SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTSSupreme 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. N. Roy Commissioner of Police and ANOTHER Vs Suresh Sham Singh-04/07/2006 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 20—Executive Magistrate—Appointment of Police Commissioner as Executive Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate to deal with problem of trafficking of minor girls and women in metropolitan city of Bombay—By impugned order High Court set aside the eviction of respondent holding that notification does not empower Commissioner of Police to assume jurisdiction of District Magistrate—status quo ante ordered to be maintained till appointment of Commissioner of Police as Additional District Magistrate
  • A.R. Antulay Versus R.S. Naik and others-29/10/1986 - The Supreme Court cannot exercise its powers under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. and has no power to transfer the case from the Court of Special Judge to the High Court for speedier trial
  • A.V. Subramanian Vs. Union of India and ANR- 10/01/2017 - In a land acquisition case the claimants have received different amounts by way of compensation and that too in respect of the lands of same nature covered by the same notification and acquired for the same purpose
  • Abdul Rehman and Others Vs K.M. Anees-ul-Haq-14/11/2011 - Penal Code, 1860—Sections 211 and 500—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 195, 340 and 439—Bail proceedings are judicial proceedings—Any offence punishable under Section 211, IPC could be taken cognizance of only at instance of court in relation to whose proceedings same was committed or who finally dealt with that case—Bar contained in Section 195, Cr.P.C. was clearly attracted to complaint filed by respondent—Impugned orders quashed.
  • Abhijit Das Vs. State of Tripura-20/01/2019 - The sentence is altered to the period already undergone SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Act: Section 324 IPC [Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2017 @ Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 9253 of 2014] […]
  • Abhinandan Jha and others Vs Dinesh Mishra-17/04/1967 - It will be seen that the Code, as such does not use the expression ‘charge-sheet’ or ‘final report’. But is understood in the Police Manual containing Rules and Regulations, that a report by the police, filed under Section 170 of the Code, is referred to as a ‘charge-sheet’. But in respect of the reports sent under Section 169 i. e., when there is no sufficient evidence to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, it is termed variously, in different States, as either ‘referred charge’, ‘final report’, or ‘Summary’.
  • 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.
  • Agra Diocesan Trust Association Vs. Anil David and Ors-19/02/2020 - Concept of "market value" - a wider concept in other contexts, was deemed to be referrable to one or other modes of determining the value under sub clauses (v), (va) or (vb) of Section 7 (iv-A).
  • 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
  • AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH  VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS-19/03/2020 - The consistent view taken by this Court that the exercise of power of judicial review of the decision taken by His Excellency the President of India in Mercy Petition is very limited.Keeping in view the above principles, when we considered the grounds raised by the petitioner, we do not find any ground to hold that there was non-application of mind by the President of India. Insofar as the alleged torture of the petitioner in the prison, as we have held in earlier Writ Petition (criminal) Diary No. 3334 of 2020, the alleged torture in the prison cannot be a ground for review of the order of rejection of the Mercy Petition by the President of India.
  • 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. […]
  • Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. and others Versus Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara -10/02/1961 - there was no legislative power for the levy of the tax and that consequently the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Art. 19(1)(f) and (g) are being violated.
  • 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.
  • Anu Bhanvara etc. Vs. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors- 9/8/2019 - Adequate compensation – which of the respondents, that is the owner and driver, or the insurer of the vehicle, would be liable for payment of such compensation-since the claimants were gratuitous passengers […]
  • Apex Court is in favour of disclosing marks of Main Exam before conducting viva-voce in Judicial Services-13/12/2019 - Pranav Verma & Others Vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & anr-As regards the petitioners' plea that marks of the Main Exam should be disclosed before conducting viva-voce, we are of the considered opinion that such a practice may not insulate the desired transparency, rather will invite criticism of likelihood of bias or favourtism.As the written examination assesses knowledge and intellectual abilities of a candidate, the interview is aimed at assessing their overall intellectual and personal qualities which are imperative to hold a judicial post.
  • APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD VS SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS & ORS- 14/2/2020 - Section 138 of the N.I-It appears that both, the Learned Trial Court as well as the High Court, have committed error in shifting the burden upon the complainant to prove the debt or liability, without appreciating the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act.
  • ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS-9/10/2017 -   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Date: October 09, 2017. Bench : (A.K. SIKRI) (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE) (ASHOK BHUSHAN) IA NO. 92862 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 728 OF 2015 W I T […]
  • Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to supplant the statutory provision  - Anupal Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and Others-30/09/2019-The power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to supplant the statutory provision under the UP Reservation Act, 1994.
  • Asgar & Ors. Vs. Mohan Varma & Ors-05/02/2019 - An issue which the appellants might and ought to have asserted in the earlier round of proceedings is deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue. The High Court was, in this view of the matter, entirely justified in coming to the conclusion that the failure of the appellants to raise a claim would result in the application of the principle of constructive res judicata both having regard to the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1958 and to the provisions of Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of the CPC.
  • 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.
  • Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik Versus Union of India and others-04/04/1989 - constitutional requirement of expeditious consideration of the petitioner’s representation by the Government as spelt out from Art. 22(5) of the Constitution
  • Assam Public Works Vs. Union of India & Ors. 13/08/ 2019 - The entire NRC exercise having been performed and the same cannot be now ordered to be reopened by initiation of a fresh exercise on certain other parameters that have been suggested on behalf of the intervenors/applicants on the strength of the provisions of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act.
  • Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another Vs M/s. Ashok Saw Mill-16/07/2009 - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002—Sections 13 and 17—Enforcement of security interest—Jurisdiction of DRT with regard to post 13(4) events—DRT is entitled to question the action taken by secured creditor and transactions entered into by virtue of Section 13(4)—DRT has been vested with authority to even set aside a transaction including sale and to restore possession to borrower in appropriate cases—DRT has jurisdiction to deal with a post 13(4) situation—Action taken by a secured creditor in terms of Section 13(4) is open to scrutiny and cannot only be set aside but even status quo ante can be restored by DRT. 
  • Bachan Singh Vs State of Punjab-16/08/1982 - constitutional issues arising out of the challenge to the validity of the death penalty
  • Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal Vs. Central Bank of India & ANR-11/09/2019 - Section 13 (13) SARFAESI Act-
  • Balwinder Kaur Vs Hardeep Singh 18/11/1997 - Even where the Family Courts are not functioning, the objects and principles underlying the constitution of these Courts can be kept in view by the civil Courts trying matrimonial causes.
  • Bandhu Mahto (dead) by L.Rs. AND ANOTHER Vs Bhukhli Mahatain AND OTHERS-14/02/2007 - In view of this evidence on record, the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the tenancy held by the defendants will be deemed as permanent tenancy and not tenancy-at-will as alleged by the plaintiffs.
  • Basavaraj R. Patil and others Vs State of Karnataka and others - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 313—Examination of accused—Personal presence of accused—Whether can be dispensed with—Yes.
  • BENEDICT DENIS KINNY  VS TULIP BRIAN MIRANDA & ORS-19/03/2020 - ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION-When a citizen has right to judicial review against any decision of statutory authority, the High Court in exercise of judicial review had every jurisdiction to maintain the status quo so as to by lapse of time, the petition may not be infructuous.
  • BGS SGS SOMA JV Vs. NHPC Ltd-10/12/2019 - ARBITRATION-whether the "seat" of the arbitration proceedings is New Delhi or Faridabad, consequent upon which a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 may be filed dependent on where the seat of arbitration is located.
  • Bhagwan Dutt Versus Smt. Kamla Devi and another-07/10/1974 - As the Magistrate is required to exercise that discretion in a just manner, the income of the wife, also, must be put in the scales of justice as against the means of the husband.
  • Bhagwant Singh Vs Commissioner of Police and another- 25/04/1985 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 154(1) and 157(1)- The injured person or any relative of the deceased, though not entitled to notice from the Magistrate, has locus to appear before the Magistrate at the time of consideration of the report, if he otherwise comes to know that the report is going to be considered by the Magistrate and if he wants to make his submissions in regard to the report, the Magistrate is bound to hear him.
  • Bhagwat Sharan (Dead Thr. Lrs.) vs Purushottam & Ors-03/04/2020 - Hindu Undivided Family-It is held that where one of the coparceners separated himself from other members of the joint family there was no presumption that the rest of coparceners continued to constitute a joint family. However, it is also held that at the same time there is no presumption that because one member of the family has separated, the rest of the family is no longer a joint family.
  • Bhagwati Prasad Sah and others Vs Dulhin Rameshwari Kuer and another-07/05/1951 - Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 101 to 104—Burden of proof—Joint Hindu Family—Presumption of—A Hindu family is presumed to be joint unless proved to the contrary—The burden of proving the status of the family is on the person claiming the relief on the basis of such status—It is a question to be determined in each case.
  • Bhagwati Prasad Versus Chandramaul- 19/10/1965 - If a party asks for a relief on a clear and specific ground, and in the issues or at the trial, no other ground is covered either directly or by necessary implication, it would not be open to the said party to attempt to sustain the same claim on a ground which is entirely new.
