SupremeCourtOnline.in – LATEST Updates through eMail

Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27 – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 – Murder – Benefit of doubt – Conviction based on sole unreliable eyewitness testimony – Essential corroboration lacking – Recovery of weapons highly suspect – No bloodstains on weapons, weapons not shown to doctor, seizure witnesses turned hostile, recovered items not produced in court – Clothes of accused not seized for forensic analysis – Glaring inconsistencies in prosecution evidence – Failure to link accused to homicidal death by credible evidence – Prosecution unable to discharge burden – Appellants entitled to acquittal – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment quashed – Appeals allowed – Bail bonds discharged.

Calculate the Limitation Period

PRINT 2025 PLRonline 408867 = (2025-2)217 PLR 797 (SC) (SN) Download: 2025 PLRonline 408867 = (2025-2)217 PLR 797 (SC) (SN) . SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Present: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra ANNAMALAI – Appellant Versus VASANTHI AND OTHERS – Respondents C.A. No. 013076 – 013077 / 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.… Read more: “Vendors Cannot Escape Contract After Accepting Additional Payment Post-Deadline”

Karnataka HC rejects plaint for specific performance of MOU to execute JDA, holding agreement without consideration and privity of contract unenforceable under law.

(2025-2)217 PLR 770 (Del.) (SN) = 2025 PLRonline 482867 HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Present: Justice Jasmeet Singh MECWEL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. – Appellant/Petitioner(s) Versus GE POWER SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. – Respondent(s) O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 38/2025, 39/2025, 40/2025 (i) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 14, 15, 25(a) and 32 –… Read more: Termination of Arbitral Proceedings for Non-Filing of Statement of Claims — Not an Arbitral Award under Section 25(a)

(2025-2)217 PLR 737 (SC)(SN) = 2025 PLRonline 006 = ID 416860 2025-PLRonline-0061-1Download SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Present: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. JUPALLY LAKSHMIKANTHA REDDY – Appellant/Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. – Respondent(s) Criminal Appeal No. 3951 of 2025 (i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 420 – Cheating –… Read more: Supreme Court: Deception Alone Insufficient for Cheating Without Dishonest Inducement Prosecution Must Prove Accused Made Forged Document and Had Requisite Mens Rea. ID 416860

PRINT 1989 PLRONLINE 003 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Before: Justice N.C. Jain, J. BISHAMBER – Appellant Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS – Respondents Regular First Appeal No. 146 of 1980  (i) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Sections 30, 31(2) – Acquisition of land in occupation of occupancy tenants – Entitlement to… Read more: Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 30, 31(2) & Punjab Tenancy Act, Section 5(2) – Occupancy tenants entitled to compensation – Payment wrongly made to landowners despite protest and without notice to tenants – Apportionment petition/reference by occupancy tenants maintainable – Jamabandi entries prove occupancy rights if unrebutted.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation dispute among claimants – Civil Court jurisdiction not barred – Award by Collector not final among interested persons – Claimant can file separate civil suit for resolution of dispute

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 164 read with Section 166(3) –  Limitation – Time-barred – Dismissal – Set aside  – Prior to the amendment clause of the Motor Vehicles Act Section 163A was in vouge for filing the claim petition on the basis of no fault liability prescribed in the structure formula – Section 164 is pari materia to the aforementioned provision – The Act opens with the non obstante clause and therefore the provisions of sub section 3 of Section 166 would not have come into the way of the petitioners for the purpose of prosecuting the claim application

2022 PLRonline 0609 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Charat Singh ….. Appellant Versus Rajveer Kaur and others ….. Respondents CM No.5646-CII of 2020 in/and FAO No.2064 of 2012 (O&M) 08.09.2022 Insurance – Proposal form  –  It has been clearly stated in the form that risk will commence on the date and time of acceptance… Read more: Insurance – Proposal form  –  It has been clearly stated in the form that risk will commence on the date and time of acceptance of risk and/or issue of cover note/policy – It is not a policy of the insurance, nor the offending vehicle can be said to have been insured on the basis of this proposal. 2022 PLRonline 0609

Dispute arose regarding priority of charge between EPFO and secured creditors (Axis Bank, State Bank of India, State Bank of Travancore). Appellant contended that Axis Bank had realised ₹12 crores by sale of Attibele property while it had realised only ₹7 crores from other properties and already deposited ₹75 lakhs; balance, if any, should be… Read more: Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Section 11(2) — SARFAESI Act, 2002, Section 35 — Priority of claims — EPFO versus secured creditors

Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, Section 22-C (I) – Jurisdiction  – Claim raised for a sum Rs.17 lacs whereas the Permanent Lok Adalat under second proviso of Section 22-C (I) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, did not have jurisdiction in the matters where value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees… Read more: Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, Section 22-C (I) – Jurisdiction  – Claim raised for a sum Rs.17 lacs whereas the Permanent Lok Adalat under second proviso of Section 22-C (I) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, did not have jurisdiction in the matters where value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees  –  Relief granted for Rs. 4.17 lacs – Relief has not been granted beyond the jurisdiction vested in the Permanent Lok Adalat – Order upheld.

