Judgments Supreme Court

1.  https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/8647/8647_2020_35_1504_24560_Judgement_03-Nov-2020.pdf CIVIL APPEAL NO.3602  OF 2020 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8343 of 2020]  Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank & Anr. .. Appellants Versus Anit Kumar Das .. Respondent Even on the ground that respondent – original writ petitioner deliberately, wilfully and intentionally suppressed the fact that he was a graduate, the High Court has erred in directing the appellant Bank to allow the respondent – original writ petitioner to discharge his duties as a Peon Thus, as held by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, ...

 1. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/1688/1688_2020_35_1502_24580_Judgement_05-Nov-2020.pdf ( Death Sentence) Commute the death sentence to life imprisonment  Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours Private Limited (2012) 5 SCC 661  considered the question of conviction of the Directors in the absence of the Company in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 188112 as also in the proceedings under Information TechnologyAct, 2000. This Court held that Section 141 of the NI Act dealing with offences by companies contemplates that every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly   2. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/4587/4587_2016_34_1501_24555_Judgement_02-Nov-2020.p...

 https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/29674/29674_2019_34_1501_24672_Judgement_16-Nov-2020.pdf Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. 8 (2006) 5 SCC 353 The relevant portion of the said decision reads as below: “27.  There   is   a   presumption   that   a   registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of  proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.  In Aloka Bose v. Parmatma Devi and Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 582 "It has b...

As  Home News Columns Dealstreet Interviews Apprentice Lawyer Viewpoint Legal Jobs Vikram Hegde, Shantanu Lakhotia COLUMNS Transfer Petitions and video conferencing: Time for another look at Santhini? Unless the courts contemplate complete stoppage of work till free travel without risk of being infected becomes possible, video conference hearings are inevitable. Vikram Hegde   &  Shantanu Lakhotia Jul 1, 2020, 10:05 AM IST As lawyers, we are already grappling with what we may call  video conference vagaries  since the beginning of the lockdown. At the same time, we are all aware that sooner rather than later, litigants will also have to start appearing in courts by video conference. The story of the interface of a litigant with the court being mediated by a video link starts with the amendment of Section 167(2)(b) of the CrPC, which provides, among other things, that a magistrate may extend the detention of an accused in judicial custody. Such extension...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf The matter was reminded back with an opportunity to the State to provide reasons for the administrative decision taken to rescind the policy  The authority has choice to explained the reasons or pass the fresh order on the fresh cause of action with explained reasons. There cannot be post hoc justification of the action. The post hoc justification doctrine merely requires that courts assess agency action based on the official explanations of the agency decision makers, and not based on after-the-fact explanations advanced by agency lawyers during litigation. As the D. C. Circuit has explained, the post hoc justification doctrine “is not a time barrier which freezes an agency’s exercise of its judgment after an initial decision has been made and bars it from further articulation of its reasoning. It is a rule directed at reviewing courts which forbids judges to uphold agency action on the basis of rationales offered by anyo...

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2009/18989/18989_2009_32_1501_22617_Judgement_15-Jun-2020.pdf “We are called upon to decide as to whether Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands, Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Bombay Tenancy Act’) debars an agriculturist from parting with his agricultural land to a non-agriculturist through a “Will” so also, whether Section 43(1) of the Tenancy Act restricts transfer of any land or interest purchased by the tenant under Sections 17B, 32, 32F. 321. 320, 32U, 33(1) or 88E or sold to any person under Section 32P or 64 of the Tenancy Act through the execution of a Will by way of testamentary disposition. 8.1 While dealing with the question whether the term ‘ assignment’ used in Section 43 of the Act would include ‘ testamentary disposition’ , it was observed by the Division Bench:-  12. We may now consider the decisions of this Court which have dealt with issues concerning testamentary disposition of agricultural holdings. 15. Various ...