Supreme Court

Supreme Court Judgments

Index Search [1950 – 2018]

Supreme Court Judgments[Without head notes]

  • A decree obtained by fraud cannot be used as res judicata and the same can be challenged by a separate Suit-SC - RAM CHANDRA SINGH VS SAVITRI DEVI AND OTHERS - judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially u/s 151 CPC, to recall its judgment or order if it is obtained by fraud" on Court, In the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the Court may direct the affected party to file a separate suit for setting aside the decree obtained by fraud. Inherent powers are powers, which are resident in all Courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and the constitution of the tribunals or Courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officers from indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behavior. This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the Court's business.
  • A. K. Gopalan Versus State of Madras 19/5/1950 - Keywords-Due process of Law-Procedure established by Law⇔ Under our Constitution, our life and personal liberty are balanced by restrictions on the rights of the citizens as laid down in Art. 19 and […]
  • A. K. Gopalan vs State of Madras - KEYWORDS:-PREVENTIVE DETENTION DATE :- 19-05-1950 A preventive detention law which provides some procedure and complies with the requirements of Art. 22 (4) to (7) must be held to be a good law. As […]
  • 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
  • ADI PHEROZSHAH GANDHI Vs. H.M. SEERVAI, ADVOCATE GENERAL OF MAHARASHTRA, BOMBAY – 21/08/1970 - In a civil proceeding the decision of a criminal court is not res judicata. To give an example, if a person is involved in a traffic offence in which some one is injured he may in the criminal court receive a light sentence but if he is sued in a civil court for heavy damages he can plead and prove that he was not negligent or that accident was due to the contributory negligence of the defendant. The decision of the criminal court would not preclude him from raising this issue before the civil court.
  • ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS-27/08/2013 - A large crowd gathered in the court premises caused a great deal of inconvenience, as a result of which, scuffle ensued between advocates, police and media persons and simultaneously violence broke out […]
  • AFCONs Infrastructure Ltd. and AnOTHER Vs Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and OTHERS 26/ 7/2010 - A civil court exercising power under Section 89 CPC cannot refer a suit to arbitration unless all the parties to the suit agree to such reference. If the reference is to arbitration or conciliation, the court has to record that the reference is by mutual consent. If the reference is to any other non-adjudicatory ADR process, the court should briefly record the same.
  • Aftaruddin (D) represented through LRS. Vs. Ramkrishna Datta @ Babul Datta & Ors. 8/12/2017 - A “raiyat” has been defined in Section 2(s) of the TLR & LR Act to mean a person who owns land for purposes of agriculture, paying land revenue to the Government; and […]
  • Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors-27/11/2017 - It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance.
  • Ajayinder Sangwan and Ors. Vs. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors-5/2/2018 - y means of this application, the applicant, who is practicing as an advocate and is enrolled with the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh seeks a direction to conduct elections and direct the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council and Telangana State Bar Council to conduct election as per the scheduled declared by this Court.
  • Ajayinder Sangwan vs Bar Council Of Delhi-23/8/2017 - The respective State Bar Councils shall publish a Final Electoral Roll by including the names and particulars of such advocates whose degrees attached with the application forms have been verified by the concerned University authorities. The names of all such advocates who have not removed the defects in the application forms already submitted within the specified time and also such persons whose degrees on verification have been found false or fake by the University authorities shall not be included in the Electoral Rolls.
  • Ajoy Kumar Ghose Vs State of Jharkhand and Another Respondent-18/03/2009. - Difference between Proceeding instituted on Police report and Proceeding instituted otherwise than police report
  • Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Ors.-1/5/2018 - Section 37 provides that the Special Court shall try cases in camera and in the presence of the parents of the child or any other person in whom the child has trust or confidence; Section 36 casts a duty on the Special Court to ensure that the child is not exposed in any way to the accused at the time of recording of the evidence while at the same time ensuring that the accused is in a position to hear the statement of the child and communicate with his advocate.
  • ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS – 08/02/2001 - The Shetty Commission has recommended assured career progressive scheme and functional scales. We have accepted the said recommendation and a suggestion was mooted to the effect that in order that a judicial officer does not feel that he is stagnated, there should be a change in the nomenclature with the change of the pay scale.
  • ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA-23/4/1965 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ( Before : P.B. Gajendragadkar, C.J; V. Ramaswami, J; M. Hidayatullah, J; K. N. Wanchoo, J ) ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. […]
  • Ameet Lalchand Shah and Others Vs. Rishabh Enterprises and Another-3/5/2018 - An arbitration agreement means an agreement which is enforceable in law and the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is on the basis of an arbitration clause contained in the arbitration agreement. However, in a case where the parties alleged that the arbitration agreement is vitiated on account of fraud, the Court may refuse to refer the parties to arbitration.
  • Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors.2/2/2017 - the scheme of Sections 154, 157 and 173 in particular of the Cr.P.C and the pattern of consequences to follow in the two contingencies referred to herein above, this Court propounded that in case the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process.
  • Anand Kumar Sharma Vs. Bar Council of India through Secretary & Another-1/3/2019 - Suppressing the fact at the time of seeking enrolment in the Bar Council pertains to being in Government service in the State of Himachal Pradesh and involvement in a criminal case and Subsequent acquittal cannot come to the rescue an applicant. Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961 confers power on the Bar Council of India to remove the name of a person who entered on the Roll of Advocates by misrepresentation.
  • 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 […]
  • 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 […]
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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. 
  • 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, […]
  • 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 […]
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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,
  • 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.
  • 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 […]
  • 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.
  • 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. 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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 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.
  • 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.
  • High Court Judgments - Judgments delivered by 21 High Courts and their Benches in India
  • 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, […]
  • 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 […]
  • 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 […]
  • 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. 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. […]
  • 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 […]
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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. 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 […]
  • 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 […]
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Parminder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors – 01/07/19 - Motor Accident Claim-functional disability at 100% -loss of earning capacity- The Appellant is entitled to the following amounts: i) Rs. 32,40,000/to be awarded towards loss of future earnings by taking the income of the Appellant at Rs. 10,000/p. m., and granting Future Prospects @50%; ii) Rs. 7,50,000/to be awarded towards repeated hospitalizations and medical expenses for undergoing surgeries and medical treatment; iii) Rs. 10,00,000/to be awarded towards future medical expenses and attendant charges; iv) Interest @ 9% awarded by the High Court from the date of the Claim Petition, till the date of recovery to be maintained. And If the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving license, the principle of 'pay and recover' can be ordered to direct the insurance company to the pay the victim, and then recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount from the owners and drivers of the two offending trucks.
  • Parsa Kente Collieries Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd- 27/05/19 - ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996- Arbitral tribunal must decide in accordance with the terms of the contract, but if an arbitrator construes a term of the contract in a reasonable manner, it will not mean that the award can be set aside on this ground. It is further observed and held that construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an arbitrator to decide unless the arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that it could be said to be something that no fair minded or reasonable person could do.
  • Power Grid Corporation of India Vs. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Company Ltd – 09/05/19 - Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act 1998 - present dispute arises with respect to tariff charged between 01.04.2001 and 31.03.2004 on account of FERV calculation and apportionment. Any variation in the apportionment of FERV now, for the abovementioned period, will consequently be passed on to the consumers. This will be unfair to the consumers who were not consumers for the abovementioned period but will eventually bear the brunt of transactions which took place 15-18 years ago.
  • Prabhat Ranjan Singh & ANR. Vs. R.K. Kushwaha & Ors – 07/11/ 2018 - September 07, 2018  - Direct Recruitment-Supreme Court discussed the following issues for decision:
  • Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & ANR-01/07/19 - Criminal-Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967-The special Judge in his order has neither referred to Section 309 nor Section 167 under which accused was remanded. When the Court has power to pass a particular order, non-mention of provision of law or wrong mention of provision of law is inconsequential.
