Supreme Court

Supreme Court Judgments

Index Search [1950 – 2018]

Supreme Court Judgments[Without head notes]

  • A. K. Gopalan Versus State of Madras 19/5/1950 - Keywords-Due process of Law-Procedure established by Law⇔ Under our Constitution, our life and personal liberty are balanced by restrictions on the rights of the citizens as laid down in Art. 19 and […]
  • A. K. Gopalan vs State of Madras - KEYWORDS:-PREVENTIVE DETENTION DATE :- 19-05-1950 A preventive detention law which provides some procedure and complies with the requirements of Art. 22 (4) to (7) must be held to be a good law. As […]
  • ADI PHEROZSHAH GANDHI Vs. H.M. SEERVAI, ADVOCATE GENERAL OF MAHARASHTRA, BOMBAY – 21/08/1970 - In a civil proceeding the decision of a criminal court is not res judicata. To give an example, if a person is involved in a traffic offence in which some one is injured he may in the criminal court receive a light sentence but if he is sued in a civil court for heavy damages he can plead and prove that he was not negligent or that accident was due to the contributory negligence of the defendant. The decision of the criminal court would not preclude him from raising this issue before the civil court.
  • ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS-27/08/2013 - A large crowd gathered in the court premises caused a great deal of inconvenience, as a result of which, scuffle ensued between advocates, police and media persons and simultaneously violence broke out […]
  • AFCONs Infrastructure Ltd. and AnOTHER Vs Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and OTHERS 26/ 7/2010 - A civil court exercising power under Section 89 CPC cannot refer a suit to arbitration unless all the parties to the suit agree to such reference. If the reference is to arbitration or conciliation, the court has to record that the reference is by mutual consent. If the reference is to any other non-adjudicatory ADR process, the court should briefly record the same.
  • Aftaruddin (D) represented through LRS. Vs. Ramkrishna Datta @ Babul Datta & Ors. 8/12/2017 - A “raiyat” has been defined in Section 2(s) of the TLR & LR Act to mean a person who owns land for purposes of agriculture, paying land revenue to the Government; and […]
  • Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors-27/11/2017 - It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance.
  • Ajayinder Sangwan and Ors. Vs. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors-5/2/2018 - y means of this application, the applicant, who is practicing as an advocate and is enrolled with the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh seeks a direction to conduct elections and direct the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council and Telangana State Bar Council to conduct election as per the scheduled declared by this Court.
  • Ajayinder Sangwan vs Bar Council Of Delhi-23/8/2017 - The respective State Bar Councils shall publish a Final Electoral Roll by including the names and particulars of such advocates whose degrees attached with the application forms have been verified by the concerned University authorities. The names of all such advocates who have not removed the defects in the application forms already submitted within the specified time and also such persons whose degrees on verification have been found false or fake by the University authorities shall not be included in the Electoral Rolls.
  • Ajoy Kumar Ghose Vs State of Jharkhand and Another Respondent-18/03/2009. - Difference between Proceeding instituted on Police report and Proceeding instituted otherwise than police report
  • Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Ors.-1/5/2018 - Section 37 provides that the Special Court shall try cases in camera and in the presence of the parents of the child or any other person in whom the child has trust or confidence; Section 36 casts a duty on the Special Court to ensure that the child is not exposed in any way to the accused at the time of recording of the evidence while at the same time ensuring that the accused is in a position to hear the statement of the child and communicate with his advocate.
  • ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS – 08/02/2001 - The Shetty Commission has recommended assured career progressive scheme and functional scales. We have accepted the said recommendation and a suggestion was mooted to the effect that in order that a judicial officer does not feel that he is stagnated, there should be a change in the nomenclature with the change of the pay scale.
  • ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA-23/4/1965 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ( Before : P.B. Gajendragadkar, C.J; V. Ramaswami, J; M. Hidayatullah, J; K. N. Wanchoo, J ) ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. […]
  • Ameet Lalchand Shah and Others Vs. Rishabh Enterprises and Another-3/5/2018 - An arbitration agreement means an agreement which is enforceable in law and the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is on the basis of an arbitration clause contained in the arbitration agreement. However, in a case where the parties alleged that the arbitration agreement is vitiated on account of fraud, the Court may refuse to refer the parties to arbitration.
  • Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors.2/2/2017 - the scheme of Sections 154, 157 and 173 in particular of the Cr.P.C and the pattern of consequences to follow in the two contingencies referred to herein above, this Court propounded that in case the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process.
  • Anand Kumar Sharma Vs. Bar Council of India through Secretary & Another-1/3/2019 - Suppressing the fact at the time of seeking enrolment in the Bar Council pertains to being in Government service in the State of Himachal Pradesh and involvement in a criminal case and Subsequent acquittal cannot come to the rescue an applicant. Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961 confers power on the Bar Council of India to remove the name of a person who entered on the Roll of Advocates by misrepresentation.
  • Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh Vs. State of Gujarat – 07/05/19 - Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC- Life imprisonment converted into acquittal by giving benefit of doubt-Supreme Court would be slow to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. In an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse (vide Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 11 SCC 141). Where the appreciation of evidence is erroneous, the Supreme Court would certainly appreciate the evidence.
  • Birendra Prasad Sah Vs. State of Bihar & ANR – 08/05/19 - Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881-Issuance of successive notices is permissible under the provisions of Section 138-Condonation of Delay-The CJM condoned the delay on the cause which was shown by the appellant and it is evident that the appellant had indicated sufficient cause for seeking condonation of the delay in the institution of the complaint. 
  • C.R. NEELAKANDAN AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS - (2014) AIR(SCW) 3178 : (2014) AIR(SC) 2407 : (2014) 12 SCC 696 : (2014) 7 SCJ 524 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ( Before : R.M. Lodha, C.J.; Madan B. Lokur, […]
  • Central Bureau of Investigation & ANR. Vs. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum Etc-05/07/19 - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION-the provisions of Article 32 do not specifically indicate who can move the court. In the absence of such a provision in that respect, it is plain that the petitioner may be anyone in whom the law has conferred power to maintain an action of such nature. It is open to anybody who is interested in the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for relief.
  • Chanmuniya Vs Chanmuniya Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Another – 07/10/2010 - Keywords:- Live in a relationship:- wife-  Women in live-in relationships are also entitled to all the reliefs given in the said Act. [ref: to the larger bench] (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) (Before […]
  • D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal- 21/10/2010 - Key Words:– Maintenance-Delay-a relationship in the nature of marriage-Polimony-common law marriage⇒ It is not for Supreme Court to legislate or amend law—Parliament has used the expression “relationship in nature of marriage” and […]
  • D.S. NAKARA AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) – 17/12/1982 - Do pensioners entitled to receive superannuation or retiring pension under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (‘1972 Rules’ for short) form a class as a whole? Is the date of retirement a […]
  • Dalbir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors-02/07/19 - Summary General Court Martial-In service matters the past conduct, both positive and negative will be relevant not only while referring to the misconduct but also in deciding the proportionality of the punishment, the Court should be cautious while considering the case of an officer/soldier/employee of a disciplined force and the same yardstick or sympathetic consideration as in other cases cannot be applied. The resources of the country are spent on training a soldier to retaliate and fight when the integrity of the nation is threatened and there is aggression. In such grave situation if a soldier turns his back to the challenge, it will certainly amount to cowardice.
  • DEOKINANDAN PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ( Before : S. M. Sikri, C.J; P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J; I. D. Dua, J; G. K. Mitter, J; C. A. Vaidyialingam, J ) DEOKINANDAN PRASAD […]
  • Guman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan – 24/5/2019 - A witness can be graded as reliable, unreliable, neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and consequences shall be followed accordingly
  • Hari Sankaran Vs. Union of India & Others – 04/06/19 - Section 130(1) & (2) read with sections 211/212 and Sections 241/242 of the Companies Act, 2013- Report of the RBI Report can be taken note of, while upholding the order passed by the learned Tribunal under Section 130 of the Companies Act. As a larger public interest has been involved and reopening of the books of accounts and recasting of financial statements of the aforesaid companies is required to be carried out in the larger public interest, to find out the real truth, and the conditions precedent while invoking power under Section 130 of the Companies Act are satisfied/complied with, therefore order passed by the learned Tribunal passed under Section 130 of the Companies Act, confirmed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, is not required to be interfered with.