  • Bhajan lal Versus State of Punjab and Others – 28/09/1970 - Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953
  • BHAWNA BAI VS GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS- 03/12/2019 - For framing the charges under Section 228 Crl.P.C., the judge is not required to record detailed reasons. As pointed out earlier, at the stage of framing the charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case is to be seen.
  • Binod Kumar  Versus State of Jharkhand and Others – 29/03/2011 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002—Sections 4, 45(1A), 43 and 44-The investigation under the PML Act is solely and exclusively within the jurisdiction and domain of the Enforcement Directorate, which is of course subject to the exercise of powers by the Central Government under Section 45(1A) of the said Act.
  • 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. 
  • Biswanath Agarwalla Vs Sabitri Bera and Ors Respondent – 04/08/2009 - court fees Act, 1870—Section 7(v)—Payment of court-fee—For obtaining a decree for recovery of possession, court-fees is required to be paid in terms of Section 7(v), according to value of subject-matter of suit.
  • Bombay High Court refused to quash FIR against Gautam Navlakha in Koregaon-Bhima violence - Bombay High Court dismissed the petition filed by Navlakha seeking to quash the FIR lodged against him by the Pune police in January 2018 after the Elgar Parishad held on December 31, […]
  • Brajnandan Sinha Vs Jyoti Narain-08/11/1955 - Contempt Of Courts Act, 1952—Section 3—Court—MEANING of—Courts subordinate to High Court—MEANING of—Court of a quasi judicial tribunal created under Statute is not covered by the EXPRESSION ‘court’.
  • Bramchari Sidheswar Shai and others Versus State of WEST BENGAL – 02/07/1995 - Can the citizens of India residing in the State of West Bengal who are professing, practising or propagating the religious doctrines and teachings of Ramakrishna and have become his followers, claim to […]
  • BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs Sh. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma & Anr-05/12/2019 - Pension Denied: Even if the first respondent had served twenty years, under Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules his past service stands forfeited upon resignation. The first respondent is therefore not entitled to pensionary benefits.
  • C.R. NEELAKANDAN AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS-07/05/2014 - Tamil Nadu is entitled to the reliefs as prayed in para 40 (i) and (ii) of the suit. Consequently, it is declared that the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006 passed by the Kerala legislature is unconstitutional in its application to and effect on the Mullaperiyar dam.
  • Canara Bank Vs. N.G. Subbaraya Setty & ANR-20/04/2018 - One well-known exception is that the doctrine cannot impart finality to an erroneous decision on the jurisdiction of a Court. Likewise, an erroneous judgment on a question of law, which sanctions something […]
  • Center for PIL and Others Versus Union of India and Others-11/04/2011 - In larger public interest, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 136 of the Constitution has been monitoring the investigation in a most comprehensive manner.
  • 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.
  • Central Bureau of Investigation etc. Vs. Mrs. Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal & ANR. etc 25/09/2019 - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION-The absence of sanction no doubt can be agitated at the threshold but the invalidity of the sanction is to be raised during the trial. In the instant facts, admittedly there is a sanction though the accused seek to pick holes in the manner the sanction has been granted and to claim that the same is defective which is a matter to be considered in the trial.
  • Chaitu Lal Vs. State of Uttarakhand-20/11/2019 - RAPE-The attempt to commit an offence begins when the accused commences to do an act with the necessary intention. In the present case, the accused appellant pounced upon the complainant victim, sat upon her and lifted her petticoat while the complainant victim protested against his advancements and wept.
  • Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Versus Ashalata S. Guram-25/09/1986 - Statutory tenant is in the same position as a contractual tenant until the decree for eviction was passed against him and the rights of a contractual tenant included the right to create licence even if he was the transferor of an interest which was not in fact the transfer of interest.
  • Chandigarh Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.  Versus State of Punjab & Anr-14/2/2020 - Arbitration Award-an Award can neither be remitted nor set aside merely on the ground that it does not contain reasons in support of the conclusion or decision reached in it except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission requires it to give reasons. In that light the learned advocate would point out that in the instant case the agreement between the parties would require that the learned Arbitrator has to assign reasons for the Award and when such requirement is stipulated the Award passed without reasons would not be sustainable being contrary to the explicit requirement in the contract between the parties.
  • CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN – 09/05/2014 - The basic ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) […]
  • 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 […]
  • Charanjit Lal Chowdhury  Vs  The Union of India and others – 04/12/1950. - Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 14, 19, 31, 32—Deprivation of property
  • Chaturbhuj Versus Sita Bai-27/11/2007 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 125—Phrase “unable to maintain herself”—Meaning of—It would mean that means available to deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself efforts made by wife after desertion to survive somehow.
  • CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER  VS HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND-04/03/2020 - If The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating a third party to have access to the information/obtaining the certified copies of the documents or orders requires to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information, is not inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act;
  • Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act: SC - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VS SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL 13/11/2019-Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act: SC
  • Church of North India Vs Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai and others-03/05/2005 - AIR 2005 SC 2544 : (2005) 3 SCR 1037 : (2005) 10 SCC 760 : JT 2005 (5) SC 202 : (2005) 4 SCALE 633 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) CHURCH of NORTH […]
  • Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi-iii vs M/S. Uni Products India Ltd-01/05/2020 - The common parlance test”, “marketability test”, “popular meaning test” are all tools for interpretation to arrive at a decision on proper classification of a tariff entry. These tests, however, would be required to be applied if a particular tariff entry is capable of being classified in more than one heads.
  • Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Vs. M/s. Krishna Wax Pvt. Ltd-14/11/2019 - Writ in Excise Matter-It has been laid down by this Court that the excise law is a complete code in itself and it would normally not be appropriate for a Writ Court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the concerned person must first raise all the objections before the authority who had issued a show cause notice and the redressal in terms of the existing provisions of the law could be taken resort to if an adverse order was passed against such person.
  • Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal – 13/08/2019 - Income Tax Act - According to Section 292BB of the Act, if the assessee had participated in the proceedings, by way of legal fiction, notice would be deemed to be valid even if there be infractions as detailed in said Section.
  • COMMON CAUSE, A REGISTERED SOCIETY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS- 03/08/1999 - Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or reconstruction. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility Yet in the realm of law the Courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality ot decision legally and properly made Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage ot justice Even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest Court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the Courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice,
  • Competition Commission of India Versus Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Another-9/9/2010 - Competition act, 2002—Sections 16(1), 4, 6, 3, 26, 29 and 19—competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009—Regulations 30(2), 18(2), 35 and 17(2)—U.P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings act, 1960—Section 9(2)—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 14.
  • D. Sasi Kumar Vs. Soundararajan-23/09/2019 - If as on the date of filing the petition the requirement subsists and it is proved, the same would be sufficient irrespective of the time-lapse in the judicial process coming to an end.
  • 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.
  • Dalip Singh and others Versus State of Punjab-12/01/1979 - Although a dying declaration recorded by a Police Officer during the course of the investigation is admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act is view of the exception provided in sub section (2) of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is better to leave such dying declarations out of consideration until and unless the prosecution satisfies the court as to why it was not recorded by a Magistrate or by a Doctor.
  • Dalip Singh Versus State of U.P. and ORS -03/12/2009 - False statement on oath-it is clear that in this case efforts to mislead the authorities and the courts have transmitted through three generations and the conduct of the appellant and his son to mislead the High Court and this Court cannot, but be treated as reprehensible. They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting the course of justice.
  • Dayal Saran Sanan Vs Union of India and others-16/01/1980 - Constitution of India, 1950—Article 311(2)—Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965—Rule 19(1)—Natural justice—Petitioner dismissed from service because of conviction by Criminal Court—In appeal dismissal was modified to one of compulsory retirement—No notice was issued before passing order of dismissal—No summary inquiry was held and no opportunity was given before passing order of dismissal or of compulsory retirement—Order liable to be set aside.
  • Dayanandi Vs Rukma D. Suvarna and Others-31/10/2011 - Hindu Law—Partition—Partition suit decreed by High Court in favour of defendant-respondent reversing decree of Trial Court—Some manipulative alterations were made in Will giving an impression that before putting his left thumb mark, testator had consciously disinherited respondent—Execution of second Will was highly suspicious and not a voluntary act of testator—Appeal dismissed.
  • Deb Narayan Shyam and others Vs State of WEST BENGAL and others-01/12/2004 - whether the qualifications, the duties discharged by the surveyors and Amins are same and identical so as to treat the Amins at par with that of the surveyors may be taken up for consideration.
  • Delhi Transport Corporation Vs D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress and others – 4/09/1990 - whether the employer, Statutory Corporation or instrumentality or other authority under Art. 12 of the Constitution has unbridled power to terminate the services of a permanent employee by issue of notice or pay in lieu thereof without inquiry or opportunity, in exercise of the power in terms of contract which include statutory Rules or Regulations or instructions having force of law.
  • Deoki Nandan Versus Murlidhar and others – 04/10/1956 - Under the Hindu law, an idol is a juristic person capable of holding property and the properties endowed for the institution vest in it.
  • 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 […]
  • DEV KARAN @ LAMBU VS STATE OF HARYANA- 06/08/2019 - "We may also notice that there are concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, which have appreciated the evidence, and we do not think that this Court should convert itself into a third court of appeal for appreciation of evidence."