  • Pramod Kumar & ANR. Vs. Zalak Singh & Ors- 10/5/2019 - ORDER II RULE 2 - CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA-It is undoubtedly true that the law does not compel a litigant to combine one or more causes of action in a suit. It is open to a plaintiff, if he so wishes, however to combine more than one cause of action against same parties in one suit.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Rajeshwar Singh Versus  Subrata Roy Sahara and Others-06/05/2011 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002—Sections 50(2) and 50(3)
  • 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
  • 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."
  • Rambir Vs. State of NCT, Delhi – 06/05/19 - CRIMINAL-The case of the appellant falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Further, the judgment in the case of Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh1 also supports the case of the appellant. In the aforesaid case, the knife blows were inflicted in the heat of the moment, one of which caused death of the deceased, this Court has held that accused is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4.
  • Ramesh Dasu Chauhan and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra-04/07/19 - Evidence Act-There is no gainsaying that confession made to a police officer cannot be proved as against a person accused of any offence and no confession made by a person while in police custody except made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, can be proved against him in view of embargo created by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Section 27 of the Act nevertheless carves out an exception as it provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence while he is in police custody, "so much of such information", regardless of it being a confession or not, may be proved, if it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.
  • Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors – 08/07/19 -  Army Act 1950-The requirement of recording reasons for convening a Summary Court Martial shall apply from 5 July 2016. However, the fundamental principle of law which has been enunciated is that the power to order an SCM is a drastic power which must be exercised in a situation where it is absolutely imperative that immediate action is necessary.
  • Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Reynders Label Printing India Pvt. Ltd. and ANR-01/07/19 - Sections 11(5), 11(9) and 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-Domestic commercial arbitration-That agreement is only between the applicant and respondent No.1 and as a result thereof, it would give rise to a domestic commercial arbitration and not an international commercial arbitration. Respondent No.1 has also made it amply clear through its counsel that it will have no objection, whatsoever, if the Court were to appoint a sole arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the applicant and respondent No.1, who would conduct the arbitration proceedings in accordance with the Act, in Delhi, as a domestic commercial arbitration between the applicant and respondent No.1 alone.
  • 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.
  • Rohit Tandon Vs. The Enforcement Directorate [SC 2017 NOV] - KEYWORDS: BAIL DENIED-MONEY LAUNDERING The fact that the investigation in the predicate offence instituted in terms of FIR No.205/2016 or that the investigation qua the appellant in the complaint CC No.700/2017 is […]
  • RUDUL SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER - It is true that Article 32 cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations which can be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary processes of Courts, Civil and Criminal. A money claim has therefore to be agitated in and adjudicated upon in a suit instituted in a court of lowest grade competent to try it. But the important question for our consideration is whether in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, this Court can pass an order for the payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental right. The instant cave is illustrative of such cases.
  • 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. 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 […]
  • 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?
  • Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Versus Union of India-02/08/2005 - Multiple directions have been issued in connection with CPC
  • Santosh Kumari Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others -13/09/2011 - Code of Criminal Procedure is devised to sub serve the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by mere technicalities. It regards some of its provisions as vital but others not, and a breach of the latter is a curable irregularity unless the accused is prejudiced thereby.
  • Sasikala Pushpa and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu – 07/05/19 - Forging Vakalatnama-A Vakalatnama is only a document which authorizes an advocate to appear on behalf of the party and by and large, it has no bearing on the merits of the case. Before proceeding to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the court must satisfy itself that "it is expedient in the interest of justice". The language in Section 340 Cr.P.C. shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case.
  • Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Vs. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh (D) through LRS. & Ors-24/09/2018 - A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another
  • Satpal Singh Vs Chunni Lal (deceased by L.Rs.) – 13/02/2009 - Appellant was justified in moving application for restoration of appeal and setting aside of ex parte order particularly when his brother had died and his wife had met with an accident during relevant period
  • Satpal Vs. State of Haryana – 1/5/2018 - LAST SEEN THEORY EXPLAINED: There is no eye witness to the occurrence but only circumstances coupled with the fact of the deceased having been last seen with the appellant. Criminal jurisprudence and the plethora of judicial precedents leave little room for reconsideration of the basic principles for invocation of the last seen theory as a facet of circumstantial evidence. Succinctly stated, it may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to found conviction upon the same singularly.
