Supreme Court declines to transfer Satya Niketan PG Hostel Building Collapse case from Delhi HC to itself
The Court specifically requested the Delhi High Court to “monitor the case at short intervals”.
The Court specifically requested the Delhi High Court to “monitor the case at short intervals”.
The present proceeding initially concerned with a narrow question as to whether the vehicle stated to have caused a motor accident was in fact the vehicle involved in the accident, however, subsequently revealed a much wider concern regarding fraudulent motor accident claims in a recurring and organised pattern.
The Court granted 1 final opportunity to the defaulting States, that had failed to deposit the earlier costs of ₹50,000 were granted to deposit enhanced costs of ₹1,00,000 by 5 August 2026, failing which contempt proceedings would follow.
The Court held that the marriage was dead for all practical purposes, warranting to be nullified under Article 142 to grant a decree of divorce.
“If individuals entrusted with enforcing the law themselves secure entry into service through deception and fabricated credentials, it would seriously erode the Rule of Law.”
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah is the sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India. He was elevated to the Supreme Court in February 2023 and has formerly served as a Judge in Patna High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court.
“The land in question, though administered by a corporate body, is essentially trust property held for the benefit of the community, and any irregularity in its alienation is a matter of legitimate public concern.”
The Court held that a de novo trial cannot be ordered merely on technical grounds, particularly when the trial had substantially progressed and no real miscarriage of justice is shown.
“The case at hand exhibits an exceptional factual prism, impelling a deeper scrutiny beyond the conventional principles governing the subject. Unfortunately, the High Court while passing the impugned order also overlooked the germane factual position and saw the issue as merely being one of cancellation of bail.”
Holding Asian Paints as ‘victim’ within CrPC, the Court further stated that victim’s right to prefer appeal under Proviso to S. 372 CrPC is not restricted by any other provision of the CrPC.
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah is the sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India. He was elevated to the Supreme Court in February 2023. He has formerly served as a Judge in Patna High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The immunity granted by the moratorium order issued under Section 14 of the IBC can only be obtained by a corporate debtor and not by a natural person such as the present accused, who was the Director of the corporate debtor.
The Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision entitling appellants to be considered as part of the “initial constitution” of Sports Authority of India (SAI) as laid down in the 2022 Rules.
“Equitable considerations do apply when the Court considers the prayer for maintenance under Section 25. The reason is that Section 25 lays down that while considering the prayer for granting relief under Section 25, the conduct of the parties must be considered.”
“It is the duty of the Court to reach the truth of the matter and such exercise may demand putting forward certain questions and suggestions which may be uncomfortable to some.”
Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision quashing the private complaint and concluding that the alleged offences under Sections 193, 199 and 200 of the IPC were such, on which the complaint could have only been filed by the Court following the route under Section 195 read with Section 340 of the CrPC.
“Article 21 of the Constitution does not end with the pronouncement of the sentence but extends to the execution stage of that sentence. An inordinate delay in the execution of the sentence of death has a dehumanising effect on the accused. An inordinate delay caused by circumstances beyond the prisoners’ control mandates the commutation of a death sentence.”
For such a legal misadventure resulting in the wastage of precious judicial time of the High Court, which could have been better spent answering the call of justice raised by the teeming millions, the Court imposed costs of Rs.1,20,000/- on the appellant.
Expressing its displeasure saying “Patience may be a virtue — but ours is nearing its end”, the Court listed the matter as priority for 19-11-2024.
The Supreme Court overturned the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, wherein his bail application was dismissed.