R.JAYAPAL V. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

SC-Altering the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC to the one under Part-I of Sec. 304 IPC, the Hon’ble SC held that the act of the appellant leading to the death was with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. It extended the benefit of Exception 4 of Sec. 300 IPC to the appellant as the incident in question took place without any premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, when the deceased attempted entry into his house; and the appellant did neither take any undue advantage nor acted in a cruel or unusual manner.-Hon'ble Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari [09-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/rjayapal-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu

M/S SHAHI AND ASSOCIATES V. STATE OF U.P.

SC-Restoring the interest awarded by the Arbitrator in accordance with Sec. 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, the Hon’ble SC held that though the agreement was earlier to the date of coming into force of the Act of 1996, the proceedings admittedly commenced in the year 1999 and were conducted in accordance with the Act of 1996. If that be so, para 7-A of Sec. 24 of the U.P. Amendment Act has no application to the case at hand and so both the HC and the District Judge were not justified in reducing the rate of interest by following the U.P. Amendment Act.-Hon'ble Justices Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer and M.R. Shah[08-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/ms-shahi-and-associates-vs-state-of-up

MALLIKARJUN V. STATE OF KARNATAKA

SC-The Hon’ble SC while confirming the conviction of the accused No.1 and 2,observed  that there was no inordinate delay in the receipt of FIR in the court and the findings of the trial court and HC that the delay in lodging the complaint and receipt of FIR in the court have been properly explained, do not suffer from infirmity. It stated that the conviction is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and the reasonings are well balanced.-Hon'ble Justices R.Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna [08-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/mallikarjun-vs-state-of-karnataka

MAHESH KUMAR V. STATE OF HARYANA

SC-While setting aside the conviction of the appellant in an appeal against the Punjab & Haraya HC decision, the Hon’ble SC observed that the prosecution failed to prove either the demand of dowry or that any such demand was raised soon before the death of the deceased. Hence, the essential ingredients of offence under Sec. 304-B of IPC were not proved by the prosecution. It even failed to prove the initial presumption under Sec. 113-B of the Evidence Act and the allegations levelled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.-Hon'ble Justices L.Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [07-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/mahesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana

KATHI DAVID RAJU V. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

SC-While allowing the appeal in a case with regard to obtaining false caste certificate, the Hon’ble SC opined that it was too early to request for conduct of DNA test without carrying out substantial investigation by the police authorities. The Additional Junior Civil Judge also failed to notice that in the investigation conducted by the Investigating Authority no such materials have been brought on the basis of which it could have been opined that conducting DNA test is necessary for the appellant on his mother and two brothers.-Hon'ble Justices Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha[05-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/kathi-david-raju-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr

DR. SRIDIP CHATTERJEE V. DR. GOPA CHAKRABORTY

SC-In a case relating to selection and appointment of appellant to the post of Assistant Professor in Yoga Therapy of the Jadavpur University, the Hon’ble SC reinstated the appellant in service  and observed that both the Selection and Equivalence Committee has found the appellant’s  Diploma as the one satisfying the requirement of the advertisement. Once the Experts have taken a decision that the appellant meets the eligibility conditions of the advertisement, the Court could not have interfered with and set aside the appointment of the appellant.-Hon'ble Justices L.Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [06-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/dr-sridip-chatterjee-vs-dr-gopa-chakraborty

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