  • Hemareddi (D) through LRS. Vs. Ramachandra Yallappa Hosmani and Ors – 07/05/19 - ABATEMENT OF SUIT- Death of a party during the currency of a litigation -The impact of death of the late brother of the appellant qua the proceeding is one arising out of the incompatibility of a decree which has become final with the decree which the appellant invites the appellate court to pass.
  • IN RE: THE DELHI LAWS ACT, 1912, THE AJMER-MERWARA (EXTENSION OF LAWS) ACT, 1947 AND THE PART C STATES (LAWS) ACT, 1950 - (1951) 2 SCR 747 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ( Before : Harilal Jekisundas Kania, C.J; Vivian Bose, J; Sir Syed Fazl Ali, J; S. K. Das, J; Mehr Chand Mahajan, […]
  • India does not have structured sentencing guidelines : Supreme Court Observed - State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Lal & Another
  • Jiten K. Ajmera & ANR. Vs. M/s. Tejas Cooperative Housing Society – 06/05/19 - Consumer Complaint - Additional evidence before State Consumer Commission - Section 107(1) (d) r.w. Rule 27 of Order XLI, CPC - Under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC a party can produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, if it establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within its knowledge, or could not even after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed.
  • K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr - Notice unclaimed and notice refused has the same meaning and to be understood as valid service SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Appeal (crl.) 1015 of 1999 K. BHASKARAN vs  SANKARAN VAIDHYAN BALAN AND ANR. […]
  • Kamlakar Vs. State of Maharashtra-31/05/19 - Section 302 & Section 147, 148 of Indian Penal Code- Supreme Court not interfered when having reappreciated the evidence to the extent it is required and a detailed perusal of the judgment passed by the Sessions Court as also the High Court would indicate that both the Courts have adverted to the evidence in detail and have ultimately arrived at the conclusion and when the concurrent judgment based upon the evidence have found the appellant to be guilty of the charge alleged against him in committing the murder and had convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
  • KAPILDEO SINGH Vs THE KING - The essential question in a case under s. 147 is whether there was an unlawful assembly as defined in s. 141. I.P.C., of five or more than five persons. The identity of […]
  • M/s. Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors-02/07/19 - A contract is interpreted according to its purpose. The purpose of a contract is the interests, objectives, values, policy that the contract is designed to actualise. It comprises the joint intent of the parties. Every such contract expresses the autonomy of the contractual parties' private will. It creates reasonable, legally protected expectations between the parties and reliance on its results. Consistent with  the character of purposive interpretation, the court is required to determine the ultimate purpose of a contract primarily by the joint intent of the parties at the time of the contract so formed. It is not the intent of a single party; it is the joint intent of both the parties and the joint intent of the parties is to be discovered from the entirety of the contract and the circumstances surrounding its formation.
  • Madhav Prasad Aggarwal & ANR. Vs. Axis Bank Ltd. & ANR-01/07/19 - Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code -A plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all. The Court held that it is not permissible to reject […]
  • Mani Vs. State of Kerala and Others-1/4/2019 - Offence of Murder - In view of sudden fight without any premeditation, the conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 302 is not made out. The cause of death of the deceased is knife blow on the chest of the deceased-Soman. Such injury is with the knowledge that such injury is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death. Thus, the death of Soman is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder as the death has occurred in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel falling within Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC. Therefore, it is an offence punishable under Section 304 Part I, IPC.
  • Parminder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors – 01/07/19 - Motor Accident Claim-functional disability at 100% -loss of earning capacity- The Appellant is entitled to the following amounts: i) Rs. 32,40,000/to be awarded towards loss of future earnings by taking the income of the Appellant at Rs. 10,000/p. m., and granting Future Prospects @50%; ii) Rs. 7,50,000/to be awarded towards repeated hospitalizations and medical expenses for undergoing surgeries and medical treatment; iii) Rs. 10,00,000/to be awarded towards future medical expenses and attendant charges; iv) Interest @ 9% awarded by the High Court from the date of the Claim Petition, till the date of recovery to be maintained. And If the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving license, the principle of 'pay and recover' can be ordered to direct the insurance company to the pay the victim, and then recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount from the owners and drivers of the two offending trucks.
