1. No Allegation That Promise to Marry was False at the Inception: SC Quashes Rape Case
The Supreme Court, in the case titled Sonu@ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, quashed an FIR alleging rape observing that there is no allegation to the effect that the promise to marry given by the accused was false at the inception.
2. Dying Declaration Cannot be Discarded Merely Because Relatives of Deceased were Present in Hospital While Recording it: SC
A Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan and R Subhash Reddy, in a case titled Satpal v. State of Haryana, noted that a dying declaration cannot be discarded merely because parents and relatives of the deceased were present in the hospital while recording it. The said observation was made by the bench while dismissing an appeal filed by a murder accused.
3. Evidence of Interested Person can be Considered if it is Corroborated: SC
The Apex Court in the case of Rahul v. State of Haryana observed that the evidence of interested person can be considered provided such evidence is corroborated by other evidence on record.
4. Limitation Period for Filing Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act Starts from Date of Receipt of Signed Copy of Arbitral Awards: SC
Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi of the Supreme Court observed that the limitation period for filing the petition under Section 34 of the Act would commence from the date on which the signed copy of the arbitral award was made available to the parties. This observation was made in the case of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. M/S Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
5. Article 226 Can be Invoked to Quash FIR if it is Found to be Abuse of Process of Law: SC
The Apex Court in Kapil Agarwal v. Sanjay Sharma noted that a High Court can quash an FIR under its powers under Article 226 of the former is found to be an abuse of process of law.
6. Insolvency Proceedings are Maintainable Even if Winding up Petition is Pending Against Corporate Debtor: Apex Court
The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai, in the case of Asha John Divianathan v. Vikram Malhotra, held that a petition under Section 7 or 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is an independent proceeding which is unaffected by winding up proceedings that may be filed against the same company.
7. Contract Void if Prohibited By Statute Under A Penalty Even if it Does not Expressly Declare it Void: SC
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra, and Ajay Rastogi also observed that the condition predicated in Section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, is mandatory.
8. PIL in SC Seeks Establishment of Transgender Welfare Board, Standing Committee to Investigate Gross Abuse Against Trans Persons by Police
The plea, which is drafted by Advocate CR Jaya Sukin and filed by Advocate Narendra Kumar Verma, highlights the suffering and harassment faced by trans people in matters relating to housing, health, education, and employment.
9. OBC Reservation Cannot Exceed 50%: SC Reads Down Section 12(2)(c) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act
The Supreme Court, in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra, read down the section which provides reservation of 27% of seats in the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis. The bench comprising of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra, and Ajay Rastogi observed that the reservation in favour of OBCs cannot exceed 50% of total seats reserved in favour of SCs/STs/OBCs taken together.
10. Application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC Can be Allowed Only When Sufficient Cause is Made Out to Set Aside Ex Parte Decree: SC
The Apex Court, in the case of Subodh Kumar v. Shamim Ahmed observed that an application under the said Rule cannot be automatically granted and can be allowed only when sufficient cause is made out to set aside the ex parte decree.