FIRST LAW

(2019) 3 SCC 415 |  Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Appeal as an Indigent Person - the dismissal of application made under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code by the Trial Court in the earlier round of litigation is not a bar against the plaintiff to file an application/appeal under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code before the Appellate Court. Sushil Thomas Abraham v. Skyline Builders, AIR 2019 SC 512 : JT 2019 (1) SC 188 : 2019 (1) SCALE 178 : 2019 (1) RCR (Civil) 579

(2019) 2 SCC 752 | CRIMINAL LAW  - Criminal P.C. 1973 - S. 372 - Right of victims to appeal against acquittal - Scope and Applicability of right of “victim” - explained. Madan B. Lokur, S, Abdul Nazeer & Deepak Gupta, JJ.  Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2018 SC 5206 : 2019 Cri LJ 532 : 2018 (4) Crimes 123 : 2018 (4) RCR (Criminal) 781 : 2018 (14) Scale 322018 (4) KLT 682 : 2019 (1) KLJ 292 : 2018 (5) KHC 362  Crl.A. No. 1281 of 2018 12-10-2018

1. Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology v. Upendra Nath Patra, (2018) 5 SCC 693 Service Law - Field Supervisor - Whether equivalent to post of Teacher.

1. Rakesh Birani v. Prem Narain Sehgal, (2018) 5 SCC 543 Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - R.9 - Requirement specified under R. 9(4) was to deposit balance 75% purchase price within 15 days of confirmation - Said period of 15 days would start from day of confirmation of sale by secured creditor and it does not start from day of auction. On day of auction authorised officer only accepts or confirms highest bid.

1. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P., (2018) 5 SCC 311  Criminal Trial - Investigation - Videography - Importance of capturing crucial evidence in credible manner - Action plan and phased manner of implementation - Directions issued.  2. State of T.N. v. Kamala, (2018) 5 SCC 322  Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - S. 3(1)(ii) - Preventive Detention - COFEPOSA does not require detaining authority to specify period for which a detenu is required to be detained - Not rendered invalid/illegal in absence of such specification; JT 2018 (4) SC 164  3. Seema Upadhyay v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 325  Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 32 - Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - Maintainability - CBI investigation - Oil Adulteration by mafias - Transfer of cash subsidy to intended beneficiaries of kerosene oil - Aadhaar card or through PDS or other credible mechanism - Petitioner was given liberty to approac...

Lavghanbhai Devjibhai Vasava v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 4 SCC 329 Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302 / 304 - Parameters which are to be taken into consideration while deciding the question as to whether a case falls under Section 302 IPC or Section 304 IPC;  JT 2018 (3) SC 65 : 2018 (3) SCALE 309  http://bit.ly/2L4xWYW

1.  Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Samad, (2018) 3 SCC 622

1. Ashwini Kumar Handa v. Union of India, (2018) 3 SCC 322 Service Law -  Indian Airforce -  Retirement Benefits - Deductions - In  a case where the employer had paid him salary and allowances even for the period he did not work and was on study leave. This payment was made subject to the condition that after his return the appellant would serve for entire nine years. As he has not served for that period, the employer is entitled to receive back the pay and allowances given during the period of study leave, in terms of the Army Instructions coupled with the service guarantee certificate.

1. Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar, (2018) 3 SCC 1 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 2 (30) - Where the registered owner has purported to transfer the vehicle but continues to be reflected in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of liability.  https://goo.gl/1JuDyS 2. MHADA v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. (P) Ltd., (2018) 3 SCC 13 Tenders - E-Auction - Lack of any timely response of the first respondent when the system had failed to generate an acknowledgement of the bid documents in a situation where the first respondent claims to have pressed the ‘freeze button’; the generation of acknowledgements in respect of other bidders and the absence of any glitch in the technology would strongly indicate that the bid submitted by the first respondent was not a valid bid and the directions issued by the High Court in favour of the first respondent virtually confers on the said respondent a second opportunity which cannot be co...