(i) Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium En-terprises – Notification dated 29.05.2015 – Obligation to identify “incipient stress” in loan account – Not solely on lending banks Notification detailing FRAMEWORK, more particularly paragraph 1 and its sub-paragraphs, have to be read together to make its terms effective and meaningful – Although in sequence of FRAMEWORK “Identification by Banks or Creditors” comes first, it is immediately followed by “Identification by the Enterprise” – In terms of sub-paragraph 2, any MSME may choose to voluntari-ly initiate proceedings under FRAMEWORK if it “reasonably apprehends failure of its business or its inability or likely inability to pay debts and before accumu-lated losses of enterprise equals to half or more of its entire net worth” – For initiation of proceedings under FRAMEWORK, application has to be verified by affidavit of authorised person. [Para 5] (ii) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforce-ment of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Section 13(2), 13(3-A) – MSME Frame-work – Terms of FRAMEWORK do not prohibit lending bank/secured credi-tor (assuming it has no conscious knowledge that defaulting borrower is MSME) to classify account of defaulting MSME as NPA and to even issue demand notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act without identification of incipient stress in account – However, upon receipt of demand notice, if such borrower in its response under Section 13(3-A) of SARFAESI Act as-serts that it is MSME and claims benefit of FRAMEWORK citing reasons supported by affidavit, lending bank/secured creditor would then be manda-torily bound to look into such claim keeping further action under SARFAESI Act in abeyance. [Para 6] (iii) MSME Framework – Interpretation – Cannot render obligation of lending banks absolute while making MSME’s obligation redundant If accepted that every lending bank/secured creditor under SARFAESI Act would be obliged to find out in every event of continuing default whether bor-rower is MSME to which FRAMEWORK applies, this could not have been in-tention behind introduction of FRAMEWORK – If indeed it is only obligation of lending bank/secured creditor to identify incipient stress in account, sub-paragraphs 2 and 3 of paragraph 1 would be rendered redundant – Terms of FRAMEWORK to be read and interpreted harmoniously to ensure that right under MSME Act is not destroyed by SARFAESI Act or vice versa. [Para 6] (iv) MSME Framework – Obligation of MSMEs – Vigilance required – Cannot claim benefit at belated stage It would be equally incumbent on part of MSMEs concerned to be vigilant enough to follow process laid down under said Framework, and bring to notice of Banks concerned, by producing authenticated and verifiable docu-ments/material to show its eligibility to get benefit of said Framework – If such Enterprise allows entire process for enforcement of security interest under SARFAESI Act to be over, or it having challenged such action of bank/creditor concerned in court of law/tribunal and having failed, such Enterprise could not be permitted to misuse process of law for thwarting actions taken under SARFAESI Act by raising plea of being MSME at belated stage – Following Pro Knits v. Canara Bank, (2024) 10 SCC 292. [Para 8] (v) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Writ petition by MSME – Claim of Framework benefit at stage of Section 14 SARFAESI proceedings – Bona fides suspect Petitioning enterprise does not seem to have ever claimed benefit of terms of FRAMEWORK after demand notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was issued – It is at stage of compliance with order passed by relevant Magis-trate under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act that writ petition has been presented before Court claiming benefits of FRAMEWORK – Bona fides of petitioning enterprise found to be suspect – No case for interference under Article 32 of Constitution has been set up. [Para 7, 9]

M/s Vijay Rice and General Mills Ltd. & Anr. v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd. & Ors.FAO-CARB-22-2025 (O&M), Decided on: 08.07.2025Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rohit Kapoor Scope of Interference under Section 34 of Arbitration Act– Court reiterated that interference is limited to grounds under Section 34, including patent… Read more: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1998 – S. 34 – Scope of Interference – Milling of Paddy – Public Policy .