  • Parsa Kente Collieries Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd- 27/05/19 - ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996- Arbitral tribunal must decide in accordance with the terms of the contract, but if an arbitrator construes a term of the contract in a reasonable manner, it will not mean that the award can be set aside on this ground. It is further observed and held that construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an arbitrator to decide unless the arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that it could be said to be something that no fair minded or reasonable person could do.
  • Power Grid Corporation of India Vs. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Company Ltd – 09/05/19 - Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act 1998 - present dispute arises with respect to tariff charged between 01.04.2001 and 31.03.2004 on account of FERV calculation and apportionment. Any variation in the apportionment of FERV now, for the abovementioned period, will consequently be passed on to the consumers. This will be unfair to the consumers who were not consumers for the abovementioned period but will eventually bear the brunt of transactions which took place 15-18 years ago.
  • Prabhat Ranjan Singh & ANR. Vs. R.K. Kushwaha & Ors – 07/11/ 2018 - September 07, 2018  - Direct Recruitment-Supreme Court discussed the following issues for decision:
  • Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & ANR-01/07/19 - Criminal-Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967-The special Judge in his order has neither referred to Section 309 nor Section 167 under which accused was remanded. When the Court has power to pass a particular order, non-mention of provision of law or wrong mention of provision of law is inconsequential.
  • Pramod Kumar & ANR. Vs. Zalak Singh & Ors- 10/5/2019 - ORDER II RULE 2 - CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA-It is undoubtedly true that the law does not compel a litigant to combine one or more causes of action in a suit. It is open to a plaintiff, if he so wishes, however to combine more than one cause of action against same parties in one suit.
  • Rafiq Qureshi Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau Eastern Zonal Unit – 07/05/19 - NDPS-Section 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-where Court imposes a punishment higher than minimum relying on an irrelevant factor and no other factor as enumerated in Section 32B(a to f) are present award of sentence higher than minimum can be interfered with.
  • Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation Vs. Paramjeet Singh – 03/05/19 - LABOUR LAW- The nature of the appointment was purely contractual for a period of one year or until the shortage of drivers was met, whichever was earlier. Moreover, the contract stipulates that the services of the respondent could be dispensed with without any notice.  The terms of the appointment indicate that the respondent was on a purely contractual appointment and that the services could be dispensed with without notice at any stage.
  • RAM SARAN PAL @ LALLU Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH- 21/04/2017 - Grant of bail - The Appellant is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 404 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been in custody for more than six years. He had moved the High Court for grant of bail on an earlier occasion. However, by order the High Court rejected the bail application with the direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of six months - The Court cannot permit the appellant to continue incarceration for a further period without the adjudication being finalized
  • Rambir Vs. State of NCT, Delhi – 06/05/19 - CRIMINAL-The case of the appellant falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Further, the judgment in the case of Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh1 also supports the case of the appellant. In the aforesaid case, the knife blows were inflicted in the heat of the moment, one of which caused death of the deceased, this Court has held that accused is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4.
  • Ramesh Dasu Chauhan and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra-04/07/19 - Evidence Act-There is no gainsaying that confession made to a police officer cannot be proved as against a person accused of any offence and no confession made by a person while in police custody except made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, can be proved against him in view of embargo created by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Section 27 of the Act nevertheless carves out an exception as it provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence while he is in police custody, "so much of such information", regardless of it being a confession or not, may be proved, if it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.
  • Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors – 08/07/19 -  Army Act 1950-The requirement of recording reasons for convening a Summary Court Martial shall apply from 5 July 2016. However, the fundamental principle of law which has been enunciated is that the power to order an SCM is a drastic power which must be exercised in a situation where it is absolutely imperative that immediate action is necessary.
  • Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Reynders Label Printing India Pvt. Ltd. and ANR-01/07/19 - Sections 11(5), 11(9) and 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-Domestic commercial arbitration-That agreement is only between the applicant and respondent No.1 and as a result thereof, it would give rise to a domestic commercial arbitration and not an international commercial arbitration. Respondent No.1 has also made it amply clear through its counsel that it will have no objection, whatsoever, if the Court were to appoint a sole arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the applicant and respondent No.1, who would conduct the arbitration proceedings in accordance with the Act, in Delhi, as a domestic commercial arbitration between the applicant and respondent No.1 alone.
