2024 INSC January

Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 20 – S 372 CrPC – Appeal Against Conviction

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 372, 386 – The appellate court should be slow in interfering with the conviction recorded by the courts below but where the evidence on record indicates the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that a plausible view, different from the one …

Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 20 – S 372 CrPC – Appeal Against Conviction Read More »

Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab 2024 INSC 19 – Criminal Trial – Ss 161, 313 CrPC – Illiterate Witness – Circumstantial Evidence

Criminal Trial – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 161 – If the PWs had failed to mention in their statements u/s 161 CrPC about the involvement of an accused, their subsequent statement before court during trial regarding involvement of that particular accused cannot be relied upon. Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact …

Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab 2024 INSC 19 – Criminal Trial – Ss 161, 313 CrPC – Illiterate Witness – Circumstantial Evidence Read More »

Sarfaraz Alam vs Union of India 2024 INSC 18 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 267- Article 22(5) Constitution – Detention

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 22(5) – Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India can broadly be divided into two parts – The first part involves the bounden duty of the authorities in serving the grounds of detention containing such grounds which weighed in the mind of the detaining authority in passing the detention …

Sarfaraz Alam vs Union of India 2024 INSC 18 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 267- Article 22(5) Constitution – Detention Read More »

S V Samudram vs State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 17 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 281 – S 34 Arbitration Act

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ; Section 34 – Any court under Section 34 would have no jurisdiction to modify the arbitral award – The court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators. It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired- Referred to Larsen Air …

S V Samudram vs State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 17 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 281 – S 34 Arbitration Act Read More »

Satish P Bhatt vs State of Maharashtra 2024 INSC 16 – S 138 NI Act – Violationg Of Undertaking

Bombay HC cancelled the order of suspension of sentence and bail granted to the appellant – accused – also the intervenor (petitioner before the High Court) as they violated the undertaking given before the High Court and further violated the condition contained in the order granting extension of time to comply- Supreme Court dismissed appeal …

Satish P Bhatt vs State of Maharashtra 2024 INSC 16 – S 138 NI Act – Violationg Of Undertaking Read More »

Bharti Airtel Limited vs Vijaykumar V Iyer 2024 INSC 15 – S 25(2)(a) IBC – Set Off In CIRP

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ; Section 25(2)(a)– Rght to claim set-off in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, when the Resolution Professional proceeds in terms of Section 25(2)(a) to take custody and control of all the assets of the corporate debtor.Provisions of statutory set-off in terms of Order VIII Rule 6 of CPC or insolvency …

Bharti Airtel Limited vs Vijaykumar V Iyer 2024 INSC 15 – S 25(2)(a) IBC – Set Off In CIRP Read More »

Perumal Raja @ Perumal vs State 2024 INSC 13 – Ss 27 & 106 Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 25-27 – As soon as an accused or suspected person comes into the hands of a police officer, he is no longer at liberty and is under a check, and is, therefore, in “custody” within the meaning of Sections 25 to 27 of the Evidence Act. It is for this …

Perumal Raja @ Perumal vs State 2024 INSC 13 – Ss 27 & 106 Evidence Act Read More »

Rejendhiran vs Muthaiammal @ Muthayee 2024 INSC 12 – Civil Suit

High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed the Second Appeal filed by the plaintiff and the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the Sub-Judge dismissing the suit of the plaintiff were set aside and the suit was decreed – Allowing appeal, Supreme Court held: the impugned judgment cannot be sustained as it not only …

Rejendhiran vs Muthaiammal @ Muthayee 2024 INSC 12 – Civil Suit Read More »

State of NCT of Delhi vs Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely 2024 INSC 11 – S 43D(2)(b) UAPA

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ; Section 43 D(2)(b) – The extension for investigation could be granted up to a maximum period of 180 days for the following reasons: Completion of the investigation; Progress in the investigation was explained; and Specific reasons for detention beyond a period of 90 days – In this case, the …

State of NCT of Delhi vs Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely 2024 INSC 11 – S 43D(2)(b) UAPA Read More »