SHASHI BHUSAN PRASAD V. INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE & ORS.

The Hon’ble SC without interfering with the decision of the Orissa HC observed that Criminal and Departmental Proceedings are entirely different. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a Court of law whereas in the departmental enquiry, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent on a finding recorded on the basis of ‘preponderance of probability’.- Hon'ble Justices N.V. Ramana,Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi [01-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/shashi-bhusan-prasad-vs-inspector-general-central-industrial-security-force-and-ors

CHILAKAMARTHI VENKATESWARLU & ANR. V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

SC- Affirming the decision of the Hyderabad HC which had refused to quash the criminal complaint, the Hon’ble SC observed that the power to quash the proceedings under Sec.482 of the CrPC can be done only in rare cases and is to be generally exercised when there is no material to proceed against the Petitioners even if the allegations in the complaint are prima facie accepted as true. This power should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. -Hon'ble Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee [31-07-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/chilakamarthi-venkateswarlu-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr

VIJAY PANDEY V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

SC-In a case relating to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,the Hon’ble SC while acquitting the appellant opined that the mere production of a laboratory report that the sample tested was narcotics cannot be conclusive proof by itself. The sample seized and that tested have to be co-related. The failure of the prosecution in the present case to relate the seized sample with that seized from the appellant makes the case no different from failure to produce the seized sample itself.-Hon'ble Justices Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha[30-07-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/vijay-pandey-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh

ZENITH DRUGS & ALLIED AGENCIES PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHRI UDAY KRISHNA PAUL V. M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD.

SC-Setting aside the Guwahati HC order,the Hon’ble SC held that the parties can be referred to arbitration in an application filed under Sec.8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act only if the subject matter of the action before the judicial authority relates to dispute which is the subject of the arbitration agreement. Since the respondent has raised the plea that the compromise decree is vitiated by fraud, the merits of such a plea could be decided only by the Civil Court and the parties cannot be referred to arbitration. Hon'ble Justices  R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna [30-07-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/zenith-drugs-and-allied-agencies-pvt-ltd-represented-by-its-managing-director,-shri-uday-krishna-paul-vs-ms-nicholas-piramal-india-ltd

Mauji Ram V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

SC-The appeal against the Allahabad HC order has been allowed with the observation that the HC committed jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order because while passing it the HC did not assign any reason as to on what grounds, even though of a prima facie nature, it considered just and proper to grant bail to the respondents. It must appear from a perusal of the order that the Court has applied its mind to the relevant facts in the light of the material filed by the prosecution at the time of consideration of bail application.-Hon'ble Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Indu Malhotra[29-07-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/mauji-ram-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-anr

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. V. ATINDRA NATH BHATTACHARYYA & ANR.

SC-The opportunity of hearing granted to the respondent, which was the subject matter of appeal, has been set aside and the appeal has been allowed with the observation that once the respondent has failed to avail of opportunity of hearing granted, the Bank cannot be directed to give another opportunity for the sake of justice. The respondent avoided availing the said opportunity when offered. Once opportunity has been granted to the respondent, he is not entitled to another on the ground of compassion. The delaying tactics cannot be rewarded in such a manner.-Hon'ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [25-07-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/state-bank-of-india-and-ors-vs-atindra-nath-bhattacharyya-and-anr

BRAHMANI RIVER PELLETS LIMITED V. KAMACHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED

While setting aside the Madras HC order,the Hon’ble SC observed that when the parties have agreed to have the “venue” of arbitration at Bhubaneswar, the Madras HC erred in assuming the jurisdiction under Sec.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction of the court at a particular place, only such court will have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and parties intended to exclude all other courts.Non-use of words like “exclusive jurisdiction”, “only”, “exclusive”, “alone” is not decisive and does not make any material difference.- Hon'ble Justices  R.Banumathi and A.S.Bopanna [25-07-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/brahmani-river-pellets-limited-vs-kamachi-industries-limited

Sri A.M.C.S. Swamy, ADE/DPE/Hyd (Central) V. Mehdi Agah Karbalai & Anr.

SC-Setting aside the Hyderabad HC order, the Hon’ble SC observed that when there is express provision in the Special Act empowering the Special Court to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed, it cannot be said that taking cognizance of offence by Special Court is in violation of Sec. 193 of the CrPC,1973. The Govt. had already issued notification notifying the 1st Additional District Judge’s Court as a Special Court and under Sec. 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Special Court is empowered to take cognizance without there being an order of committal as contemplated under Sec. 193 of the CrPC.-Hon'ble Justices R. Banumathi and R. Subhash Reddy [23-07-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/sri-amcs-swamy,-adedpehyd-(central)-vs-mehdi-agah-karbalai-and-anr

Vinod Bhaiyalal Jain & Ors. V. Wadhwani Parmeshwari Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.Through its Director & Anr.

SC-The Hon’ble SC observed that the award passed by the Arbitrator was not sustainable and the learned District Judge was justified in entertaining the petition under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award. There was a reasonable basis for the appellants to make a claim that the Arbitrator would not be fair to them even if not biased and propriety demanded that the Arbitrator should have recused in the present facts; but failed to do so.-Hon'ble Justices R. Banumathi and A.S.Bopanna [24-07-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/vinod-bhaiyalal-jain-and-ors-vs-wadhwani-parmeshwari-cold-storage-pvt-ltdthrough-its-director-and-anr

Section 138 NI Act: Delay In Filing The Complaint Can Be Condoned If Sufficient Cause Is Shown In The Complaint [Read Judgment]

Section 138 NI Act: Delay In Filing The Complaint Can Be Condoned If Sufficient Cause Is Shown In The Complaint [Read Judgment]: The Supreme Court has observed that cognizance of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act can be taken by the court even after the prescribed period, if the...