ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(81) ANKIT MISHRA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Habitual Offender/Criminal Antecedents — Consideration of Nature of Current Offence — While the criminal antecedents and alleged status of an accused as a habitual offender are extremely relevant factors that ordinarily weigh against the grant of anticipatory bail, the High Court’s discretion in granting such bail may not warrant interference if (i) the High Court has demonstrably considered the criminal history, and (ii) the spec
India Law Library Docid # 2424795

(82) AJAY RAJ SHETTY Vs. DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 2(17) — ‘Principal Employer’ — Scope and Determination — The definition of ‘principal employer’ under Section 2(17) is wide and includes not only the owner or occupier of a factory (or head of department in government establishments) but also the managing agent or any person responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment — Designation is immaterial if the person functions as a managing agent or supervises/controls the establishment
India Law Library Docid # 2424796

(83) SHAHED KAMAL AND OTHERS Vs. M/S A. SURTI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 499, Exception 9 & Section 500 — Defamation — Imputation in Good Faith for Protection of Interests — Exception 9 to S. 499 IPC engrafts the principle of qualified privilege, stating it is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another, provided it is made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good — Good faith requires due care and attention but, unlike Exception 1, does not
India Law Library Docid # 2424797

(84) DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE Vs. RAJ KUMAR ARORA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8(c) and 2(xxiii), Schedule & NDPS Rules, 1985 — Sch. I, Rules 53, 64, 65, 66 — Offence relating to Psychotropic Substances listed in Act Schedule but not in Rules Schedule I — Dealing in (producing, manufacturing, possessing, selling, purchasing, transporting, warehousing, using, consuming, importing, exporting, or transhipping) any psychotropic substance listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act constitutes an offence under S. 8(c),
India Law Library Docid # 2424798

(85) D.B. RAVIKUMAR Vs. G.S. SURESH AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of First Information Report (FIR) — Scope of Interference — The inherent power vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, including an FIR, ought not to be exercised in a manner that prematurely scuttles a legitimate investigation, particularly when the FIR discloses the prima facie commission of cognizable offences.
India Law Library Docid # 2424846

(86) SHEELA DEVI AND ANOTHER Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 — Section 4A(3)(b) — Statutory Penalty — Liability (Employer vs. Insurer) — It is settled law that the statutory penalty imposed upon an employer under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Act for default in paying compensation without justification is the sole liability of the employer and is not required to be indemnified by the Insurance Company — The Insurer's liability is limited to indemnifying the employer for the principal compensation amount and interest thereon (un
India Law Library Docid # 2424927

(87) M/S SUNSHINE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS Vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED THROUGH THE BRANCH MANAGER AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) — Section 18(1), Second Proviso — Appeal to Appellate Tribunal — Pre-deposit Requirement — Scope of “any order” under Section 17 — The expression “any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal [under section 17]” in Section 18(1), which is subject to the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under the second proviso for an appeal by the borrower, requires meaningful interpretation — A
India Law Library Docid # 2425053

(88) WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC Vs. ANI MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Interim Relief — Injunction — Stay by Supreme Court — Broad and Vague Relief — Implementability — Where an interim injunction granted by the High Court (restraining publication of allegedly false, misleading, defamatory content) is found by the Supreme Court to be very broadly worded, lacking clarity on who will decide the nature of the content, and prima facie incapable of specific implementation, the Supreme Court may stay such an injunction pending further proceedings or final disposal.
India Law Library Docid # 2425054

(89) AYYUB ALI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 304 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 228 — Framing of Charge — Prima Facie Case — Murder vs. Culpable Homicide — At the stage of framing of charge, the Trial Court cannot conclusively determine whether a case falls under Section 302 IPC or Section 304 IPC merely based on the post-mortem report or the nature of the weapon used — If the materials placed before the Court, including the nature and number of injuries and surrounding circumstances, disclose a
India Law Library Docid # 2425104

(90) STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS Vs. COMBINED TRADERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-04-2025
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 — Section 13(1)(d), Section 13(3), Section 13(4) & Section 8(4) — Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 — Rule 12(1) — Central Sales Tax (Rajasthan) Rules, 1957 — Rule 17(20) — Rule-making power of State Government vs. Central Government — Validity of State rule providing for cancellation of Form C declaration — The power to prescribe the form of declaration (Form C) required under Section 8(4) of the CST Act, and the particulars to be contained th
India Law Library Docid # 2424727