  • Ripudaman Singh Vs. Balkrishna- 13/03/ 2019 - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 – Section 138 – Agreement for sale – Cheques issued by the purchaser pursuant to the agreement for sale was not honoured due to insufficient fund – Complaint filed for dishonour of cheques – Accused moved High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C – Proceeding quashed by High Court holding that the cheques have not been issued for creating any liability or debt but for the payment of balance consideration – The question arose as to whether High Court was correct in quashing the proceeding – Held, No.
  • Rohit Tandon Vs. The Enforcement Directorate [SC 2017 NOV] - KEYWORDS: BAIL DENIED-MONEY LAUNDERING The fact that the investigation in the predicate offence instituted in terms of FIR No.205/2016 or that the investigation qua the appellant in the complaint CC No.700/2017 is […]
  • RUDUL SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER - It is true that Article 32 cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations which can be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary processes of Courts, Civil and Criminal. A money claim has therefore to be agitated in and adjudicated upon in a suit instituted in a court of lowest grade competent to try it. But the important question for our consideration is whether in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, this Court can pass an order for the payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental right. The instant cave is illustrative of such cases.
  • Sasikala Pushpa and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu – 07/05/19 - Forging Vakalatnama-A Vakalatnama is only a document which authorizes an advocate to appear on behalf of the party and by and large, it has no bearing on the merits of the case. Before proceeding to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the court must satisfy itself that "it is expedient in the interest of justice". The language in Section 340 Cr.P.C. shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case.
  • Shri Hanumant Dinkar Arjun Vs. Shri Suresh R. Andhare & ANR – 03/05/19 - Criminal Appeal - In our opinion, the order dated 26.02.2003, which is the basis of the complaint in question, is sub judice in the criminal appeal. In other words, when the order, which is the foundation for filing the complaint in question itself is sub judice, the appellant is required to await the final outcome of the criminal appeal filed by the accused persons.
  • Sita Ram Vs. State of NCT of Delhi – 09/07/19 - Sections 302 and 323 read with 34 of the I.P.C.- the occurrence was without premeditation and sudden fight between the parties started in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. The occurrence happened when deceased as his way back home questioned the accused as to his conduct of tapping electricity from the pole. He was not pre-armed and other accused were also not pre-armed. Though, deceased has sustained as many as nine injuries, except injury no(s).1 to 3 which are the injuries caused on the head and all other injuries are on the hand, shoulder, arms etc. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by deceased, it cannot be said that the accused and other accused have taken undue advantage of deceased in attacking him. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. deserves to be modified under Section 304 Part II I.P.C.
  • Snigdha Mukherjee –vs- State of West Bengal & Anr – 20/07/2018 - Reduction of the amount of interim maintenance awarded by the  Magistrate u/s 23 of DV Act without giving an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party/wife is illegal on a petition by husband before Sessions Judge u/s 29 of DV Act.
  • Sopanrao & ANR. Vs. Syed Mehmood & Ors-03/07/19 - CIVIL SUIT-The limitation for filing a suit for possession on the basis of title is 12 years . Merely because one of the reliefs sought is of declaration that will not mean that the outer limitation of 12 years is lost. In a suit filed for possession based on title the plaintiff is bound to prove his title and pray for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit land because his suit on the basis of title cannot succeed unless he is held to have some title over the land.
  • State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Farid Ahmad Tak – 02/05/19 - Mere summary disposal of a Special Leave Petition does not conclude the issue on merits. The acts of commission and omission on part of the concerned Respondents as a result of which there was wrongful loss to the State and public interest was compromised.
  • State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kalicharan & Ors-31/05/19 - Section 302/149 of the IPC & Section 304 Part II of the IPC- it was a case of free fight,  the weapon used by the accused was Farsa and he caused the injury on the vital part of the body i.e. head which proved to be fatal and again the evidence on record, more particularly, the medical evidence and the manner in which the incident took place, the accused should have been held guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part I and not 304 Part II of the IPC.
