Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: SECP / Company: A Company registered under SECP impungns appointment of inspectors for inspection of company affairs U/s 256 of Company Act.

Summary: Offence with which the petitioner has been charged do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. then basic rule is bail and not jail

Summary: [Courts should sparingly interfere in university matters and academic freedom and institutional autonomy]---a medical student (Respondent No.1) was apprehended for impersonating another student during an examination. The university authorities initiated proceedings under a specific regulation that deals with cases of impersonation. After a series of hearings and proceedings, the university's Unfair Means Committee disqualified Respondent No.1 for a period of three years based on the regulation.Respondent No.1 appealed this decision to the Unfair Means Appellate Committee of the university, but the committee upheld the initial decision. Unsatisfied with this outcome, Respondent No.1 approached the High Court with a constitutional petition. The High Court, while acknowledging the act of impersonation, decided to reduce the penalty from three years to one year based on a 'lenient view,' deeming the initial penalty as somewhat harsh.The Supreme Court, in its review of the case, emphasized the importance of respecting the autonomy of educational institutions and their internal policies. The Court stated that courts should only intervene when there are justiciable disputes involving violations of the Constitution or the law. The Court further noted that the relevant university regulation explicitly specified a disqualification period of three years for cases of impersonation, leaving no room for discretion in this matter.The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's decision to modify the penalty, stating that such an action ignored the clear mandate of the law and amounted to judicial overreach. The Court stressed that judges should base their decisions on the Constitution and the law, rather than personal emotions or a sense of compassion. Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and reinstated the original decisions of the university's Unfair Means Committee and Unfair Means Appellate Committee, thereby restoring the three-year disqualification for Respondent No.1.The judgment highlighted the principle of academic freedom and institutional autonomy, emphasizing that universities should have the authority to make decisions about their disciplinary matters unless those decisions violate fundamental rights or established laws. The Court's decision reaffirmed the need for judicial restraint and adherence to the rule of law in matters concerning educational institutions.

Summary: Life Imprisonment--Conviction Upheld--the petitioner, armed with a weapon, fatally injured an individual following a minor altercation. The petitioner's co-accused, who was also armed, was acquitted due to a lack of support for the prosecution's case from an injured witness. The petitioner's defense argued that the prosecution's evidence was flawed, pointing to discrepancies in witness statements and the departure of an injured witness from their version of events.However, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, stating that despite challenges and the departure of an injured witness, the prosecution's case remained strong. The injured witness initially supported the prosecution's case in their statement to the Investigating Officer before later changing their stance. The Court noted that the departure of the injured witness did not invalidate the case, as other witnesses named in the case consistently supported the prosecution's version of events.The Court also noted that the investigation had some controversies but still indicated the petitioner's culpability, further supported by the recovery of a weapon matching the evidence. The Court found no flaws or weaknesses in the statements of the witnesses who witnessed the incident and saw the petitioner commit the act. As a result, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the lower courts' decisions and dismissed the petitioner's challenge, upholding the conviction and sentence.

Summary: 2000 -01

Summary: offence under section 496-A, PPC prescribes sentence of seven years, thus, not falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause

Summary: Divergent statements of alleged victim/abductee makes the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry

Summary: Life Imprisonment---The petitioners faced trial and were found guilty of both homicide and attempted murder charges. As a result, they received sentences of life imprisonment and 5 years of rigorous imprisonment. Another accused individual was acquitted based on additional statements.The High Court's judgment on October 6, 2016, upheld the conviction of the petitioners. They challenged this judgment on several grounds, claiming that the prosecution's case was filled with inconsistencies and doubts, rendering it unreliable. They argued that the absence of recovery of a weapon from one of the petitioners weakened the prosecution's case further. They also contended that the testimony of an injured witness was not entirely trustworthy due to discrepancies.However, the prosecution, along with the complainant's representative, defended the High Court's judgment.After considering the arguments and reviewing the records, the Supreme Court judges noted that the statements of the eyewitnesses, including the injured witness, were consistent and coherent. They found no significant reason to doubt the credibility of the injured witness's testimony. The judges observed that the immediate reporting of the incident, prompt examination of the injured parties, and subsequent autopsy indicated that the witnesses' statements were unlikely to be influenced by consultation or deliberation.The fact that law enforcement could not recover a weapon from one of the petitioners did not overshadow the weight of the prosecution's evidence, which also included the recovery of a weapon from the main accused. The judges stated that mere denials were insufficient to dismiss the weight of the prosecution's evidence.Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing to grant leave.