  • Devendra and OTHERS Vs State of U.P. and ANOTHER – 06/05/2009 - When the allegations made in the First Information Report or the evidences collected during investigation do not satisfy the ingredients of an offence, the superior courts would not encourage harassment of a person in a criminal court for nothing.
  • DHANPAT  VERSUS SHEO RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS-19/03/2020 - WILL-it is the overall assessment of the Court on the basis of the unusual features appearing in the Will or the unnatural circumstances surrounding its execution, that justifies a close scrutiny of the same before it can be accepted.
  • Dharmendra Kumar Vs Usha Kumar-19/08/1977 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 13(1A)(i) & (ii) and 23—Scope and applicability of—Mere non-compliance with the decree for Restitution does not constitute a wrong within the meaning of Section 23(1)(a)—In order to be a wrong under the section, the conduct alleged must be more than a mere disinclination to agree to an offer of reunion—It must be serious misconduct
  • Dilawar Singh Vs State of Delhi-05/09/2007 - Penal Code, 1860—Sections 392, 395, 397 and 452—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 154(3), 210 and 465
  • DILIP SHAW @ SANATAN & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS-02/03/2020 - Common object-The fact that there was short time gap and little deviation in describing the exact place of occurrence by themselves cannot detach the involvement of the persons who had hurled the bombs from rest of the accused persons altogether, who were part of the same group. They were harbouring common object, which fact emerges from various factors including having assembled therewith weapons of assault and their participation in the acts of assault. These weapons were capable of causing death. The act of hurling bombs was in very close proximity in time to the act of assault on Sarban.
  • Dr. Ashwani Kumar Vs. Union of India and Another – 5/09/2019 - The right to life with dignity under Article 21, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Central Government to enact a suitable stand-alone, comprehensive legislation against custodial torture as it has directed in the case of mob violence/lynching vide its judgment 17th July 2018.
  • Dr. Jagdish Saran and others Vs Union of India and others-28/01/1980 - In the adversary system, advocacy in the superior courts, which by their decisions, declare the law for all, must broaden beyond the particular lis into a conspectus of sociological facts, economic factors and educational conditions so that other persons aggrieved, who will potentially be bound by the decision, do not suffer by not being eo nomine parties. Surely, on the available material, counsel have done their best.
  • Dr. S. Kumar & Ors. Vs. S. Ramalingam-16/07/19 - Section 41 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882-Easement of necessity-The argument that right of easement stands extinguished once the easement of necessity comes to an end is not applicable if the rights of the parties arise out of a sale deed and the rights of the parties have to be adjudicated upon as they exist on the date of filing of the suit. The subsequent events of inheritance vesting the property in the same person will not take away the easement right. The appellants have been granted right to use passage in the sale deed.
  • DR. SHAH FAESAL AND ORS.  VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR- 02/03/2020 - Supreme Court is of the opinion that there is no conflict between the judgments in the Prem Nath Kaul case (supra) and the Sampat Prakash case (supra). The plea of the counsel to refer the present matter to a larger Bench on this ground is therefore rejected
  • Federation of Bank of India Staff Unions & ANR. Vs. Union of India & ANR- 1/3/2019 - Indeed, the qualifications and disqualifications are bound to vary from category to category and would depend on the post, experience and the stream from where a person is being nominated as a Director.
  • Firdous Omer (D) by LRs and OTHERS Versus Bankim Chandra Daw (D) by LRs and OTHERS-28/07/2006 - Dismissal of a suit-whether an application for restoration of the suit dismissed under Rule 35 of Chapter X of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court is maintainable and if it is maintainable whether an application could be entertained only if it is filed before the order dismissing the suit is drawn up, completed and filed.
  • Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade P. Ltd. Versus AMCI (I) Ltd. AND ANOTHER-27/07/2009 - In an adversarial process, each party to a dispute presents its case to the natural adjudicator seeking to demonstrate the correctness of his own case and the wrongness of the other.  While […]
  • Fr. Issac Mattammel Cor-Episcopa Vs. St. Mary’s Orthodox Syrian Church & Ors.- 6/09/2019 - Malankara Church is episcopal in character to the extent it is so declared in the 1934 Constitution. The 1934 Constitution fully governs the affairs of the parish churches and shall prevail.
  • Full text of the Supreme Court Judgment on Ram Janmabhumi Title appeal - M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs  Vs Mahant Suresh Das & Ors  Date: SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 9TH, 2019 Unanimous Judgment passed by  CJI. RANJAN GOGOI J. S A BOBDE J. DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD J. ASHOK BHUSHAN […]
  • G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. and another Vs Govt. of Karnataka and another-29/04/1991 - REJECTION OF LEAVE GRANTED BY SC-It is well settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for ‘such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the Special Leave Petitions.
  • Ganpati Babji Alamwar (D) by LRS. Ramlu and Others Vs. Digambarrao Venkatrao Bhadke and Others- 12/09/2019 - Mortgage by conditional sale-There must exist a debtor and creditor relationship. The valuation of the property, and the transaction value, along with the duration of time for reconveyance, are important considerations to decide the nature of the agreement.
  • Gautam Sarup Versus Leela Jetly and OTHERS- 07/03/2008 - An admission made in a pleading is not to be treated in the same manner as an admission in a document.
  • Gayatri Devi Pansari Versus State of Orissa and others – 11/04/2000 - The Policy of the State Government, indisputably being to provide 30% of the 24 hours Medical Stores within a District in favour of ladies by virtue of specific orders passed, therefore, that would itself provide sufficient and valid as well as legal basis for extending preference in favour of a lady applicant as long as the ceiling limit is not violated.
  • Gelus Ram Sahu and others Vs. Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh and others-18/02/2020 - It is the well-settled legal position that an amendment can be considered to be declaratory and clarificatory only if the statute itself expressly and unequivocally states that it is a declaratory and clarificatory provision. If there is no such clear statement in the statute itself, the amendment will not be considered to be merely declaratory or clarificatory.
  • Google India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Visakha Industries and Another-10/12/2019 - DEFAMATION: Google hosts the Google Groups. The only question of fact is whether the appellant is in control of the said Group or it is, as claimed, controlled by its Parent Company. Hence, the issue is limited as to the role of appellant and its participation in the business of providing Google Groups platform and raising revenues for the same through advertisements, etc. apart from marketing it. The appellant, it is contended, cannot be allowed to disown its role in Google Groups. The appellant has withheld the actual nature of the activities it is carrying on in India. A party must come to court with clean hands.
  • Gopal Jha Vs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India – 25/10/2018 - In accordance with these rules, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India (CJI) has also constituted the Judges’ Allotment Committee. It comprises of Hon’ble Judges of this Court, nominated by CJI. There is […]
  • Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji Vs Shah Ranchhoddas Kalidas (Dead) and others-09/09/1969 - Though most of the present day Hindu public temples have been founded as public temples, there are instances of private temples becoming public temples in course of time.
  • Govind Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and another-18/03/1975 - M.P. Police Regulations—Regulation—855-The right to privacy in any event will necessarily have to go through a process of case-by-case development. Therefore, even assuming that the right to personal liberty, the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the freedom of speech create an independent right of privacy as an emanation from which one can characterize as a fundamental right, we do not think that the right is absolute.
  • Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel & Ors. Vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai-23/09/2019 - In the absence of any evidence of any forgery or fabrication and in the absence of specific denial of the execution of the gift deed, the Donee was under no obligation to examine one of the attesting witnesses of the gift deed.
  • Guda Vijayalakshmi Vs Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry-13/03/1981 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 21 and 21A—Sections 24 and 25 C. P. C. not excluded—Husband’s Divorce Suit can be transferred to the place where the wife’s maintenance suit is tried.
  • 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
  • Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Versus The State of Punjab-9/04/1980 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 437 and 438—Anticipatory bail—Considerations for—Anticipation of foul play—The provision for grant of bail can be invoked to meet such contingency in addition to other grounds.
  • Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Anr- 28/09/2007 - On a careful reading of Sec. 319 of the Code as well as the aforesaid two decisions, it becomes clear that the trial court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not […]
  • Guru @ Gurubaran & Ors. Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police 27/09/2019 - Section 302, Indian Penal Code -the accused can only be held guilty of having committed the offence under Section 324 IPC. He has already undergone imprisonment for around 11 years and, therefore, his conviction under Section 302 IPC is altered to Section 324 IPC and the sentence is reduced to the period of incarceration already undergone.
  • H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs B.N. Thimmajamma and others-13/11/1958 - Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 67, 68, 45 and 47—Execution of Will—Proof of—The burden of proof is on the person propounding the Will.
  • H.V.P.N.L. Vs Mahavir-21/07/2000 - The Appellate Forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons.
  • Harendra Nath Bhattacharya and others Vs Kaliram Das (dead) by his legal representatives and others -22/11/1971 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 92—Leave to sue—Necessity of—No allegation of breach of trust or necessity of scheme of administration—Provision has no application.
  • Hari Narain Vs Badri Das-04/03/1963 - It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue and misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading.
