-04-2024 Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 - Section 40(C) - Use of Position or influence directly or indirectly to secure employment for any relative in the Panchayat or any action for extending any pecuniary benefits to any relative, such as giving out any type of lease, getting any work done through them in the Panchayat by an office-bearer of Panchayat –The controversy revolves around the selection and appointment for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III in Janpad Panchayat India Law Library Docid # 1604043
(742) NAVNEET KAUR HARBHAJANSING KUNDLES @ NAVNEET KAUR RAVI RANA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-04-2024 Election Law – Caste Claim - The case involves the validation of the appellant’s caste claim as ‘Mochi Scheduled Caste’ in Maharashtra, which was crucial for her 2019 Parliamentary election win from Amravati constituency - The primary issue is the legitimacy of the appellant’s caste certificate, which was challenged by other candidates alleging it was obtained through fraudulent documents - The appellant argued that the High Court wrongly overturned the Scrutiny Committee’s decision, which had v India Law Library Docid # 1604044
(743) SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 03-04-2024 Mining — Reclamation and Rehabilitation (R&R) Plans — The case involves multiple applications related to mining activities in Karnataka, particularly concerning iron ore extraction and the implementation of Reclamation and Rehabilitation (R&R) Plans — The main issues include the legality of iron ore extraction, discrepancies in reported quantities, and the implementation of R&R Plans — Petitioners argued for the legality of their iron ore extraction and sought payments for excess iron ore sold b India Law Library Docid # 2417268
(744) STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GANDHINAGAR P.S. Vs. M.N. BASAVARAJA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 03-04-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 498A, and 201 —Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 and 4 — The case involves the unnatural death within 7 years of marriage — The first respondent (her husband) and other respondents (in-laws) were tried for offences —The main issue is whether the respondents should be convicted under section 304B of the IPC for dowry death, despite no charge being framed under this section initially — The appellant argued that the High Court erred by not considering t India Law Library Docid # 2417269
(745) SANT BHAGWAN BABA SHIKSHAN MANDAL AND OTHERS Vs. GUNWANT AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 03-04-2024 Service Law — Appointment — The respondent, initially a Peon, acquired qualifications for the post of Shikshan Sevak and sought appointment to this post, which was denied by the appellants — Whether the respondent, a non-teaching staff member, was entitled to be appointed as Shikshan Sevak after acquiring the necessary qualifications — The appellants argued that the respondent was not entitled to promotion to a teaching post from a non-teaching post — The respondent contended that he was qualifi India Law Library Docid # 2417270
(746) UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. JAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY (D) THROUGH HIS LR [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 03-04-2024 Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 – Condonation of Delay - The property in Pune was leased to the appellants by the respondent. A civil suit was filed for breach of lease terms, leading to a decree for possession and mesne profits in favor of the respondent - The appeal focuses on the High Court’s refusal to condone a 12-year delay in filing a restoration application for a dismissed writ petition - The Union of India argued for condonation of delay based on the merits of the case, emphasizing the India Law Library Docid # 1604042
(747) S V CHERIYAKOYA THANGAL Vs. S V P POOKOYA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-04-2024 Mutawalliship and Sheikhship — The dispute began in 1987 over Mutawalliship and Sheikhship, with both parties claiming rights before the Waqf Board, which ruled in favor of the appellant — The main issue was whether the Waqf Board or the Waqf Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the matter — The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, stating that the Waqf Board had the jurisdiction to decide the issue — The matter was remitted to the High Court to decide on merits, excluding the jurisdic India Law Library Docid # 2417271
(748) PREM RAJ Vs. POONAMMA MENON AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-04-2024 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque - The appellant borrowed Rs.2,00,000 from the complainant and issued a cheque that was dishonoured - A civil decree declared the cheque as security, while a criminal court convicted the appellant under Section 138 of the Act - The main issue was whether criminal proceedings can be initiated when a civil court decree already exists regarding the same transaction - The appellant argued that the criminal court is bound by the civi India Law Library Docid # 1604037
(749) SANJAY SINGH Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-04-2024 Bail - Sanjay Singh is involved in proceedings related to offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, based on ECIR no. HIU-II/14/2022 dated 22.08.2022 - The main issue is whether Sanjay Singh should be released on bail during the pendency of the proceedings - The Directorate of Enforcement has no objection to the release of Sanjay Singh on bail - The court allowed the appeal based on the respondent’s concession without commenting on the merits of the case - India Law Library Docid # 1604038
(750) LEVEL 9 BIZ PVT. LTD. Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-04-2024 Tender – The case involves a dispute over a tender process for a commercial complex in Shimla, which was canceled due to irregularities - Level 9 BIZ Pvt. Ltd., not originally a party to the proceedings, challenged the High Court’s order that allowed the tender process to resume with the original bidder, M/s Vasu Constructions - The main issue is whether the High Court could permit the withdrawal of the cancellation order and allow the project to proceed with the original terms, despite the tend India Law Library Docid # 1604039