(2025-1)216 PLR 815 (SN) = PLRonline ID#425858 Punjab and Haryana High Court Before: Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul. PARVINDER JEET SINGH – Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent(s) CRA-S-1555-SB of 2018 Alongwith CRA-S-1412-SB-2018 (i) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(d)(ii) — Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B — Criminal… Read more: Criminal Conspiracy under Prevention of Corruption Act – Prosecution must prove meeting of minds by cogent evidence, not mere inference from disconnected circumstances – Presumption under Section 20 requires proof of demand and acceptance – Mere association or presence at crime scene insufficient to establish conspiracy – Burden cannot be shifted to accused without prima facie case. [PLRonline ID#425858]

Suit – Fraud  – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff’s Duty to Prove Case – Where fraud is pleaded in a civil suit, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and not merely by allegations –  The plaintiff must prove their own case by leading cogent evidence – Weakness in the defendant’s case does not come to the aid of the plaintiff – Mere allegation of fraud without sufficient evidence to even prima facie prove the contention will not suffice.Union of India v. M/s Chaturbhai M. Patel & Co. AIR 1976 SC 712 – followed

1965-PLRonline-0001-PH-ID712800Download 1965 PLRonline 0001 PH ID#712800 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Before:- Justice Harbans Singh. Smt. NAND KAUR – Appellant Versus MASTAN SINGH and others – Respondents R.S.A. No. 1334 of 1963. 6.10.1965. 1. Power of Attorney – Construction, Interpretation and Limitation of Authority Power of attorney must be strictly construed and confer only authority… Read more: Powers of attorney must be strictly construed with general powers limited to the primary purpose for which they were granted, such as litigation or management – When executed by pardanashin or illiterate ladies, mere reading of the document is insufficient – full understanding of its import must be demonstrated – Agents holding power of attorney occupy a fiduciary position and must act in good faith, with transactions benefiting the agent’s own family requiring strong proof of bona fides.[PLRonline ID#712800]

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Section 22D – Liberal Procedure and Power of Review – Section 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act enacts a procedure which is more liberal than the Code of Civil Procedure. The provision that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be guided by principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity and other principles of justice, and shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, includes within its liberal construction the power to review as well.

A notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must specifically demand the cheque amount; a vague or omnibus demand invalidates the complaint. The provision being penal requires strict compliance, including service of a valid notice. While Section 138 does not mandate giving 15 days’ notice, the drawer must pay within 15 days of receiving it. The High Court rightly quashed proceedings under Section 482 CrPC due to failure to meet statutory notice requirements, making the complaint legally unsustainable. 2007 PLRonline 0106 (SC)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), Order XXIII Rule 3A – Bar against challenging compromise decree – Applicability restricted to parties to suit – The bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A prohibiting a suit to set aside a compromise decree applies only to parties who were part of the original suit and compromise, not to strangers to the proceedings –  A person who was not a party to the compromise which affects their rights has no other alternative but to question the compromise by filing a separate suit or seeking a declaration that the same is not binding.

Cr.P.C. , 1973 – S. 125 – The court as the interpreter of law is supposed to supply omissions, correct uncertainties, and harmonise results with justice through a method of free decision — libre recherché scientifique i.e. “free scientific research”. We are of the opinion that there is a non-rebuttable presumption that the legislature while… Read more: CrPC s. 125 – Non-rebuttable presumption that legislature had always intended to give relief to the woman becoming “wife”

Probation – Obligatory to grant probation to eligible first-time offenders, except in cases involving death penalty or life imprisonment .

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Deceased – 16-year-old girl studying in 11th standard – Notional income Rs.15,000 per month, applying a 40% enhancement for future prospects, and deductions for personal expenses at 50% bieng unmarried –  Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate  – Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses  – Rs.48,000/- each (Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium –  Total compensation  Rs.24,00,000, with 7.5% annual interest from the filing date until realisation.

Second Bail Application – There is no legal bar to filing a new bail application after a previous one has been rejected or granted and later cancelled. The right to file a fresh bail application is not contingent upon the Supreme Court’s permission, when the first Bail was allowed by the HC and set aside by the SC and had not allowed the filing of a new bail petition. 2025 PLRonline 474853 (SC)

Misstatement by itself is not material for repudiation of the policy unless the same is material in nature. But, a deliberate wrong answer which has a great bearing on the contract of insurance, if discovered may lead to the policy being vitiated in law. The purpose for taking a policy of insurance is not very material. It may serve the purpose of social security but then the same should not be obtained with a fraudulent act by the insured. Proposal can be repudiated if a fraudulent act is discovered.