  • 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.
  • Harinarayan G. Bajaj Versus State of Maharashtra and Others-06/01/2010 - Under Section 244, Cr. P.C. the accused has a right to cross-examine the witnesses and in the matter of Section 319, Cr.P.C. when a new accused is summoned, he would have similar right to cross-examine the witness examined during the inquiry afresh.
  • Haripada Dey Versus The State of West Bengal and another- 05/09/1956 - No High Court can arrogate that function to itself and pass on to us a matter which in its view is purely one involving questions of fact, because it finds itself helpless to redress the grievance. In such a case, the High Court should refuse to give a certificate under Art. 134 (1) (c) and ask the parties to approach us invoking our special jurisdiction under Art. 136 (1) of the Constitution.
  • 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.
  • Himani Alloys Ltd. Vs Tata Steel Ltd-05/07/2011 - JUDGMENT ON ADMISSION-It is true that a judgment can be given on an “admission” contained in the minutes of a meeting. But the admission should be categorical. It should be a conscious and deliberate act of the party making it, showing an intention to be bound by it. Order 12 Rule 6 being an enabling provision, it is neither mandatory nor peremptory but discretionary. The court, on examination of the facts and circumstances, has to exercise its judicial discretion, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the Defendant, by way of an appeal on merits.
  • Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar Versus Sunanda-20/03/2001 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 13(1A) and 23—Divorce—Non-cohabitation for more than one year after judicial separation—Divorce not granted—Husband obliged to pay maintenance to wife—Refusal to pay maintenance is ‘wrong’ within the meaning of Section 23.
  • HIRAL P. HARSORA AND ORS. VERSUS KUSUM NAROTTAMDAS HARSORA AND ORS – 6/10/2016 - The words “adult male” in Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act will stand deleted since these words do not square with Article 14 of the Constitution DATE : 06-10-2016 IN THE SUPREME […]
  • How to compute compensation payable to the dependants of the deceased under MV Act-United India Insurance Vs. Satinder Kaur-30/06/2020 - United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors-U/S. 166/168 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988-The Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors[ (2017) 16 SCC 680]affirmed the view taken in Sarla Verma (supra) and Reshma Kumari (supra), and held that the age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. Another three-judge bench in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud & Ors.[(2019) 5 SCC 554] traced out the law on this issue, and held that the compensation is to be computed based on what the deceased would have contributed to support the dependants.
  • I. R. Coelho (dead) by L.Rs Vs State of Tamil Nadu -11/01/2007 - The power to amend cannot be equated with the power to frame the Constitution. This power has no limitations or constraints, it is primary power, a real plenary power.
  • In re: Arundhati Roy – 06/03/2002 - As the respondent has not shown any repentance or regret or remorse, no leinent view should be taken in the matter. However, showing the magnanimity of law by keeping in mind that the respondent is a woman, and hoping that better sense and wisdom shall dawn upon the respondent in the future to serve the cause of art and literature by her creative skill and imagination, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if she is sentenced to symbolic imprisonment besides paying a fine of ` 2000/-.
  • 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, […]
  • In West Bengal Panjabi speaking Sikhs are linguistic minority against Bengali: SC - Chandana Das (Malakar) Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors-25/09/2019- In the State of West Bengal, Sikhs are a linguistic minority vis-à-vis their language, namely, Punjabi, as against the majority language of the State, which is Bengali.
  • Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr Vs State of Uttaranchal and Ors -09/10/2007 - In complaint cases, at the first instance, the court should direct serving of the summons along with the copy of the complaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the summons, the court, in the second instance should issue bailable warrant. In the third instance, when the court is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the courts proceeding intentionally, the process of issuance of the non-bailable warrant should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount, therefore, we caution courts at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants.
  • Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State of Punjab and Another- 23/08/11 - Fraud-Equity-Void Ab initio-Domestic Violence-false statement-Conjugal Right For setting aside such an order, even if void, the party has to approach the appropriate forum (2011) 9 SCALE 295 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Inderjit […]
  • India does not have structured sentencing guidelines : Supreme Court Observed - State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Lal & Another
  • Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain- 07/11/1975 - When the constituent power exercises powers the constituent power comprises legislative, executive and judicial powers. All powers flow from the constituent power through the Constitution to the various departments or heads.
  • Indra Sawnhey v. Union of India – 16/11/1992 - KEYWORDS:- RESERVATION- AIR 1993 SC 477 : (1992) 2 Suppl. SCR 454 : (1992) 3 Suppl. SCC 212 : JT 1992 (6) SC 273 : (1992) Suppl. SCALE 1 (SUPREME COURT OF […]
  • Indusind Media & Communications Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi-27/09/2019 - CUSTOM-The basic principle of levy of customs duty, in view of the aforementioned provisions, is that the value of the imported goods has to be determined at the time and place of importation. The value to be determined for the imported goods would be the payment required to be made as a condition of sale. Assessment of customs duty must have a direct nexus with the value of goods which was payable at the time of importation.
  • INTERNET AND MOBILE ASSOCIATION OF INDIA Vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA-04/03/2020 - Crypto Currency-The petitioner in the first writ petition is a specialized industry body known as ‘Internet and Mobile Association of India’ which represents the interests of online and digital services industry. The petitioners in the second writ petition comprise of a few companies which run online crypto assets exchange platforms, the shareholders/founders of these companies and a few individual crypto assets traders.
  • Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs Meenakshi Marwah and another-11/03/2005 - Civil vs Criminal Proceeding-effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal Courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein.
  • Iqbal Singh Narang and Others Vs Veeran Narang-30/11/2011 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 195 and 340—Perjury—Making of false statement in court of Rent Controller—Though Rent Controller discharges quasi-judicial functions, he is not a Court, as understood in conventional sense and he cannot make complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C.—Complaint could be made by a private party in the proceedings—Rent Controller, being a creature of Statute, has to act within four corners of Statute and could exercise only such powers as had been vested in him by Statute—No reason to quash proceedings.
  • Jagraj Singh Vs Birpal Kaur-13/02/2007 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 23(2)—Matrimonial Dispute—Court is expected, not bound, to make all efforts to bring about reconciliation between the partners—Personal presence of parties—Issuance of non-bailable warrants—Court has jurisdiction to pass such order which is in consonance with Section 23(2) of the Act.
  • JAI PRAKASH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH  AND OTHERS-28/11/2019 - Murder Conviction-Sections 302 IPC and 120-B IPC-The duty of the appellate court is to consider and appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution and arrive at an independent conclusion. Like the trial court, the appellate court also must be satisfied of its conclusion.
  • Janardhan Reddy and others Versus The State OF Hyderabad-14-12-1950 - Special Leave Petition—Scope of jurisdiction—Judgement passed by High Court of Hyderabad under the rule of H.E.H. Nizam of Hyderabad which was not part of territory of India before adoption of the Constitution of India—Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain Special Leave Petition against the order of High Court of Hyderabad.
  • Jasmeet Kaur Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr-12/12/ 2019 - It was evident from the conduct of the parties that they had abandoned their domicile of origin i.e. India, had set up their matrimonial home in the U.S. and raised their daughter in that environment. When the Petitioner - wife decided not to return to the U.S. in January, 2016 she acted in her self-interest, and not in the best interest of her children.
  • Jignesh Shah & ANR. Vs. Union of India & ANR-25/09/2019 - A winding up proceeding is a proceeding 'in rem' and not a recovery proceeding
  • 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.
  • Jitendra Panchal Vs Intelligence Officer, NCB and Another 03/02/2009: The concept of double jeopardy - This appeal raises an interesting legal conundrum involving the laws of the United States of America, hereinafter referred to as ‘the USA’, and the domestic laws as existing in India. At the […]
  • Jose Paulo Coutinho Vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira & ANR- 13/09/2019 - Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 as applicable in the State of Goa, which shall govern the rights of succession and inheritance even in respect of properties of a Goan domicile situated outside Goa, anywhere in India
  • Joseph Salvaraj A. Versus State of Gujarat and Others – 04/07/2011 - (2011) 6 SCALE 731 : (2011) 7 SCC 59 : AIR 2011 SC 2258 : JT 2011 (7) SC 53 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Joseph Salvaraj […]
  • Justice V.S. Dave President vs Kusumjit Sidhu 18/04/2018 - the medical reimbursement of a retired Chief Justice and/or a retired judge of a High Court should be reimbursement of all medical expenses including hospital charges which a retired Chief Justice and/or a retired Judge of a High Court may have had to incur in connection with the medical treatment of himself and/or his/her dependent family members. Except for certain inadmissible items of expenditure, on which there can be no dispute, such reimbursement should extend to all items of expenditure including hospital charges.
  • K. Arjun Das Vs. Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa & Ors-17/9/2019 - The deity cannot be divested of any title or rights of immovable property in violation of the statutory provisions and this fact cannot be ruled out that the property belonging to the deity must fetch the best possible price..
  • K. Balakrishna Rao and others Versus Haji Abdulla Sait and others-10/10/1979 - Parties could not either by consent or acquiescence confer jurisdiction on court when law had taken it away.
