Constitution of India — Art. 21 and Pt. III — Bail — Power of constitutional courts to grant — Scope of: Restrictive bail provision in special statute like S. 43-D(5) UAPA, held, does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Pt. III of the Constitution, [Sk. Javed Iqbal v. State of U.P., (2024) 8 SCC 293]
Education Law — Employment and Service Matters re Educational Institutions — Appointment/Recruitment — Eligibility conditions/criteria — Issue of equivalence — Judicial review — Scope: Judicial review can neither expand ambit of prescribed qualifications nor decide equivalence of prescribed qualifications with other qualification. Equivalence of qualification, is matter for State, as recruiting authority to determine, [Shifana P.S. v. State of Kerala, (2024) 8 SCC 309]
Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (1 of 2005) — S. 2(18) — “Purchase price” — Scope of: It is not only exclusive but exhaustive as well. It can rather be said to be enumerative and exhaustive. Use of the word “means” denotes the intention of the legislature to restrict the scope of the “purchase price” to the categories enumerated in the definition itself, [State of Gujarat v. Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2024) 8 SCC 284]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — S. 168 — Fatal accident: Enhancement of compensation, when warranted, explained, [Rojalini Nayak v. Ajit Sahoo, (2024) 8 SCC 239]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 353 r/w Ss. 186, 349, 350 and 351 — Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty: Ingredients of assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, explained. S. 353 contrasted with S. 186. Law clarified on effect of non-framing of charge under S. 186, [Mahendra Kumar Sonker v. State of M.P., (2024) 8 SCC 244]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 376(2)(n) r/w Ss. 90, 375 Expln. 2 proviso and 506 — Discharge — Consensual relationship between the appellant and prosecutrix — Whether established: Principles re-clarified re matters to be considered under S. 375 Expln. 2 and S. 90 and to determine whether consent was vitiated by misconception of fact arising out of false promise to marry, [Shiv Pratap Singh Rana v. State of M.P., (2024) 8 SCC 313]
Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 — S. 22(1) — Suit for recovery against a sick industrial company — Maintainability: Law summarised on maintainability of suit for recovery against a sick industrial company, when debt sought to be proved in plaint not admitted by the sick industrial company and conditions for suspension of proceedings, [Fertilizer Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Coromandal Sacks (P) Ltd., (2024) 8 SCC 172]
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — S. 43-B(1) — Phrase “inform him of the grounds for such arrest” in S. 43-B(1) UAPA and S. 19(1) PMLA — Interpretation of: Interpretation given to the said phrase in S. 19(1) PMLA in Pankaj Bansal, (2024) 7 SCC 576, held, is to be applied to accused arrested under UAPA i.e. the accused must be supplied the grounds of arrest in writing in every case, without exception, at the earliest. Held, there is no significant difference in the language employed in S. 19(1) PMLA and S. 43-B(1) UAPA to take a view that the abovesaid interpretation of the phrase “inform him of the grounds for such arrest” in S. 19(1) PMLA, should not be applied to an accused arrested under UAPA, [Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254]
