Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 34 and 37 — Interference with award by Court: Law regarding limited jurisdiction of Court while interfering with award, summarized, [NHAI v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd., (2024) 6 SCC 809]
Constitution of India — Art. 21 — Dignity: Human honour, self regard, social image and honest space of one’s self in one’s surrounding society, significant for dignified life, [Amanatullah Khan v. Delhi Police, (2024) 6 SCC 804]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 2(r) and 173(2) — Police report — Meaning of: As per S. 2(r), “police report”, held, means a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under S. 173(2), [Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand, (2024) 6 SCC 758]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Ss. 60(5) and 31(1) — Power to recall its own order: Law clarified on existence of power to recall its own order in NCLT and permissibility of the same, for recalling resolution plan approved by it, [Greater Noida v. Prabhjit Singh Soni, (2024) 6 SCC 767]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 302: In this case, stabbing of deceased by accused with knife which caused his death, was otherwise established beyond reasonable doubt. Absence of proof of motive, held, irrelevant in such a case. Conviction for murder, confirmed, [Chandan v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 6 SCC 799]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Ss. 45 and Ss. 3 and 2(1)(u) and 50 — Bail for offences under Ss. 3 and 2(1)(u) — Twin conditions under S. 45: There is necessity of satisfaction of twin conditions under S. 45. There is a need for objective decision by Court adjudicating bail application even in case of an ex-Minister or influential political leader, [Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 6 SCC 715]
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 — R. 9(5) — Sale of secured asset under SARFAESI Act/Rules — Forfeiture of earnest money — Applicable law: General law under Ss. 73 and 74 of the Contract Act, 1872, held, not applicable. The matter will be governed entirely by R. 9(5) of the 2002 Rules, [Central Bank of India v. Shanmugavelu, (2024) 6 SCC 641]
Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 — Ss. 3 and 11: Burden of proof, as in the present case that the appellants were garnishes and there existed unpaid debt due to notified party, rests on Custodian. Failure to adduce evidence of payment of alleged unpaid debt by debtors is irrelevant when transaction was more than 13 yrs old, [Suman L. Shah v. Custodian (Transaction in Securities), (2024) 6 SCC 747]
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (5 of 1954) — Ss. 49 and 3(11) — Scope of S. 49 — Power under, when may be exercised: S. 49 cannot be exercised to take away vested title of a tenure-holder, or to grant ownership in property to one in whom it never vested. Power to declare ownership in immovable property can be exercised only by a civil court unless barred under a law, and the 1953 Act does not contain such a bar, [Prashant Singh v. Meena, (2024) 6 SCC 818]