  • 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. […]
  • K. C. Gajapati Narayan Deo and others Vs State of Orissa-29/05/1953 - The legislature cannot violate the constitutional prohibitions by employing an indirect method.
  • K. Hasim Versus State of Tamil Nadu-17/11/2004 - Necessity and meaning of—Rule requiring corroboration for acting upon testimony of an accomplice is a rule of prudence
  • K. Virupaksha & Anr. Vs The State of Karnataka & Anr-03/02/2020  - Criminal Complaint in connection with SARFAESI- DRT Act-Complainant filed the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The said complaint being taken on record, the learned Magistrate has referred the same for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and to submit a report. Based on such direction an FIR was registered.
  • K.H. Nazar Vs. Mathew K. Jacob & Ors -30/09/2019 - Statutory Interpretation- Beneficial Legislation-Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of ‘bread and butter’ statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions
  • K.K. Velusamy Versus N. Palanisamy -30/03/2011 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 18, Rule 17 read with Section 151—Recall of witness—Ideally, recording of evidence should be continuous, followed by arguments, without any gap—Courts should constantly endeavour to follow such time schedule—Amended Code expects them to do so—If that is done, applications for adjournments, re-opening, recalling, or interim measures could be avoided.
  • Kailash Gour and Others Vs State of Assam -15-12-2011 - This Court in State of H.P. v. Gian Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71 dealt with the effect of failure of prosecution to satisfactorily explain the delay in the lodging of the FIR and declared that if the delay is not satisfactorily explained the same is fatal to the prosecution.
  • Kale and others VS Deputy Director of Consolidation and others- 21/01/1976 - FAMILY SETTLEMENT-the family settlement arrived at by the parties was oral, and the petition filed by them on August 7, 1956 before the Assistant Commissioner was merely an information of an already completed oral transaction. In other words, the petition was only an intimation to the Revenue court or authority that the matters in dispute between the parties had been settled amicably between the members of the family, and no longer required determination and that the mutation be effected in accordance with that antecedent family settlement. Since the petition did not itself create or declare any rights in immovable property of the value of Rupees 100 or upwards, it was not hit by Sec. 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act, and as such was not compulsorily registrable.
  • Kamalapati Trivedi Versus The State of West Bengal-13/12/1978 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 195—Court—Meaning of—Order of discharge passed by the Magistrate—Taking of cognizance by the Magistrate is not necessary to regard him as a Court.
  • 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 […]
  • Karam Kapahi and Ors Vs Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Another: 07/04/2010 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 12, Rule 6—Judgment on admission—Termination of lease—Non-payment of rent—Prayer for judgment on admission under Order 12, Rule 6 of CPC-Where controversy is between parties on an admission of non-payment of rent, judgment can be rendered on admission by Court—Club seeks to approbate and reprobate—Club was very negligent in pursuing its case—Doctrine of election squarely applies as Club has advanced inconsistent pleas—Club not entitled to any discretionary remedy—
  • KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VS B. HEERA NAIK & ORS. ETC- 26/11/2019 - Criminal-Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974- whether Commissioner of City Municipal Council and Chief Officers of City Municipal Council can be prosecuted under Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1974”).
  • Karuppanna Gounder Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police – 17/09/2019 - Accused acquitted : The question is whether the death of the deceased could be attributed to the injury caused by the appellant A1. The appellant is alleged to have used the Sammatti […]
  • Kashi Math Samsthan and Another Vs Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy and Another-02/12/2009 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Order 41, Rule 5 and Section 151—Injunction—By impugned judgment, High Court rejected interim applications filed by appellants seeking status quo and stay of execution of decree in a suit for declaration and injunction.
  • Kedar Nath Singh and ORS Vs State of Bihar AND ORS-24/01/1962 - SEDITION-The gist of the offence of ‘sedition’ is incitement to create public disorder by words spoken or written which have the tendency or the effect of bringing the Government established by law into hatred or contempt or creating disaffection in the sense of disloyalty to the State, in other words bringing the law into line with the law of sedition in England, as was the intention of the legislators when they introduced Section 124A into the Indian Penal Code in 1870 as aforesaid, the law will be within the permissible limits laid down in clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution.
  • Kesavananda Bharati Sripadgalvaru and others Versus State of Kerala and another 24/04/1973 - The view that Art. 368 is a complete code in itself in respect of the procedure provided by it and does not contemplate any amendment of a Bill for amendment of the Constitution after it has been introduced, and that if the Bill is amended during its passage through the House, the Amendment Act cannot be said to have been passed in conformity with the procedure prescribed by Art. 368 and would be invalid, is erroneous.
  • Keshavan Madhava Menon Vs The State of Bombay-22/01/1951 - What Art. 13(1) provides is that all existing laws which clash with the exercise of the fundamental rights (which are for the first time created by the Constitution) shall to that extent be void. As the fundamental rights became operative only on and from the date of the Constitution the question of the inconsistency of the existing laws which those rights must necessarily arise on and from the date those rights came into being.
  • Kewal Krishan Puri and another Vs State of Punjab and others- 04/05/1979 - Court pointing out the difference between “tax” and “fee” with reference to the constitutional provisions and otherwise also, the problem before us has presented some new angles and facets.
  • Kharak Singh Versus  State of U.P. and others -18/12/1962 - An unauthorised intrusion into a person’s home and the disturbance caused to him thereby, is as it were the violation of a common law right of a man—an ultimate essential of ordered liberty, if not of the very concept of civilisation.
  • Khushal Rao Versus State of Bombay-25/09/1957 - Though under Section 133 of the Evidence Act, it is not illegal to convict a person on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Act, lays down as a rule of prudence based on experience, that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless his evidence is corroborated in material particulars and this has now been accepted as a rule of law.
  • KRISHNA PRASAD VERMA (D) THR. LRS. VS STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 26/09/2019 - We are in no manner indicating that if a judicial officer passes a wrong order, then no action is to be taken. In case a judicial officer passes orders which are against settled legal norms but there is no allegation of any extraneous influences leading to the passing of such orders then the appropriate action which the High Court should take is to record such material on the administrative side and place it on the service record of the judicial officer concerned.
  • Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others-20/09/1990 - This was done in spite of the clear provisions in the L. R. Manual laying down detailed procedure for appointment, termination and renewal of tenure and the requirement to first consider the existing incumbent for renewal of his tenure and to take steps for a fresh appointment in his place only if the existing incumbent is not found suitable in comparison to more suitable persons available for appointment at the time of renewal
  • Kunhayammed and others  Versus State of Kerala and another – 19/07/2000. - The logic underlying the doctrine of merger is that there cannot be more than one decree or operative orders governing the same subject matter at a given point of time. When a […]
  • L. C. Golak Nath and others – 27/02/1967 - majority of six against five, the fundamental rights were held to be unamendable by Parliament under Article 368, was overruled as a result of the decision in Kesavananda Bharati’s case.
  • L. Chandra Kumar Vs Union of India and others- 18/3/1997 - The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court
  • L.K. Trust Vs EDC Ltd. and Others Respondent – 10/05/2011 - Dismissal of an earlier suit for redemption whether as abated or as withdrawn or in default would not debar the mortgagor from filing a second suit for redemption so long as the mortgage subsists.
  • Laxmidas Bapudas Darbar and anr Vs Smt. Rudravva and Ors-27/08/2001 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 111—Lease—Determination—Fixed term contractual lessee—Non obstante clause in Rent Act—Eviction sought on bona fide need of lessor as a ground for eviction under the Rent Act—Held: After enforcement of Rent Act a fixed term contractual lessee, during subsistence of lease, be evicted only on grounds of eviction provided in the Rent Act and that too only if such grounds have been provided as one of the grounds for forfeiture of lease rights in the lease deed.
  • Leeladhar (D) through LRS. Vs. Vijay Kumar (D) through LRS-26/09/2019 - Specific performance of the contract-The agreement was an agreement to sell and after entering into the agreement to sell, Appellant received the full sale consideration and handed over the possession to Respondent, the question of exercising any discretionary favour to the appellant does not arise.
  • M. C. Mehta and another Vs Union of India and others-17/02/1986 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 133(1)—Factories Act, 1948—Section 40(2)—Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Section 25—Air (Prevention and Control and Pollution) Act, 1981—Section 19(1)
  • M. Gurudas and Ors Vs Rasaranjan and Ors-13/09/2006 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 39, Rules 1 and 2—Temporary injunction—Ingredients—Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury—Finding on prima facie case would be a finding of fact.
  • M. SUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHER  VS S. JANAKI AND ANOTHER- 20/03/2020 - FARE INVESTIGATION-Section 156(3) CrPC is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police.
  • 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.
  • M/s. Avinash Hitech City 2 Society & Ors. Vs. Boddu Manikya Malini & ANR. etc. 6/9/2019 - Application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • M/s. Canara Nidhi Ltd. Vs. M. Shashikala and Others-23/09/2019 - Issues need not be struck at the stage of hearing a Section 34 application, which is a summary procedure
  • M/s. Indian and Eastern Newspapers Society, New Delhi Vs The Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi-31/08/1979 - “information”—Meaning of—When Section 147 (b) of the Income-tax, Act is read as referring to “information” as to law, what is contemplated is information as to the law created by a formal source.