PRINT CROWN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. Versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., III(2011) CPJ 439 (NC), as under:- 19. A contract of insurance is based on the doctrine of uberrima fides, i.e., utmost good faith, in the conduct of the insured. This doctrine was enunciated as far back as in 1766 by Lord Mansfield in the celebrated… Read more: Insurance – Material fact – Uberrima fides

PRINT 2024 PLRonline 448777 = (2024-3)215 PLR 737 (SN) PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Before: Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj. DIVYANSHU MEHTA – Petitioner, Versus STATE OF PUNJAB and another – Respondents. CWP-24409-2024 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 156(3), 200 – Upon a Magistrate taking cognizance of a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure… Read more: CrPC S. 156(3), 200 – Upon a Magistrate taking cognizance of a complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC 1973, the Court is precluded from directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC. [ID 448777]

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – S.13(1)(ia), S.26 –  Child – Visitation – Interest of the minor child is paramount – In the process of adjudicating upon the rights of the parents, the health of a child aged 2 years cannot be compromised –  While the respondent has the right to visit the child, it cannot be at the cost of the child’s health and wellbeing –  Keeping in mind the best interest of the child and the interests of the parents, we agree with the High Court to the extent of granting certain visitation rights to the respondent, but the directions and set up to enable the same appear to be adversarial to the child and require to be modified.

2024 PLRonline 017 (NCLAT) [ID 428700] IBC S. 7, 10A  – Under IBC Sections 7 and 10A, while no application can be filed for defaults occurring during the 10A period, the default dated 31.03.2021, cited in the Section 7 application, exceeded the threshold amount of ₹1 crore, justifying initiation of CIRP. Moreover, the borrower’s default… Read more: IBC S. 7, 10A  – Under IBC Sections 7 and 10A – No application can be filed for defaults occurring during the 10A period. [2024 PLRonline 017 (NCLAT), [ID 428700] ]

PRINT IBC Section 7, – Default  – NPA  – Ordinarily, upon declaration of the loan account/ debt as NPA that date can be reckoned as the date of default to enable the Financial Creditor to initiate action under Section 7 of the Code. Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India & Anr.- (2021) 8… Read more: IBC Section 7, consciously uses the expression “default” – not the date of notifying the loan account of the corporate person as NPA.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 6 Rule 17 – Every amendment in the prayer clause does not amount to alteration in the nature of the suit

(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 – Abetment to suicide – Instigation – Mens rea –  A person, who abets the doing of a thing, is a person who instigates any person to do that thing – Therefore, ‘instigation’ to do a particular thing is necessary for charging a person with abetment –  ‘Instigation’ is to provoke, incite or encourage a person to do an act – Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a particular thing and without the positive act on part of the accused there would be no instigation –  That to convict a person for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea on the part of the accused to abet such a crime and it requires an active act or a direct act leading to the commission of suicide.                                                                                 [Para 21, 22, 23](ii)  Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Abetment to suicide – Acquittal – Domestic discord  – Even in cases where the victim commits suicide, which may be as a result of cruelty meted out to her, the Courts have always held that discord and differences in domestic life are quite common in society and that the commission of such an offence largely depends upon the mental state of the victim –  Until and unless some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict him for an offence under Section 306 IPC.                                                                  [Para 25](iii)  Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Abetment to suicide –  Refusal to marry – Mens rea – Acquittal – Accused on asking of the deceased had simply refused to marry her which is not a positive act on his part with any intention to abet the crime of suicide – Even assuming there was love between the parties, it is only a case of broken relationship which by itself would not amount to abetment to suicide – The accused-appellant had not provoked the deceased in any manner to kill herself –  Simply because the accused-appellant refused to marry her, would not be a case of instigating, inciting or provoking the deceased to commit suicide – Even assuming, though there is no evidence that the accused-appellant promised to marry the deceased, that there was such a promise, it is again a simple case of a broken relationship for which there is a different cause of action, but not prosecution or conviction for an offence under Section 306.   [Para 29-31]

PRINT Reference   can   be   made  to  the   observation  made  by  Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku 2005(4) SCC 480, wherein it has been held as under:- “All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that… Read more: All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice.

CPC O. 39 R. 1 and 2 – Injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the respondent’s possession upheld. Petitioner’s claim of purchasing a share from a co-sharer rejected due to lack of evidence of possession by the co-sharer or the petitioner. Undivided shares can be sold but possession requires partition by metes and bounds. Injunction properly granted; petition dismissed. [ID 213901]

PRINT 2010 PLRonline 0103 PH . PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Bhupinder Singh & others………. Appellants Versus Roop Singh & another…… Respondents . RSA No. 640 of 2007 (O&M) 29.1.2009 . Suit for permanent injunction – Co-sharer – If for the sake of arguments defendant/ appellants are taken to be co-sharer… Read more: Suit for permanent injunction – Co-sharer  – A co-sharer cannot claim exclusive possession without a formal partition by metes and bounds. The vendee’s right to possession arises only after partition, ensuring fair division among all co-owners. 2010 PLRonline 0103 PH

In an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily this Court will not engage itself in reappreciation of the evidence as such but can certainly examine the evidence on record to consider the challenge to the findings recorded by Tribunal or the High Court, being perverse or replete with error apparent on… Read more: COI Art. 136 – Appeal – Evidence – Reappreciation of .

