INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed an Order in Arun Shankar Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1186 Of 2022 and held that the Prosecution had failed to establish the recovery of the weapon at the Appellant’s instance, thereby, leaving the chain of circumstances incomplete and therefore set aside the conviction of the Appellant. FACTS i) The Appellant, Arun Shankar and the Deceased, Sushildhar Dubey, were related and lived in the village of Amgoan, Madhya Pradesh (M.P.). They often went toget ..read more

A single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Shri. Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed a judgment dated 02.04.2024 in the matter of Mahender Singh vs. the State & Ors., Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) 253/2024 and observed that the present Letters Patent Appeal filed against the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court in the first Appeal is not maintainable on the ground that it would essentially be a Second Appeal, which is explicitly prohibited by Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, as amended by Act 22 of 2002 ..read more

INTRODUCTION A two- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale passed an Order dated 08.04.2024 in Civil Appeal No. Of 2024 (Arising Out Of SLP (C) No.14974 Of 2022) in K.B. Lal (Krishna Bahadur Lal) Vs. Gyanendra Pratap & Ors. and held that the Appellant failed to provide proper justification for the delay of 11 years to file the First Application under Order IX, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Procedure where defendant appears on day of adjourned hearing and assigns good cause for previous non-appearance) along with ..read more

A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a judgement in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and Ors. SLP(C) No. 8867 of 2022 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed and set aside the Order of the Telangana High Court stating that High Courts shall not intercede in all the matters under Article 226 if other efficacious remedy is available to the Party. Facts Dr. M.V. Ramana Rao (Borrower) secured a loan from the UCO Bank (Respondent Bank) by mortgaging four properties in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh ..read more

Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed a Judgment dated 10-04-2024 in the matter of Manisha Mahendra Gala & Ors. Vs Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9642 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 9643 of 2010 and observed that the Appellants failed to establish that their predecessors-in-interest have used the disputed road peacefully, without any interruption from the Respondents, for more than 20 years and hence, the Appellants are not entitled to easementary rights thereof. Facts i) I ..read more

INTRODUCTION A two- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed an Order dated 02.04.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 4626 Of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.23319 Of 2022) in Level 9 Biz Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing And Urban Development Authority & Another and held that the Order dated 18.10.2021 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh was passed without proper application of mind and without assigning any cogent reason for brushing aside the findings recorded by the Independent Committee appointed by ..read more

A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice J.B Pardiwala passed a judgement dated 03.04.2024 in Union of India & Anr v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy S.L.P. (Civil) No. 21096 of 2019 wherein the Bench was hearing an appeal against the Order passed by the Bombay High Court by declining the condonation of delay to the Appellants. Facts In this case, the Respondent leased the suit property situated at Staveley Road in Pune in favour of the Appellants on 09.03.1951. As the Appellants committed breach of the terms of the lease deed, the Respondent here ..read more

A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Aravind Kumar passed a Judgment dated 02-04-2024 in the matter of Prem Raj vs. Poonamma Menon & Anr., Special Leave Petition (SLP) Criminal No. 9778 / 2018 and observed that when a dispute involves the same substance in both civil and criminal proceedings, the outcome of the civil proceedings will be binding on the outcome of the criminal proceedings. Further, the Bench stated that since the Civil Court had declared the subject matter of dispute i.e. the Cheque was only for the purpose of security, theref ..read more

A 3 Judge Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Dr D.Y Chandrachud, J. Surya Kant, J. Bela M Trivedi passed a judgement in State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. on 22.04.2022 where they upheld the validity of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act 1999 (MPID). Facts: An appeal was filed in Supreme Court against the Order of Bombay High Court where certain notifications attaching the property of the Respondent under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 have been quashed. Na ..read more

The Consumer Protection Act, of 2019 broadens the definition of “consumer” to encompass individuals who purchase or access goods or services online or through electronic means, a provision absent in the previous legislation. Furthermore, it introduces a comprehensive definition of “advertisement,” encompassing any audio or visual publicity, representation, endorsement, or pronouncement made through electronic media, the internet, or websites. Additionally, the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022, on June 9, 2022 stipulate ..read more