  • M/s. Julien Educational Trust Vs Sourendra Kumar Roy and ors-02/12/2009 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 39, Rules 1 and 2—Injunction-Prima facie case made out by appellant-Trust as to agreement for sale, which has to go to trial—Whether there was a concluded contract or not between appellant-Trust and the respondents is a matter of evidence and can only be gone into during trial of suit—Interim order is required to be passed to maintain status quo of suit property—Prima facie case is in favour of appellant-Trust
  • M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Ram Lal and others-25/01/2005 - Interpretation of Statutes—non-obstante clause—Effect of—Two special statutes containing non-obstante clause—Endeavour should be made to give effect to both—In case of conflict later shall prevail.
  • M/s. S. M. Dyechem Ltd. Vs M/s. Cadbury (India) Ltd-09/05/2019 - Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 : The onus to prove ‘deception’ is on the part of the plaintiff who alleges infringement. A mark is said to be infringed by another trader if, even without using the whole of it, the latter uses one or more of its “essential features.” The identification of an essential feature depends partly on the Courts own judgment and partly on the burden of the evidence that is placed before it.
  • M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd Versus The Government of Andhra Pradesh – 22/10/1963 - A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.
  • 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 […]
  • Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das Vs Surjanarayan Das and another -06/05/1966 - AIR 1967 SC 256 : (1966) Suppl. SCR 436 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das Vs Surjanarayan Das and another (Before : A. K. Sarkar, C.J.I., M. Hidayatullah, R. […]
  • Maharao Saheb Shri Bhim Singhji Versus Union of India and others - There can be no scheme for nationalisation of any industry, there can be no socio-economic measures enacted if the concept of ‘just equivalent’ were to be introduced even after the 25th Amendment.
  • Mahipal Vs Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr-05/12/2019 - Cancellation of Bail -Where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind which may require the intervention of this Court. Where an earlier application for bail has been rejected, there is a higher burden on the appellate court to furnish specific reasons as to why bail should be granted.
  • Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India- 25/01/1978 - Preventive Detention must be in the interest of the general public- It should Right , Fair and Just.
  • 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.
  • Manju Puri Vs. Rajiv Singh Hanspal & Ors-14/11/2019 - Revocation of probate-even though learned Single Judge had discretion to issue citation or not but in the facts of the present case a citation ought to have been issued in exercise of discretion conferred under Section 283 of the Succession Act and the probate granted without issuance of such citation in the facts of the present case deserves to be revoked and learned Single Judge and the Division Bench committed error in rejecting the application for revocation filed by the appellant.
  • Manohar Lal Vs The State-23/05/1951 - Legislation—Legislative competence—Trade and commerce—Scope of legislative entry—The State Government under Item 27 of List II of Seventh Schedule of constitution is entitled to legislate in regard to entry, regulation of powers, place, date and manner of sale of particular commodity or commodities including restricting sales on particular day or days of religious festivals and so forth.
  • Manohar Singh Versus D. S. Sharma and others – 13/11/2009 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Sections 35B and 148—Non-payment of costs—Consequences—Suit cannot be dismissed for non-payment of costs—If costs levied are not paid by party on whom it is levied, such defaulting party is prohibited from any further participation in suit—Award of costs, is an alternative available to Court instead of dispensing with cross-examination and closing evidence of witness—If cost is not paid by due date Court has discretion to extend time for such payment—However, such extension can be only in exceptional circumstances and by subjecting defaulting party to further terms—No party can routinely be given extension of time for payment of costs.
  • Masroor Ahmad Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors- 03/12/2018 - POSSESSION-It is a settled principle of law that in order to prove that the possession of any person in any immovable property is legal, it is necessary for such person to prove prima facie that he is either the owner of such property or is in possession as a lawful tenant or is in its permissive possession with the express consent of its true owner. Such is not the case here.
  • Mathai M. Paikeday Vs C.K. Anthony- 11/07/2011 - Indigent person: in terms of explanation I to Rule 1 of Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is one who is either not possessed of sufficient means to pay court fee when such fee is prescribed by law, or is not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees when such court fee is not prescribed. In both the cases, the property exempted from the attachment in execution of a decree and the subject-matter of the suit shall not be taken into account to calculate financial worth or ability of such indigent person.
  • Md. Abrar Vs. Meghalaya Board of Wakf & ANR-26/09/2019 - WAKF- in order to establish a claim of hereditary succession to mutawalliship, the intention of the waqif, as manifested either through the directions given in the waqf deed or the creation of a custom, is of paramount importance
  • Meenakshiammal (deceased by LRs) and others – Vs Chandrasekaran and another-03/11/2004 - Succession Act, 1925—Section 63-Will—Execution of—Burden of proof—Onus of proving Will lies on propounder—In absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of Will, proof of testamentary capacity and proof of signature of testator as required by law, sufficient to discharge the onus—However, in case of existence of suspicious circumstances, onus lies on propounder to explain the genuineness of Will to the satisfaction of Court.
  • Michael Machado and anr Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and anr-17/02/2000 - The basic requirements for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, had committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned.
  • Minerva Mills Ltd. and others Versus Union of India and others-31/07/1980 - Whether Directive Principles of State policy can have primacy over the fundamental rights
  • Mohammad Aslam Versus State of U.P. – 22/09/1976 - Criminal Law—Practice of letting the main culprit escape while punishing the small offender in offences connected with public funds— Strongly deprecated—Need for keeping up prosecutorial credibility—Emphasised— Wide spread out of the malaise—Pointed out.
  • MOHANDAS AND OTHERS  VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS -29/1/2020 - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966-This is a case where the Municipal Council, which is the Authority, which must make available the funds for the acquisition of the property, is in dire financial straits and is unable to finance the acquisition.
  • Mohd. Aslam Versus State of Rajasthan- 07/06/2011 - conversion of offence against the Appellant Md. aslam from Section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code to 304 Part-I read with 34 Indian Penal Code and convict him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with fine of ` 5000/-.
  • Mohd. Aslam Versus State of U.P. -12/02/1974 - We think that the High Court would have been well advised, having regard to the age of the appellant and also the circumstances of the crime, to have reduced the sentence to one of life imprisonment.
  • Mohd. Aslam Obhure, Acchan Rizvi vs Union Of India, State Of Uttar-24/10/1994 - If the minister has personally broken the law, the litigant can sue the minister, in this case Mr. Kenneth Baker, in his personal capacity. For the purpose of enforcing the law against all persons and institutions, including ministers in their official capacity and in their personal capacity, the courts are armed with coercive powers exercisable in proceedings for contempt of court
  • Mohd. Aslam Versus State of MADHYA PRADESH – 24/11/1978. - Evidence Act, 1872—Section 3—Witness—Withholding of—Allegation of bribe—The person playing prominent part in respect of payment not examined as witness—Conviction, set aside.
  • Mohd. Yousuf Vs Smt. Afaq Jahan and ANOTHER-02/01/2006 - Proceeding under section 200 and thereafter sending it for inquiry and report under Section 202. When the magistrate applies his mind not for the purpose of proceeding under the subsequent sections of this Chapter, but for taking action of some other kind, e.g., ordering investigation under Section 156(3), or issuing a search warrant for the purpose of the investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence
  • MRS. SANTOSH SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER-22/07/2016 - Judicial Process-There is a tendency on the part of public interest petitioners to assume that every good thing which society should aspire to achieve can be achieved through the instrumentality of the court. The judicial process provides remedies for constitutional or legal infractions. Public interest litigation allows a relaxation of the strict rules of locus standi.
  • MUKESH VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI-19/03/2020 - NIRBHYA DEATH ROW ACCUSED-In this writ petition, the petitioner has raised the points on merits of the matter:- (i) That there was no proper consideration of evidence; (ii) regarding the disability of Ram Singh (accused no.1) who subsequently allegedly committed suicide in the prison; and (iii) raising doubts about the arrest of the petitioner at Karoli, Rajasthan.
  • Munawwar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh-16/07/19 - Murder and kidnapping of a seven-year old-The identity of the kidnappers been established. There is direct evidence in the form of ocular testimonies, which establish accused persons had kidnapped and had held […]
  • Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) Vs. Abhilash Lal & Ors-15/11/2019 - STATUTORY INTERPRETATION-if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all, articulated in Nazir Ahmad v. Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253, has found widespread acceptance.
  • NARAYAN BHAGWANTRAO GOSAVI BALAJIWALE  Vs. GOPAL VINAYAK GOSAVI AND OTHERS -22/09/1959 - Admission is the best evidence that an opposite-party can rely upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. (1960) AIR(SC) 100 : (1960) 2 […]
  • Narayan Chandra Ghosh and ORS Vs Kanailal Ghosh and ORS – 16/11/2005 - Thika tenant-the provisions of the Premises tenancy Act would apply to Bharatias. Such suits cannot be effectively disposed of after the commencement of 1981 Act as earlier it was not necessary to prove the grounds for eviction enumerated under the Premises tenancy Act and the Bharatia would be thereby denied the protection granted to him under the Premises tenancy Act although he was entitled to such protection even in pending suits.
