1) Supreme Court: No Anticipatory Bail To Accused Against Whom Non-Bailable Warrant & Proclamation Under Section 82 CrPC Are Pending.
SRIKANT UPADHYAY VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2) Filing Of Anticipatory Bail Application Through Advocate Can't Be Considered As Appearance Of Absconding Accused
SRIKANT UPADHYAY VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR
3) S.143A NI Act | Interim Compensation In Cheque Dishonour Cases Isn't Mandatory
The Supreme Court on Friday (March 15) observed that mere filing of the cheque dishonor complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act would not grant a right to a complainant to seek interim compensation under Section 143A (1) of the N.I. Act, as the power of the court to grant interim compensation, isn't mandatory but discretionary and needs to be decided after prima facie evaluating the merits of the case.
4) NI Act | Director Not Responsible For Day-To-Day Affairs Of Company Can't Be Held Liable For Cheque Dishonour
SUSELA PADMAVATHY AMMA VS. M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED.
5) Pending Investigation Against Co-Accused Wouldn't Give Right To Default Bail To Accused, SC Clarified
The Supreme Court held that “the pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.”
DABLU KUJUR VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND.
5) Supreme Court Dismisses PIL To Declare Right To Vote As Fundamental Right.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) highlighted the necessity for a live controversy to be present before the court, emphasizing the need for a "live lis" (legal dispute) to warrant jurisdiction under Article 32..
DEVADIPTA DAS vs. UNION OF INDIA Diary No.- 3169 - 2024.
6) General Reference Won't Have Effect Of Incorporating Arbitration Clause In Another Contract, Specific Reference Needed.
The Supreme Court reiterated that a dispute cannot be referred to arbitration based on the arbitration clause contained in another contract unless a specific reference was made in the main contract to incorporate the arbitration clause into the main contract.
NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS ZILLION INFRA PROJECTS PVT.LTD.
7) Party Claiming Adverse Possession Must Know Who The Actual Owner Of Property Is
The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff cannot seek ownership over the property based on the claim of an adverse possession if he fails to prove (i) who was the actual owner of the property and (ii), an uninterrupted possession for more than 12 years was in the original owner's knowledge.
M. Radheshyamlal versus V Sandhya and Anr. Etc.
8) Court Has To Strike Balance Between Testimony Of Injured Witness & Interested Witness
The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the accused while observing that conviction cannot be sustained based on the testimony of the 'injured witness' who happens to be an 'interested witness' in the outcome of the case. The court observed that although the evidence of an injured witness is considered to be on a higher pedestal than that of a witness simpliciter yet the courts need to strike a balance between the testimony provided by the injured witness who happens to be also interested in the outcome of the case.
PERIYASAMY VERSUS THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
9) Anticipatory Bail Can't Be Denied On Mere Assertion Of State That Custodial Interrogation Of Accused Is Required
The Supreme Court observed the State cannot oppose the bail plea citing the requirement of custodial interrogation unless the State proves that why the custodial interrogation of the accused is required for investigation.
ASHOK KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH
No comments:
Post a Comment