Section 29 - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay, particularly when the appellant was incarcerated. On merits, the Court acquitted the accused due to fatal procedural lapses: non-compliance with mandatory sampling guidelines under Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 and Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which rendered the seizure and FSL report unreliable. The trial court also erred in clubbing separate recoveries to constitute commercial quantity without evidence of conspiracy under Section 29. Facts Of The Case: On July 16, 2018, based on source information, police apprehended the appellant, Nadeem Ahamed, and a co-accused, Amit Dutta, near Laxmi Store in Kolkata. A search, conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, led to the recovery o...

The Supreme Court held that the suit against the State Financial Corporation was not maintainable due to non-compliance with the mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC. The decree was declared a nullity as it erroneously applied the Interest on Delayed Payments Act, 1993, to a pre-enactment transaction and fastened liability without privity of contract. Execution proceedings were quashed. Facts Of The Case: In 1985, Respondent No. 1, M/s. Vigyan Chemical Industries, supplied raw materials to Respondent No. 2, an industrial unit. Due to a loan default, the Appellant, Odisha State Financial Corporation (OSFC), took possession of Respondent No. 2's unit in 1987 under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. In 1988, Respondent No. 1 filed a recovery suit for its unpaid dues. OSFC was impl...

Tag: Section 29

Technicality or Right? Supreme Court Acquits Man, Rules Mandatory NDPS Procedures Were Ignored

Supreme Court Quashes Decree Against Odisha Corp, Clarifies Law on Interest for Pre-1992 Transactions