Supreme court
Arrest & Remand Illegal If Accused Not Informed Grounds Of Arrest; Filing Of Chargesheet Won't Validate Illegal Arrest : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court (today on May 15) opined that an illegal arrest and remand order cannot be validated merely on the ground that a chargesheet has been filed. “Mere fact that a charge sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused.,” held Justices B.R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta The above observation has emanated from the...
Accused Must Be Given Written Grounds Of Arrest In UAPA Cases Too : Supreme Court Extends Ratio Of 'Pankaj Bansal' Judgment
In one of the crucial developments, the Supreme Court (today on May 15), held that the ratio laid down in the judgment in the case Pankaj Bansal v Union of India mandating that grounds of arrest must be supplied to the accused in writing will also apply in the cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. The Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta made the above finding in a judgment declaring the arrest of NewsClick founder and Editor-in-Chief Prabir...
Labelling and Re-Labelling of Containers Qualifies as 'Manufacture' for CENVAT Credit Under Excise Act: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that labelling or re-labelling of containers amounts to 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act for availing cenvat creditThe bench of Justices A. S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was pronouncing its judgment on an appeal by the revenue under Section 35L(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a 2015 order passed by the CESTAT, Mumbai.By the impugned order, CESTAT...
Wrong Doers Cannot Be Allowed To Make Profit Out Of Their Own Wrongs : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has reiterated that no one can be permitted to take undue advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law, and that he who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the non- performance he has occasionedThe bench of Justices B. R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta was pronouncing its decision on the Municipal Committee, Katra's appeal against the 2015 judgment of the J & K High Court Division Bench which confirmed the Single Judge's opinion that...
'Hierarchy of Judiciary Must Be Respected' : Supreme Court Cautions NCDRC Members Who Passed Directions Contrary To SC Order, Closes Contempt Case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday(May 15) warned/ cautioned the two members of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) for issuing non-bailable warrants against the directors of a company, ignoring a previous interim order of the Supreme Court. While closing the contempt proceedings initiated against them, the Court categorically marked that all orders passed by the Top Court ought to be respected and fully complied with. It continued to say that the hierarchy of the...
Prabir Purkayastha's Arrest By Delhi Police & Remand Illegal : Supreme Court Orders NewsClick Editor's Release In UAPA Case
In a major development, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 15) declared as illegal NewsClick founder and Editor-in-Chief Prabir Purkayastha's arrest by the Delhi police and his remand in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.The Court noted that a copy of the remand application was not provided to Purkayastha or his counsel before passing the remand order on October 4, 2023. This meant that the grounds of the arrest were not supplied to him in writing. It was the case...
Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up: 6th to 12th May 2024
Supreme Court Consumer Protection Act 1986 | Onus Of Proving That Service Was Availed For 'Commercial Purpose' Is On Service Provider : Supreme Court Case Title: SHRIRAM CHITS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTD VERSUS RAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES In an important ruling relating to consumer protection law, the Supreme Court on Friday (May 10) set out...
S.144 CPC | Stranger Who Purchased Property Knowing About Appeal Pendency Can't Resist Restitution As Bona Fide Purchaser: Supreme Court
In an important ruling concerning the principle of 'restitution' under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) the Supreme Court observed that if after knowing that the decree was likely to be reversed, a stranger auction purchaser (not being party to the proceedings) purchases the property in execution of the decree, then he couldn't claim the protection of being a bona fide purchaser and the principle of restitution would apply in such circumstances. Reversing the...
Services Rendered By Advocates Come Under Contract Of Personal Service: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court (today on May 14) held that the Services rendered by an advocate would come under the “a contract of personal service” as opposed to a “contract for service”. In layman terms, 'a contract of personal service' relates to an arrangement where an individual is hired for rendering his/ her services. However, in the case of “contract for service” the services...
The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digests 2023- FULL SET [Part I to XX]
The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-I]The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-II]The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-III]The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-IV]The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-V]The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-VI]The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023...
Judgment Bringing Doctors Under Consumer Protection Act Requires Reconsideration : Supreme Court
In a major development, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ( May 14) said that its 1995 judgment in the case of Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha, which brought medical professionals under the Consumer Protection Act, required reconsideration. A Bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal held so while deciding an appeal that raised the issue of whether advocates can be held...
Advocates Not Liable Under Consumer Protection Act For Deficiency Of Services : Supreme Court
In a crucial development, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 14) held that advocates cannot be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019) for deficiency of services. The Court held that professionals have to be treated differently from persons carrying out business and trade.As a corollary, the Court held that complaints against advocates alleging deficiency...