Satish Law Agency

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA The State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Subhash @ Pappu  (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 436 OF 2022) Date of decision: 01.04.2022 Read full Judgement below:-

SOM DUTT & ORS. VE RSUS T HE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) (CRIMINAL APPEAL No) Arising Out of SLP (Crl) NO. 7831 OF 2021) " 6 . Section 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act empower the courts to release the offenders on probation of good conduct in the cases and circumstances mentioned therein. Similarly, Sections 360 and 361 of the Cr.P.C also empower the courts to release the offenders on probation of good conduct in the cases and circumstances mentioned therein. Hence, having regard to sentence imposed by the courts below on the appellants for the offence under ection 379 read with Section 34 of IPC, and having regard to the fact there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants, the court is inclined to give them the benefit of releasing them on probation of good conduct." Read full Judgement below:-

 The Specific Relief Act:-

Punjab and Haryana High Court to resume physical hearing from March 28, 2022 High Court had initially shifted to virtual mode of hearing in March 2020 following apprehension of Covid outbreak More than two years after the Punjab and Haryana High Court adopted virtual mode of hearing following the apprehension of Covid outbreak, it today announced the decision to resume total physical functioning from March 28.   The decision by Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha was taken  “keeping in view the decline in number of Covid-19 cases in the States of Punjab, Haryana and the UT of Chandigarh”.  The order made it clear that the hearing of all the cases in the High Court would be held through physical mode only and request for video-conferencing through any mode would not be entertained in any case.   The order added “online mentioning” portal would be deactivated.  Mentioning of cases would only be made through physical mode in the same manner as in the pre-Covi...

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before:- Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. Criminal Appeal Nos.200 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.8283 of 2021). D/d. 10.2.2022. Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati - Appellants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. - Respondents For the Appellants :- Mr. Gaurav, Advocate. For the Respondents :- Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, Mr. Amit Singh, Mr. ajay Prajapati, Mr. Aman Pathak, Mr. Arvind Gupta, Advocates. IMPORTANT Dismissal of application for quashing of criminal proceedings by High Court - Inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on Court to act according to its whims and fancies. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Section 3 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section  482  - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section  5  - Criminal proceedings against sister-in-law by brother-in-law - Quashing of - Allegations against accused that she got married without any divorce from her previous husband and forgery committed...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before:- M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos.257-259 of 2022. D/d. 12.1.2022. Phoenix ARC Private Limited - Appellants Versus Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir & Ors. - Respondents For the Appellants :- Mr. Suresh Dutt Dobhal, Mr. Shikhar Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents :- Mr. Basavaprabhu S.Patil, Sr. Adv., Mr. Geet Ahuja, Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advocates. IMPORTANT SARFESI Act - Writ petition against private financial institution under Article 226 of Constitution of India against proposed action/actions under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act not maintainable. A. Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, Sections 17 and 13(4) - Writ petition against communication and to pass ex-parte ad interim order virtually stalling/restricting proceedings under SARFAESI Act by creditor - Maintainability - Held, writ petitions against notice under Section...

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before:- Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos.5384-5385 of 2014. D/d. 17.1.2022. Seethakathi Trust Madras - Appellants Versus Krishnaveni - Respondents For the Appellants :- Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Mr. Raja Rajeshwaran S., Advocates. For the Respondents :- Mr. V. Ramasubramanian, Mr. K. K. Mani, Ms. T. Archana, Advocates. A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 100 - Decree of specific performance of agreement to sell - Second appeal - Plea of Adverse possession - It is not necessary to go into issue of adverse possession as both parties are claiming title - Crucial aspect is decree obtained for specific performance by Respondent and manner of obtaining decree - Respondent fully aware of prior registered transaction in respect of same property originally in favour of Niraja Devi - This is as per deposition of her manager - Thus, not possible to accept that decree obtained behind back of bona fide purchas...