Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Supreme Court observed that the prosecutrix had betrayed her husband and three children by having relationship with the accused during the subsistence of her marriage and had continued to live with the accused even after finding out that he was a married man having children.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction order passed by Chhattisgarh High Court, and further held that a lapse of time in death would not per se constitute a determinative factor as to diminish the offender’s liability from the offence of murder to that of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder.
It was observed that judicial discipline required that once the conviction was confirmed by the Supreme Court that too after hearing the accused, the High Court should not have thereafter made any comment on the merits of the case.
Supreme Court held that the charge that the convicts had committed murder was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; hence, they were and are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Thus, it set aside the Trial Court and Allahabad High Court's judgment and order and acquitted the convicts.
The petitioner alleged that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal had relied upon the decision of Vidarbha Industries, which even though was clarified in review petition of Axis Bank but was still contrary to the settled position in law laid down in Innoventive Industries. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General contended that the principle enunciated in Vidarbha Industries would be liable to dilute the substratum of the Code.
“Union Territory”, if “State” under Art. 131: The subject-matter of this article’s discussion is: does a “Union Territory” fall under word “State”
Upholding the Karnataka High Court order, the Supreme Court held that the Karnataka High Court has not committed any error in permitting the respondents to file affidavits/additional evidence in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. However, permitted the appellant to cross-examine and/or produce contrary evidence.
by Siddharth R. Gupta† and Sangam Ghorpade††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 7
The Supreme Court had reservation to express its opinion on the merits of the case which would otherwise affect the proceedings pending before NCLAT and stated that the findings of the CCI at the interlocutory stage was neither without jurisdiction nor suffered from any error which would necessitate interference in the appeal.
Supreme Court grants interim bail to Ashish Mishra, son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra in an unfortunate and grave incident at Lakhimpur Kheri which led to the loss of eight lives, consisting of four protesting farmers, one journalist and three others
5-Judge Constitution Bench of SC was hearing application to modify guidelines prescribed in 2018 Euthanasia Judgment and viewed that the guidelines need modifications. Thus, simplified the process for passive euthanasia. A detailed order with specific directions is awaited.
The Supreme Court held that the J&K High Court transgressed its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by directing the cinema hall owners not to prohibit movie goers from carrying eatables and beverages from outside within the precincts of a cinema hall and by directing the State to enforce this direction to the cinema hall owners.
Observing that performance of functions identical to those performed by medical practitioners by persons who do not possess the qualifications prescribed under the Central Act, could have dangerous consequences, the Supreme Court held that Rural Health Practitioners enlisted under the Assam Act, are underqualified to perform functions similar to those performed by medical practitioners registered in accordance with the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The Court, however, upheld the constitutionality of the Assam Community Professional (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015 that was enacted to give continuity in service to the practitioners in question.
“We are shocked and amazed at the manner in which the State of Rajasthan has permitted its heritage to be destroyed and continues to permit it to be destroyed while claiming its rights under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956!” exclaimed the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court stated that the Allahabad High Court erred in granting bail to the respondent, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, the relationship between the parties and the prima facie evidence on record with reference to common intention as well as antecedents of the respondent.
Supreme Court has ordered that the Rajasthan High Court's impugned order being interlocutory in nature, shall not be treated as precedent for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner in other cases, and the question of law was kept open to be decided in an appropriate case.
by K. Vaitheeswaran*
The Supreme Court observed that the defendants, being in possession, would be entitled to protect and save their possession, unless the person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in the form of ownership or entitlement to possession.