(91) K. SHIKHA BARMAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-04-2025
Criminal Law — Identity of Accused — Burden of Proof — In a criminal prosecution, particularly under the NDPS Act, the fundamental burden lies upon the prosecution to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the identity of the person accused as the perpetrator of the offence — Where the appellant contends a case of mistaken identity, alleging she was not the person originally arrested but was implicated later, the prosecution must prove that the appellant in court is unequivocally the same individua
India Law Library Docid # 2424728

(92) SURESH C. SINGAL AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-04-2025
Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings (Section 482 CrPC / Article 226 Constitution) – Principles for Exercise of Power — The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, complemented by the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, to quash criminal proceedings (including FIR and chargesheet) should be exercised sparingly, with caution, and only to prevent abuse of the process of court or otherwise secure the ends of justice — The exercise of this power depends heavi
India Law Library Docid # 2424729

(93) IRWAN KOUR Vs. PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-04-2025
Service Law — Reservation — Ex-Servicemen — Applicable Rules — State vs. Central Rules — For recruitment to posts under the Punjab State Government advertised by the Punjab Public Service Commission, the eligibility for reservation under the “ex-servicemen” category must be determined solely based on the definition provided in the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 (Punjab Rules, 1982), framed under Article 309 of the Constitution — The Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil
India Law Library Docid # 2424730

(94) STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. NAGESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-04-2025
Evidence Act, 1872 — Appreciation of Evidence — Minor Discrepancies & Time Lag — Minor discrepancies, inconsistencies, or memory lapses in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, especially the complainant and shadow witness, are natural and likely to occur when witnesses depose after a considerable lapse of time (10 years in this case) from the date of the incident — Such minor variations, which do not go to the root of the matter or shake the basic version of the prosecution case regarding d
India Law Library Docid # 2424731

(95) S.C. GARG Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-04-2025
Criminal Procedure — Res Judicata in Criminal Proceedings — Applicability The principle of res judicata is applicable to criminal proceedings — A finding on a specific factual issue reached by a competent criminal court in a prior proceeding (rejection of a defence in a Section 138 NI Act case) is binding on the same parties in subsequent criminal proceedings where the same factual issue arises (Section 420 IPC prosecution based on the very defence rejected earlier) — A party cannot initiate a
India Law Library Docid # 2424732

(96) SATISH CHANDER SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-04-2025
Constitution of India — Article 32 — Maintainability — Challenge to Supreme Court Judgment — A writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable for the purpose of assailing the correctness or validity of a final judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, including judgments passed in appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 — Such judgments cannot be challenged directly or collaterally through fresh writ proceedings under Article 32.
India Law Library Docid # 2424733

(97) THE CORRESPONDENCE, RBANMS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION Vs. B. GUNASHEKAR & ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) — Rejection of Plaint — Scope and Duty of Court — The power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject a plaint is a mandatory duty of the court if the conditions are met — While deciding such an application, the court must consider only the averments in the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff — However, the court is not bound by clever drafting that creates an illusion of a cause of action — It must read the plaint meaningfull
India Law Library Docid # 2424734

(98) LAKHANI HOUSING CORPORATION PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASTHRA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-04-2025
Town Planning & Development — MHADA — Redevelopment on Private Land — DCPR 33(9) — The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) possesses the jurisdiction under Regulation 33(9) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 (DCPR) to initiate and undertake Cluster Development Schemes (CDS) even on privately owned freehold lands, provided such development is carried out jointly with the landowners and/or Cooperative Housing Societies of the occupants.
India Law Library Docid # 2424735

(99) R. BAIJU Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-04-2025
Criminal Law — Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120B IPC) — Proof — Inference from Circumstances — A charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC can be established primarily through inference drawn from the surrounding circumstances, acts, and conduct of the accused — Where evidence demonstrates a clear motive (arising from prior altercations involving the accused), the accused's presence with co-accused near the crime scene shortly before the offence, and the subsequent commission of the o
India Law Library Docid # 2424736

(100) RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SWATI SHARMA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-04-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Negligence — Appreciation of Evidence — Contradictory Evidence of Driver and IO — In determining negligence in a motor accident claim, the testimony of the driver of the offending vehicle (RW1), being inherently self-serving (“interested testimony”), carries little weight, especially when contradicted by other evidence or contains inconsistencies (denying collision admitted by IO) — Similarly, the deposition of the Investigating Officer (RW3) suggesting contributory ne
India Law Library Docid # 2424737