  • Naresh Chandra Ganguli for Shri Ram Prasad Das Vs The State of West Bengal and others-20/05/1959 - Preventive detention—Grounds—Vagueness—Meaning of—The statement of facts providing sufficient particulars to enable the detenu to make his representation—Grounds are not vague.
  • NARMADA Bachao Andolan  Versus  State of Madhya Pradesh – 26/07/2011 - a decision to be the decision of the Government must satisfy the requirements of the Business Rules framed by the State Government under the provisions of Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India.
  • NARMADA Bachao Andolan Versus  Union of India and others – 18/10/2000 - One of the indicators of the living standard of people is the per capita consumption of electricity. There is, however, perennial shortage of power in India and, therefore, it is necessary that […]
  • Naveen Kohli Versus Neelu Kohli-21/03/2006 - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage-Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act-Supreme Court recommend the Union of India to seriously consider bringing an amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the grant of divorce.
  • New Delhi Municipal Committee vs Kalu Ram & Anr – 20/04/1976 - If the recovery of any amount is barred by the law of limitation, it is difficult to hold that the Estate Officer could still insist that the said amount was payable. When a duty is cast on an authority to determine the arrears of rent, the determination must be in accordance with law.
  • NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD. VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF  INCOME TAX-03/04/2020 - INCOME TAX-whether the revenue has sufficient reasons to believe that undisclosed income of the asseessee has escaped assessment and therefore there are grounds to issue notice. An assessing officer can only re­open an assessment if he has ‘reason to believe’ that undisclosed income has escaped assessment. Mere change of opinion of the assessing officer is not a sufficient to meet the standard of ‘reason to believe’.
  • Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India & Anr- 23/11/2017 - We declare Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, insofar as it imposes two further conditions for release on bail, to be unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
  • NIRMALA KOTHARI VS UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD-04/03/2020 - Section Section 149(2)(a)(ii) -While hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise.
  • Noorul Huda Maqbool Ahmed Vs Ram Deo Tyagi and Others-04/07/2017 - Criminal Law—Enquiry—Observations and findings in report of Commission are only meant for information of Government—Acceptance of report of Commission by Government would only suggest that being bound by Rule of law and […]
  • OFFICIAL TRUSTEE, WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS Vs. SACHINDRA NATH CHATTERJEE AND ANOTHER -13/12/1968 - Court has no jurisdiction to alter the terms of the deed of the trust.
  • Om Prakash Vs. Suresh Kumar-30/01/2020 - The principal argument of the appellant is that the statement made by his counsel before the High Court was not binding on him, as it was made without his instructions.We hasten to add neither the client nor the court is bound by the lawyer's statements or admissions as to matters of law or legal conclusions. Thus, according to generally accepted notions of professional responsibility, lawyers should follow the client's instructions rather than substitute their judgment for that of the client. We may add that in some cases, lawyers can make decisions without consulting the client.
  • ONGC LTD. & ORS. Vs CONSUMER EDUCATION RESEARCH SOCIETY & ORS- 09/12/2019 - Consumer- whether any amount is being paid by the employees for contribution to the services rendered by the Trust, it is apparent that the service, if any, is being rendered by the Trust and not by the ONGC. Therefore, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the claimants and the ONGC.
  • P. CHIDAMBARAM VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT – 5/9/2019 - Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation.
  • P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep Versus State of Kerala and Anr. – 29/11/2019 - Whether the contents of the memory card/pen­drive submitted to the Court alongwith the police report can be treated as “document” as such.
  • P. K. Palanisamy Versus N. Arumugham and Another- 23/07/2009 - Deficit court fee: Section 149 provides that where the whole or any part of court fee prescribed for any document has not been paid, the court may, in its discretion, at any stage, allow the person by whom such fee is payable, to pay the whole or part as the case may be, of such court fee, and upon such payment, the document in respect of which such fee is payable, shall have the same force and effect as if such court fee had been paid in the first instance. Section 4 of the court fees Act bars the court from receiving the plaint if it does not bear the proper court fee. Section 149 acts as an exception to the said bar.
  • P. Lakshmi Reddy Vs L. Lakshmi Reddy-05/12/1956 - Limitation Act, 1963—Articles 64 and 65—Adverse possession—Co-owner—Permissibility—Sole possession by one co-owner is not sufficient—There must be open assertion of hostile title against the other.
  • P.Chidambaram Vs Directorate of Enforcement – 4/12/2019 - The instant appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 15.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application No.2718 of 2019 impugned herein is set aside; The appellant is ordered to be released on bail if he is not required in any other case, subject to executing bail bonds for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs with two sureties of the like sum produced to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge; The passport ordered to be deposited by this Court in the CBI case shall remain in deposit and the appellant shall not leave the country without specific orders to be passed by the learned Special Judge. The appellant shall make himself available for interrogation in the course of further investigation as and when required by the respondent. The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to intimidate or influence the witnesses;
  • Pallavi Bhardwaj Vs Pratap Chauhan-4/7/2011 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 9—Restitution of conjugal rights
  • 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.
  • PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA  Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI -20/03/2020 - When the power is vested in the very high contitutional authority, it must be presumed that the said authority had acted carefully after considering all the aspects of the matter. It cannot be said that His Excellency the President of India did not consider the mercy petition with open mind filed by the petitioner Pawan Kumar Gupta.
  • Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd-26/11/2019 - ARBITRATION-In exercise of the power conferred by Section 11(6) of the Act, we appoint Dr. Justice A.K. Sikri, former Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator to decide all the disputes arising out of the Agreement dated 22.05.2017, between the parties, subject to the mandatory declaration made under the amended Section 12 of the Act with respect to independence and impartiality and the ability to devote sufficient time to complete the arbitration within the period as per Section 29A of the Act.
  • 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:
  • Prabhjot Singh Mand and Ors Versus Bhagwant Singh and Ors-29/07/2009 - Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976 Rules 18, 21 and 20-A Court while exercising its judicial function would ordinarily not pass an order which would make one of the parties to the lis violate a lawful order passed by another Court
  • 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.
  • Pratap Singh Vs State of Haryana and others / Pratap Singh Vs  Bhajan lal and others -23/09/2002 - Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 226 and 227— Penal Code, 1860—Sections 420, 467, 471, 466, 161 and 120-B
  • Pratapsinhji N. Desai Versus Deputy Charity Commissioner, Gujarat and others-11/08/1987 - When property is dedicated for the workshop of a family idol, it is a private and not a public endowment, as the members who are entitled to worship at the shrine of the deity can only be the members of the family i.e. an ascertained group of individuals.
  • Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Faridkot Vs Sh. Durga Ji Traders and Others – 28/11/2011 - inherent power of the High Court ought to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
  • Purshottam Vishandas Raheja and Another Vs Shrichand Vishandas Raheja (D) through L.Rs. and Others- 6/05/2011 - An interim mandatory injunction is not a remedy that is easily granted-The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining.
  • R. Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar General Of The High of Madras-28/01/2019 - There is a fine balance between the Bar and the Bench that has to be maintained as the independence of the Judges and judiciary is supreme. The independence of the Bar is on equal footing, it cannot be ignored and compromised and if lawyers have the fear of the judiciary or from elsewhere, that is not conducive to the effectiveness of judiciary itself, that would be self­destructive.
  • R. P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab-1960 - Inherent powers-In dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question.
  • R. Rajagopal alias R. R. Gopal and another Versus State of TAMIL NADU and others-07/10/1994 - Penal Code, 1860—Sections 499 and 500-Freedom of press vis-a-vis the right to privacy of the citizens of this country-once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others.
  • R.V. Dev alias R. Vasudevan Nair Versus Chief Secretary, Govt. of Kerala and OTHERS – 15/05/2007 - order33 -For calculation of court-fee, there does not exist any distinction between a situation attracting Rule 10 on the one hand and Rule 11 on the other. The court-fee is to be calculated on the amount claimed and not on the amount decreed. For the said purpose, what is relevant is the final decision taken by the court in this behalf. Rule 11 directing the pauper plaintiff to pay the court-fee can be made in the four different situations: (i) When the plaintiff failed in the suit. (ii) Where the plaintiff is dispaupered. (iii) Where the suit is withdrawn. (iv) Where the suit is dismissed under the circumstances specified in clause (a) or clause (b).
  • Radhakanta Deb and another Vs The Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa -13/02/1981 - Hindu Law—Religious endowment—Distinction between Private Trust and Public Trust—Determination of—Tests for determining the nature of endowment indicated.
  • 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.
  • Rahim Khan Versus Khurshid Ahmed and others-08/08/1974 - An election once held is not to be treated in a lighthearted manner and defeated candidates or disgruntled electors should not get away with it by filing election petitions on unsubstantial grounds and irresponsible evidence, thereby introducing a serious element of uncertainty in the verdict already rendered by the elecorate.
  • Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and others Vs The State of Punjab-12/04/1955 - There is no fundamental right in the publishers that any of the books printed and published by them should be prescribed text books by the school authorities or if they are once accepted as text books they cannot be stopped or discontinued in future.