(751) BALLU @ BALRAM @ BALMUKUND AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-04-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 302 and 34 – Murder - The appeal challenges a High Court judgment which reversed the acquittal of the appellants by a trial court for charges under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the IPC, related to a murder case involving a love affair - The main issue is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and if the High Court was right in reversing the trial court’s acquittal - The appellants argue that the High Court erred in reversing the trial co India Law Library Docid # 1604040
(752) PURNI DEVI AND ANOTHER Vs. BABU RAM AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-04-2024 J&K Limitation Act - Article 182 - Suit for Possesion - The case originates from a 1984 suit for possession, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff in 1986 - After appeals, the decree became final in 2000 - An execution application was filed in 2000 and rejected in 2005, leading to the current appeal - The primary issue is whether the execution petition is time-barred, focusing on the applicability of Article 182 of the J&K Limitation Act and Section 48 of the CPC regarding the limitation India Law Library Docid # 1604041
(753) M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED Vs. A.S. RAGHAVENDRA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-04-2024 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(s) – “workman” - The respondent was appointed as Regional Business Head at Bharti Airtel Limited, with a dispute arising over his resignation being forceful - The main issue is whether the respondent falls within the definition of a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Bharti Airtel argued that the respondent held a managerial position and was not a "workman" as per the Act - The respondent claimed his duties were clerical, India Law Library Docid # 1604061
(754) THE GENERAL MANAGER, M/S BARSUA IRON ORE MINES Vs. THE VICE PRESIDENT UNITED MINES MAZDOOR UNION AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-04-2024 Service Law – Back Wages - The case involves a dispute over the date of birth of respondent no.3, an employee of Barsua Iron Ore Mines, which affected his retirement date - The main issue is whether the respondent no.3's date of birth should be considered as 27.12.1948 (initially declared) or 12.03.1955 (later claimed) - The appellant argued that the respondent cannot resile from the initially declared date of birth after 9 years, which would have made him underage for employment at the time - T India Law Library Docid # 1604062
(755) ARUN JAIN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 01-04-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 406 and 34 — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings — The High Court dismissed their application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C —Whether the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent should be quashed —The appellants argued that the complaint was filed after the divorce decree and relied on previous judgments to support their case —The respondent supported the High Court's decision, arguing there was no merit in the appeal —Supreme Court considered the t India Law Library Docid # 2418488
(756) SACHIN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 01-04-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 409 and 120B — Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1988 — Sections 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10 — The appellant was accused of offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act—He has been in custody for over one and a half years — The main issue was whether the appellant should be granted bail pending the final disposal of the case — The Supreme Court grant India Law Library Docid # 2417272
(757) USHA AND ANOTHER Vs. SHAHJAD BI @ SEJAD AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 01-04-2024 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 10 — The case involves two civil suits regarding the same property — Respondent No.6 filed a suit to declare a sale deed null and void, while the appellants filed a suit for eviction of tenants, including Respondent No.6 — Whether the second suit for eviction should be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC due to the pendency of the first suit — The appellants argued that the issues in both suits are distinct and that the second suit should not be stayed — India Law Library Docid # 2419476
(758) STATE OF KERALA Vs. UNION OF INDIA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 01-04-2024 Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2003 - Section 4 - Fiscal management principles - The State of Kerala filed a suit against the Union of India, challenging actions related to fiscal management, including an amendment to the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act and restrictions on borrowing - The suit raises substantial constitutional questions regarding the interpretation of Article 131 and the extent of a state’s right to borrow under Article 293 – State of Kerala arg India Law Library Docid # 1604036
(759) STATE OF HARYANA Vs. DR. RITU SINGH AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-03-2024 Briefly stated, the facts available on record are that a complaint was filed by the respondent no.2 with the police alleging certain offences committed by the respondent no.1, on the basis of which FIR[4] in question was registered. Respondent no.1 at the relevant point of time was working as veterinary doctor in Policlinic, Sonipat Animal Husbandry Department. Immediately, after registration of the FIR while the matter was still under investigation, the respondent no.1 filed a petition in the H India Law Library Docid # 1882481
(760) BLOOMBERG TELEVISION PRODUCTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-03-2024 On 01 March 2024, an ex-parte ad interim order was passed by the ADJ 05 of the South Saket Courts, New Delhi[1] directing the appellants (a media platform, one of its editors, and the concerned journalists) to take down an article dated 21 February 2024 published on their online platform within a week. The appellants were also restrained from posting, circulating or publishing the article in respect of the respondent-plaintiff on any online or offline platform till the next date of hearing. The India Law Library Docid # 1882482