  • State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Chandra Nandi - Every judicial or/and quasi-judicial order passed by the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned, which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion. In the absence of […]
  • STATE OF RAJASTHAN  VS MAHESH KUMAR @ MAHESH DHAULPURIA & ANR- 16/7/2019 - In the cases of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a complete chain of evidence as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused and none else.
  • STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. THE DALHOUSIE INSTITUTE SOCIETY - Adverse Possession- “the position of the respondent Corporation and its predecessor in title was that of a person having no legal title but nevertheless holding possession of the land under colour of […]
  • State represented by Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. M. Subrahmanyam – 07/05/19 - Section 173(2)(5)(a), Cr.P.C- The failure to bring the authorisation on record, as observed, was more a matter of procedure, which is but a handmaid of justice. Substantive justice must always prevail over procedural or technical justice. To hold that failure to explain delay in a procedural matter would operate as res judicata will be a travesty of justice considering that the present is a matter relating to corruption in public life by holder of a public post. The rights of an accused are undoubtedly important, but so is the rule of law and societal interest in ensuring that an alleged offender be subjected to the laws of the land in the larger public interest. To put the rights of an accused at a higher pedestal and to make the rule of law and societal interest in prevention of crime, subservient to the same cannot be considered as dispensation of justice. A balance therefore has to be struck. A procedural lapse cannot be placed at par with what is or may be substantive violation of the law.
  • Supreme Court Judgments [SC 1950] INDEX - A.K. Gopalan Vs. The State of Madras [1950] INSC 14 (19 May 1950) A.M. Mair & Co. Vs. Gordhandass Sagarmull [1950] INSC 33 (30 November 1950) Abdulla Ahmed Vs. Animendra Kissen Mitter […]
  • Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and Others Vs. Virender Gandhi-29/05/19 - Section 138 /148 Read with section 143A of the N.I. Act-Whether the first appellate court is justified in directing the appellants - original accused who have been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation/fine imposed by the learned trial Court, pending appeals challenging the order of conviction and sentence and while suspending the sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., considering Section 148 of the N.I. Act as amended? Held yes.
  • Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs. Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd – 02/05/19 - As a matter of fact, what was agreed in the Principles of Agreement more amount than that has been ordered to be paid on the basis of principles of business equilibrium and other factors
  • Tejaswini Gaud and Others Vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and Others – 06/05/19 - Custody of the Child given to the father - Writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative process for securing the liberty of the subject by affording an effective means of immediate release from an illegal or improper detention. The writ also extends its influence to restore the custody of a minor to his guardian when wrongfully deprived of it. The detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody is treated as equivalent to illegal detention for the purpose of granting writ, directing custody of the minor child.
  • The Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Ispat Khandan Janta Mazdoor Union-05/07/19 - where the contract was to supply of labour and necessary labour was supplied by the contractor who worked under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer, that in itself will not in any manner construe the contract entered between the contractor and contract labour to be sham and bogus per se.
  • The Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade – 03/05/19 - The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.
  • TRIAL OF MAHATMA GANDHI-1922 - The account of this trial is in substance taken from an admirable summary of it given by Sir Thomas Strangman in his book “Indian Courts and Characters”. In March 1922, Gandhi was […]
  • Tularam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh-2/5/2018 - MURDER-DISTINCTION BETWEEN MURDER AND CULPABLE HOMICIDE EXPLAINED-Section 300 of the IPC explains what is murder and it provides that culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or the act complained of is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or "such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
  • Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Appellant Versus Union of India and ORS - KEYWORDS:-POLLUTION CONTROL-PIL DATE:-28-08-1996 Precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of the environmental law of the country. AIR 1996 SC 2715 : (1996) 5 Suppl. SCR 241 : (1996) 5 […]
  • WAZIR CHAND Vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – 22/04/1954 - A person in possession of the goods even if not belonging to him cannot be dispossessed without authority of law. Goods in the possession of a person who is not lawfully in possession of them cannot be seized except under authority of law, and in absence of such authority, one could not be deprived of them.

Advertisements

Categories: Supreme Court