  • RAJA @ AYYAPPAN VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU-01/04/2020 - Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates that to make the confession of a co­accused admissible in evidence, there has to be a joint trial. If there is no joint trial, the confession of a co­ accused is not at all admissible in evidence and, therefore, the same cannot be taken as evidence against the other co­accused.
  • Raja Vs. State by the Inspector of Police-10/12/2019 - TEST IDENTIFICATION-there is no hard and fast rule about the period within which the TIP must be held from the arrest of the accused. In certain cases, this Court considered delay of 10 days to be fatal while in other cases even delay of 40 days or more was not considered to be fatal at all.
  • RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR VS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(ASSESSMENT) & ANR-19/03/2020 - INCOME TAX-while interpreting a Tax Legislature the consequences and hardship are not looked into but the purpose and object by which taxing statutes have been enacted cannot be lost sight.
  • 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.
  • Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation Vs. Star Agriwarehousing and Collateral Management Ltd. & Ors-24/06/2020 - In the matters of contract, the grant of interim order to restrain the successful bidders from executing the contract is not in public interest, more so, when the tender is for storage of food articles in the warehouses of the State Government undertaking.
  • Rajendra Diwan Vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Anr-10/12/2019 - Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011-State Legislature lacked legislative competence to enact Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act. We, therefore, declare Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act ultra vires the Constitution of India, null and void and of no effect.
  • Rajes Kanta Roy Vs Smt. Shanti Debi and another-19/11/1956 - Transfer Of Property Act, 1882—Sections 21 and 19—Transfer of interest—Contingent interest—Determination of—Considerations for—It must be determined by gathering intention from all the terms of document.
  • Rajeshwar Singh Versus  Subrata Roy Sahara and Others-06/05/2011 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002—Sections 50(2) and 50(3)
  • Rajiv Sarin and Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others-09/08/2011 - As and when there is a challenge to the legislative competence, the courts will try to ascertain the pith and substance of such enactment on a scrutiny of the Act in question. In this process, it would also be necessary for the courts to examine the true nature and character of the enactment, its object, its scope and effect to find out whether the enactment in question is genuinely referable to a field of the legislation allotted to the respective legislature under the constitutional scheme.
  • Ram Gopal Versus Nand Lal and others -14/11/1950 - In construing a document whether in English or in vernacular the fundamental rule is to ascertain the intention from the words used; the surrounding circumstances are to be considered but that is only for the purpose of finding out the intended meaning of the words which have actually been employed
  • 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
  • Ram Singh and Ors Vs The State of Delhi and Anr-06/04/1951 - Freedom of speech and expression—Indirect infringement—Order of preventive detention restricting certain persons from making speeches prejudicial to maintenance of public order is valid even though it has the effect of abridging the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.
  • Rama Rao And Anr. vs Narayan And Anr – 20/12/1968 - "Originally the term "court" meant, among other meanings, the sovereign's place; it has acquired the meaning of the place where justice is administered and, further, has come to mean the persons who exercise judicial functions under authority derived either directly or indirectly from the sovereign. All tribunals, however, are not courts in the sense in which the term is here employed, namely to denote such tribunals as exercise jurisdiction over persons by reason of the sanction of the law, and not merely by reason of voluntary submission to their jurisdiction. Thus, arbitrators, committees of clubs, and the like, although they may be tribunals exercising judicial functions, are not "courts" in this sense of that term. On the other hand, a tribunal may be a court in the strict sense of the term although the chief part of its duties is not judicial. Parliament is a court. Its duties are mainly deliberative and legislative; the judicial duties are only part of its function."
  • RAMBABU SINGH THAKUR Vs SUNIL ARORA & ORS-13/02/2020 - It shall be mandatory for political parties [at the Central and State election level] to upload on their website detailed information regarding individuals with pending criminal cases (including the nature of the offences, and relevant particulars such as whether charges have been framed, the concerned Court, the case number etc.) who have been selected as candidates, along with the reasons for such selection, as also as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected as candidates.
  • 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.
  • Rashid Ahmed Vs The Municipal Board, Kairana-19/05/2020 - 1950-Fundamental rights to carry Business and Trade.19-05-1950-The proper order in such circumstance would be to direct the respondent Board not to prohibit the petitioner from carrying on the trade of wholesale dealer and commission agent of vagetables and fruits within the limits the Municipal Board of Kairana, except in accordance with the bye-laws as and when framed in future according to law, and further to direct the respondent Municipal Board to withdraw the pending prosecution of the petitioner
  • Ravi S/o. Ashok Ghumare Vs. State of Maharashtra – 03/10/2019 - MURDER- DEATH SENTENCE CONFIRMED-the victim was barely a two-year old baby whom the appellant kidnapped and apparently kept on assaulting over 4-5 hours till she breathed her last. The appellant who had no control over his carnal desires surpassed all natural, social and legal limits just to satiate his sexual hunger. He ruthlessly finished a life which was yet to bloom. The appellant instead of showing fatherly love, affection and protection to the child against the evils of the society, rather made her the victim of lust.
  • 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.
  • Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai And Others vs State Of Bombay And Another- 30/08/1962 - The right established by Art. 30(1) is a fundamental right declared in terms absolute. Unlike the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Art. 19, it is not subject to reasonable restrictions.
  • 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.
  • Ritu Saxena Vs. J.S. Grover & ANR-17/09/2019 - Any self-serving statements without any proof of financial resources cannot be relied upon to return a finding that the appellant was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Non-production […]
  • 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 […]
  • Rojer Mathew VS South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors:13-11-2019 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 8588 of 2019 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.15804 of 2017] Rojer Mathew …Appellant(S) VERSUS South Indian Bank […]
  • Rojer Mathew Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. and Ors-07/11/2018 - Learned amicus suggests setting up of all India Tribunal service on the pattern of U.K. The members can be drawn either from the serving officers in Higher Judicial Service or directly recruited with appropriate qualifications by national competition.
  • 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.
  • Rupa Ashok Hurra Versus Ashok Hurra and another-10/04/2002 - Whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against a final judgment/order of this Court, after dismissal of review petition, either under Article 32 of the Constitution or otherwise? Date:-10-04-2002- AIR […]
  • S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and ors -27/10/1993 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 2(2)—Decree—Nullity—Decree obtained by fraud—Duty of litigant to come to the Court with true case and to prove it with true evidence—Withholding of vital documents in order to gain advantage over the other parties—The decree obtained by fraud is a nullity.
  • S. P. Gupta Vs President of India and others-30/12/82 - KEYWORDS:- independence of the judiciary DATE:-30.12.1982 AIR 1982 SC 149 : (1982) 2 SCR 365 : (1981) Suppl. SCC 87 : (1981) 4 SCALE 1974A (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) S. P. Gupta Appellant […]
  • S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar Vs S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar -28/11/1957 - The computation of court-fees in suits falling under Section 7(iv) of the Act depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff makes in respect of his claim. Once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court-fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction.
  • Sabarimala review petitions referred to Seven Judges bench by SC Read full judgment – 14/09/2019 - Kantaru Rajeevaru Vs Indian Young Lawyers Association Thr. its General Secretary And Ors-The decision of the Seven Judges bench of this Court in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Shri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (Shirur Mutt) (1954) SCR 1005 holding that what are essential religious practices of a particular religious denomination should be left to be determined by the denomination itself and the subsequent view of a Five Judges bench in Durgah Committee, Ajmer vs. Syed Hussain Ali & Ors. (1962) 1 SCR 383 carving out a role for the court in this regard to exclude what the courts determine to be secular practices or superstitious beliefs seem to be in apparent conflict requiring consideration by a larger Bench. 
  • Saeeda Khatoon Arshi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr-10/12/2019 - A protest petition had not been filed by the appellant when the report was submitted under Section 173 did not render the court powerless to exercise its powers under Section 319 on the basis of the evidence which had emerged during the course of the trial.
  • Sahu Madho Das and others Vs Mukand Ram and another-22/03/1955 - Family arrangement—Implied arrangements—Conduct of members of family can be considered to ascertain that family arrangement in fact existed—Circumstances in which registration of family arrangement necessary, indicated.
  • SAJJAN KUMAR Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION -20/09/2010 - A criminal offence is considered as a wrong against the State and the society even though it has been committed against an individual. Normally, in serious offences, prosecution is launched by the State and a court of law has no power to throw away prosecution solely on the ground of delay.
  • Sajjan Singh and Others vs The State of Rajasthan -30/10/1964 - As long as the words ‘sovereign democratic republic’ are there, could the Constitution be amended so as to depart from the democratic form of Government or its republic character? If that cannot be done, then, as long as the words “justice, social, economic and political etc.”, are there could any of the rights enumerated in Arts. 14, to 19, 21, 25, 31 and 32 be taken away?
  • Sakiri Vasu Vs State of U.P. and ORS-17/12/2007 - Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.
  • Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Versus Union of India-02/08/2005 - Multiple directions have been issued in connection with CPC
  • Samarendra Das Versus The State of West Bengal and others-16/01/2004 - Assistant Public Prosecutors (Qualifications, Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974-We hold that the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor was Civil Post under the State in terms of Section 15 of the said Act 1985.

Categories: Supreme Court