PRINT 2024 PLRonline 15 =  (2024-3)215 PLR 129 (SN) = [ID#430771] Punjab and Haryana High Court Before: Aman Chaudhary, J. Rashid Hussain Thoker – Petitioner Versus State of Punjab – Respondent CRM-M-42847 of 2024 04.10.2024 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 29, 37 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section… Read more: NDPS S. 15, 29, 37 – CrPC S. 439 – Commercial quantity – Regular bail – Petitioner is in custody for last 1 year and 10 days; out of a total of 18 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined – Further incarceration would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. [ID#430771]

Apex Court laid down that Article 15(4) of the Constitution is not an exception but only makes a special application of the principle of reasonable classification. Article 15(4) does not make any mandatory provision for reservation and the power to make reservation under Article 15(4) is discretionary and no writ can be issued to effect reservation. The contention raised in the said case was that the Government of India itself had made a provision for reservation for SC/ST candidates even in all-India entrance examination for the postgraduate courses, the State of Haryana is bound to follow the same and issue appropriate orders/directions providing reservation in the postgraduate courses and the prospectus dehors any provision for reservation was bad and liable to be quashed. Rejecting the contention it was held that the same cannot automatically be applied in other selections where the State Governments have power to regulate.

The Ombudsman’s conclusion that the insurer’s willingness to cover overseas medical expenses implies liability for subsequent treatment in India was found to be flawed. The court held that merely agreeing to cover overseas expenses does not automatically extend liability for treatment in India, especially when the treatment was for a different condition. The findings were in disregard of the specific terms of the insurance contract

BNSS, 2023 Section 483 – Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into the contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial – Nothing tangible to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence – As per custody certificate, petitioner, who is a young man aged 22 years, has already suffered incarceration for about 01 year 10 months and 15 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case – Bail granted – IPC, Sections 354- B, 376DA, 506, 216 – POCSO Act, Section 6 .

Secured Debt – Red entry/ Lien by Excise and Income Tax department – Prior Right – Llien of the Bank as per Section 26 D noted and entered in the CERSAI  dated 06.03.2013, which clearly establishes the fact that the Bank is not only a secured creditor but has created the first charge over the property in question as far as back in the year, 2013 –  Whereas the charge of the department had been created and reflected in revenue record on dated 05.02.2018 – Once the petitioner is a secured creditor and has moreover created the first charge over the property, then obviously, it has the first right to realise its dues – Writ petition allowed, respondents directed to remove the red entry qua the property in question.

. 2009 PLRonline 016 [#127100] SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before :Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. The NEW BUS STAND SHOP OWNERS ASSOCIATION – Appellant Versus CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE & another – Respondents Civil Appeal No. 6391 of 2009 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11051 of 2006). 18.9.2009. . Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 105 – Lease or license – Difference between a… Read more: NEW BUS STAND SHOP OWNERS ASSOCIATION v. CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, 2009 PLRonline 016, [#127100]

Difference between a lease and licence

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988,Section 3 – Whether Section 3 can be exercised as a means of enforcement of law and order, by defeating the orders whereby  bail had already been granted or the sentence had been suspended  ? Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988,Section 3 – Whether the State Government ought… Read more: Constitution of India, Article 22 – NDPS S. 3, 9, 11  – Preventive Detention – Whether an order of Preventive detention could have been passed solely on the basis of past involvement of the accused in the cases under the NDPS Act and formation of an opinion about the likelihood of the involvement of the suspect in further offences as well on the basis of the antecedents ? [2024 PLRonline 011 , 2024 PHHC 081331]

Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974), S.438 – Anticipatory bail – Economic Offences – IPC S.  420, 465, 467, 471 – Allegations that the accused misrepresented as the Company Director, obtained a loan by mortgaging company premises, defrauded customers and the Bank – Anticipatory bail discretion should not be exercised lightly in economic offences, large scale offences, cheating, and fraud – Nature and gravity of the offence should be considered  – Some offences alleged were punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, and U/S.467 was punishable with life imprisonment or imprisonment up to 10 years – Anticipatory bail, set aside.

test