Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The immunity granted by the moratorium order issued under Section 14 of the IBC can only be obtained by a corporate debtor and not by a natural person such as the present accused, who was the Director of the corporate debtor.
The Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision entitling appellants to be considered as part of the “initial constitution” of Sports Authority of India (SAI) as laid down in the 2022 Rules.
“Equitable considerations do apply when the Court considers the prayer for maintenance under Section 25. The reason is that Section 25 lays down that while considering the prayer for granting relief under Section 25, the conduct of the parties must be considered.”
“It is the duty of the Court to reach the truth of the matter and such exercise may demand putting forward certain questions and suggestions which may be uncomfortable to some.”
Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision quashing the private complaint and concluding that the alleged offences under Sections 193, 199 and 200 of the IPC were such, on which the complaint could have only been filed by the Court following the route under Section 195 read with Section 340 of the CrPC.
“Article 21 of the Constitution does not end with the pronouncement of the sentence but extends to the execution stage of that sentence. An inordinate delay in the execution of the sentence of death has a dehumanising effect on the accused. An inordinate delay caused by circumstances beyond the prisoners’ control mandates the commutation of a death sentence.”
For such a legal misadventure resulting in the wastage of precious judicial time of the High Court, which could have been better spent answering the call of justice raised by the teeming millions, the Court imposed costs of Rs.1,20,000/- on the appellant.
Expressing its displeasure saying “Patience may be a virtue — but ours is nearing its end”, the Court listed the matter as priority for 19-11-2024.
The Supreme Court overturned the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, wherein his bail application was dismissed.
‘No reason to interfere with the well-considered findings.’ The High Court’s and Trial Court’s decision for convicting the man for offence under Section 376 of IPC was upheld.
In this case, the President of Jai Shriram Urban Credit Co-operative Society systematically siphoned off approximately Rs. 79 crores, with the aid of other office-bearers and the co-accused.
The victim was allegedly gangraped by Narain and other co-accused persons when she approached them for a job.
Supreme Court noted that this is not a case of pre-planned murder as the incident started with a fight between children for “mangoes” which unfortunately flared up when the adults of the families also got involved which ultimately led to the deceased, the father of one of the children, being killed.
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah is the sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India. He was elevated to the Supreme Court in February 2023. He has formerly served as a Judge in Patna High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court.
By the interim order, the Supreme Court had restrained the NCDRC from taking any coercive steps against Ireo Grace Realtech
“The caste or religion of parties should not be mentioned in the memo of parties of a petition/proceeding filed before the Court, irrespective of whether any such details have been furnished before the Courts below.”
The Court modified the sentence imposed and found the convicts guilty under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC.
“The huge and unexplained delay of over 60 years in initiating dispute with regard to the ownership of the land, and the criminal case being lodged only after failure to obtain relief in the civil suits, coupled with denial of relief, reeked of malafide on the part of the complainant.”
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah is the sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India. He was elevated to the Supreme Court in February 2023. He has formerly served as a Judge in Patna High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court.
“Without the ration card a migrant/unorganized labourer or his family members may be deprived of the benefit of the schemes and may be the benefit under the National Food Security Act”, the Supreme Court observed.