Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar
Penal Code, 1860 – the observations made by the High Court while granting the anticipatory bail to accused that the nature of accusation is arising… Read More »Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar
Home »
Supreme Court of India
Kavitha Lankesh v. State of Karnataka
Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 (Karnataka) – Ss 3 and 24 (1)(a) – Cognizance of and investigation into an offence – At the stage of granting prior approval under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2000 Act, the competent authority is not required to wade through the material placed by the Investigating Agency before him along with the proposal for grant of prior approval to ascertain the specific role of each accused.
State of Gujarat v. Narayan @ Narayan Sai @ Mota Bhagwan Asaram @ Asumal Harpalani
Furlough and Parole Rules (Bombay) – Rules 3 and 4 – When Prisoner may be granted furlough – When prisoners shall not be granted furlough – Denial of furlough on grounds of disturbance to public peace and tranquillity.
Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai v. State of Maharashtra
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Section 10 – there is no embargo on the State Investigating Agency to investigate a scheduled offence, which would include offences under the UAPA.
Gimpex Pvt. Ltd. v. Manoj Goel
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 – Section 139 raises the presumption “unless the contrary is proved”. Once the complainant discharges the burden of proving that the instrument was executed by the accused; the presumption under Section 139 shifts the burden on the accused. The expression “unless the contrary is proved” would demonstrate that it is only for the accused at the trial to adduce evidence of such facts or circumstances on the basis of which the burden would stand discharged. These are matters of evidence and trial.
Milkhi Ram v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25B and 25F – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Whether the suit before the civil court at the instance of the terminated employee, was maintainable ? Held, the civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit structured on the provisions of the ID Act. The decree favouring the plaintiff is a legal nullity.
Union of India v. N. Murugesan
Contract Act, 1872 – Principle governing Delay, Laches, and Acquiescence – Concept of Approbate and Reprobate – Doctrine of Fairness – Explained.
V. Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K.
Will – A mere exclusion of either brother or sister per se would not create a suspicion unless it is surrounded by other circumstances creating an inference. In a case where a testatrix is accompanied by the sister of the beneficiary of the Will and the said document is attested by the brother, there is no room for any suspicion when both of them have not raised any issue.
Union of India v. Methu Meda
Service Law – The law with regard to the effect and consequence of the acquittal, concealment of criminal case on appointments – Explained.
Dipali Biswas v. Nirmalendu Mukherjee
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order XXI – Execution – Provisions available to a judgment-debtor to stall execution – the case on hand is fit to be included in the syllabus of a law school as a study material for students to get equipped with the various provisions of the Code relating to execution.