The Rajasthan High Court had acquitted an individual convicted of raping a minor, citing the victim's silence and tears during cross-examination as grounds for reasonable doubt. The court ruled that without direct testimony, the accused deserved the benefit of the doubt. However, the Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal, restoring the trial court’s conviction and sentencing the accused to 7 years of imprisonment under Section 376 of the IPC (rape). The Supreme Court expressed regret that the victim and her family had to endure nearly four decades of anguish before receiving justice.
The Orissa High Court granted divorce to the husband on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, recognizing the complete breakdown of the marriage. The wife sought ₹30 lakhs as permanent alimony, which the husband’s counsel opposed. After considering the husband's income, both parties' standard of living, and the wife's financial security, the court awarded ₹18 lakhs as permanent alimony. In conclusion, the court dissolved the marriage and directed the husband to pay ₹18 lakhs to the wife as permanent alimony.
The complainant filed a petition under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, prompting the Judicial Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR under Sections 420 (Cheating) and 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the IPC. The appellants challenged this order by filing a quashing petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which was dismissed. However, the Supreme Court quashed the Judicial Magistrate's order and all subsequent actions taken under it. The Court clarified that it did not rule on the complainant's allegations and allowed the complainant to pursue appropriate legal remedies under Section 154 CrPC.
The Supreme Court ruled that an anticipatory bail order is a composite one and should not be fragmented. It stated that if anticipatory bail is granted, the trial court should have the discretion to decide on custody after the chargesheet is filed. Automatically mandating arrest upon chargesheet filing was deemed improper. The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s condition of automatic arrest upon chargesheet submission. It ruled that the petitioner must appear before the trial court for a bail decision based on the case's merits, without automatic arrest. The petitioner was directed to appear within 3 weeks, with interim protection extended until then.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's judgment, and ruled that "Degree" under the FSS Rules covers all levels (Bachelor’s, Master’s, Doctorate) unless specifically restricted. It directed that the appellants be included in the recruitment process, using supernumerary posts if needed, but without back wages.
The case involves a property dispute over two properties ('A' Schedule and 'B' Schedule) in Pondicherry. The appellant, Raju Naidu, entered into a sale agreement for the 'B' Schedule property with the father of respondents 1-8, despite ongoing legal proceedings regarding ownership. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's claims. It ruled that an appellate court's decree supersedes the trial court's decree, regardless of whether it affirms, modifies, or reverses the original ruling.
The court allowed the petition and ordered the immediate release of the detenu, declaring his arrest illegal based on the following grounds: - The detenu was subjected to custodial interrogation before the FIR was registered. - There was a seven-hour delay in informing him of the grounds for his arrest. - No notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS was issued. - The police failed to record valid reasons for considering the arrest necessary. - The FIR registration and arrest memo preparation, done after the Warrant Officer's arrival, appeared to be an attempt to justify the illegal detention. The court further clarified that a Warrant Officer has only a ministerial role and cannot rule on the legality of the detention.
The order, passed on April 4, 2018, was governed by the pre-amendment Section 8(3) of the PMLA, which allowed property retention "during the pendency of proceedings" without a 90-day limit. The amended Section 8(3)(a), effective from April 19, 2018, introduced a 90-day retention limit during the investigation but permitted continuation if court proceedings were pending. The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 8(3), retention is valid as long as PMLA proceedings (complaint) are ongoing, without requiring the person to be named as an accused. The Court overturned the Appellate Authority and High Court's orders, restoring the Adjudicating Authority’s April 4, 2018, order, affirming that retention continues until the complaint is resolved.
The Supreme Court highlighted several key observations in its verdict. It noted that there was no clear evidence of a promise of marriage before the first sexual encounter. The victim had willingly accompanied the accused to hotel rooms on multiple occasions, making her allegations of coercion appear inconsistent with her repeated voluntary meetings. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Erode, effectively bringing an end to the prosecution against the appellant.
The court, in its prima facie view, noted that despite the Chief Secretary's approval of the proposal to pay ₹50 lakhs to the deceased doctor's family, the amount was not disbursed. The family has been pursuing the matter in court for over nine years. Their request for the sanctioned amount was denied, citing the lack of approval for its release. Considering the seriousness of the incident, the court emphasized that the sanctioned compensation must be honored and paid with interest.
The case concerns the interpretation of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically regarding the purchase of a laser cutting and bending machine. The key issue was whether the petitioner, Virender Singh, qualified as a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The court examined the distinction between 'commercial purpose' and 'self-employment,' emphasizing that self-employment generally involves personal operation, while a commercial purpose includes business expansion. The petitioner, already running a business, purchased the machine to expand operations and employed workers to operate it instead of using it himself. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, ruling that he did not qualify as a 'consumer' under the Act.
The Supreme Court ruled that treating supervisory control as definitive proof of employment is simplistic and legally flawed. It noted that the only supporting document presented by the respondents was proof of their posting at different locations, which was deemed insufficient to establish a direct master-servant relationship. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's orders that had remanded the matter to the Labour Court. It concluded that further investigation would be an "exercise in futility." The key takeaway from the judgment is that establishing an employment relationship requires clear documentary evidence of a direct master-servant relationship, not merely supervisory control.
Kallu Mal (deceased) and his wife, Samtola Devi wanted to evict their son, Krishna Kumar, from this house under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senor Citizens Act 2007. They claimed this property as Kallu Mal’s self-acquired asset, though portions had been transferred to his daughters and son-in-law. Krishna Kumar occupied a shop and a room, alleging a 1/6th share in the property. He was fettered by the Tribunal with conditions yet allowed to stay, then later the Appellate Tribunal ordered eviction and though this was rescinded in High Court. The Supreme Court resolved that, looking S. Vanitha v. Commissioner, the emphasis of the Act is on maintaining senior citizens and not on evictions needed only for protection. Because Krishna Kumar’s civil suits challenging property transfers had not been settled, the question of eviction was premature. Krishna Kumar had been paying maintenance and hadn’t troubled his parents again since the Tribunal’s initial decree, so the Court confirmed High Court’s decision. It reminded that the Act concentrates on maintenance, rather than ejectment, unless safety issues arise.
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision to not conduct the trial and reset a law that states that tribunals are not allowed to conduct a "trial miniature" in discharging or quashing. It emphasized that delays in sanction or typographical errors would not automatically make the proceedings null and void. The Court made it clear that Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to circumvent statutory restrictions such as Section 397(3) CrPC. In the discharge stage, the focus is on whether the allegations made disclose a legitimate charge; not on proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In the trial stage, whether the permission given by anti-corruption laws is truly lawful must be determined. Unless there is a clear legal bar, that is.
The Delhi High Court upheld the CCPA’s power under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, to issue binding guidelines. It ruled that mandatory service charges by restaurants are an unfair trade practice and must be voluntary, clearly disclosed, and not confused with taxes, prioritizing consumer transparency and protection.