  • Shakuntala Devi Jain Versus Kuntal Kumari and others – Civil Appeal against the judgment of Executing Court-05/09/1968 - it frequently happens that in cases of execution proceedings, though there is a judgment, an order, that is, the formal expression of the decision is not drawn up. In such cases the concluding portion of the judgment which embodies the order may be treated as the order against which the appeal is preferred
  • Shantha alias Ushadevi and another Versus B. G. Shivananjappa-06/05/2005 - It is true that the amount of maintenance became due by virtue of the Magistrate's order passed on 20th January, 1993 and in order to seek recovery of the amount due by issuance of warrant, application shall be made within a period of one year from the date the amount became due.
  • Shanti Bhushan & Anr vs U.O.I. & Anr -17/12/2008 - A person who is not found suitable for being appointed as a permanent Judge, should not be given extension as an Additional Judge unless the same is occasioned because of non availability of the vacancy.
  • Sheodhari Rai and others  Versus Suraj Prasad Singh and others-01/12/1950. - A suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession of, certain lands and other ancillary reliefs.The plaintiffs claimed to have derived title to the lands in suit by purchase from the defendant by a registered deed
  • Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam Vs Miss Subhra Chakraborty-15/12/1995 - There is a serious allegation that Bodhisattwa Gautam had married Subhra Chakraborty before the God he worshipped by putting Vermilion on her forehead and accepting her as his wife and also impregnated her twice resulting in abortion on both the occasions, we, on being prima facie satisfied, dispose of this matter by providing that Bodhisattwa Gautam shall pay to Subhra Chakraborty a sum of  1,000/ every month as interim compensation during the pendency of Criminal Case No. 1/95 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kohima, Nagaland, He shall also be liable to pay arrears of compensation at the same rate from the date on which the complaint was filed till this date.
  • Shri Hanumant Dinkar Arjun Vs. Shri Suresh R. Andhare & ANR – 03/05/19 - Criminal Appeal - In our opinion, the order dated 26.02.2003, which is the basis of the complaint in question, is sub judice in the criminal appeal. In other words, when the order, which is the foundation for filing the complaint in question itself is sub judice, the appellant is required to await the final outcome of the criminal appeal filed by the accused persons.
  • Sita Ram Vs. State of NCT of Delhi – 09/07/19 - Sections 302 and 323 read with 34 of the I.P.C.- the occurrence was without premeditation and sudden fight between the parties started in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. The occurrence happened when deceased as his way back home questioned the accused as to his conduct of tapping electricity from the pole. He was not pre-armed and other accused were also not pre-armed. Though, deceased has sustained as many as nine injuries, except injury no(s).1 to 3 which are the injuries caused on the head and all other injuries are on the hand, shoulder, arms etc. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by deceased, it cannot be said that the accused and other accused have taken undue advantage of deceased in attacking him. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. deserves to be modified under Section 304 Part II I.P.C.
  • SJ Ajay Kumar Kuhar dismissed a plea by P Chidambaram seeking surrender in ED case - New Delhi: A Delhi Special court Friday dismissed a plea by former finance minister P Chidambaram, lodged in Tihar jail in the INX Media corruption case, seeking to surrender in the money […]
  • Smt. Chand Dhawan Vs Jawaharlal Dhawan- 11/06/1993. - Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 18(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956- The court is not at liberty to grant relief of maintenance simpliciter obtainable under one Act in proceedings under the other. As is evident, both the statutes are codified as such and are clear on their subjects and by liberality of interpretation interchangeability cannot be permitted so as to destroy the distinction on the subject of maintenance.
  • SMT. UJJAM BAI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH -28/04/1961 - A mere misconstruction of a provision of law does not render the decision of a quasi-judicial tribunal void (as being beyond its jurisdiction). It is a good and valid decision in law until and unless it is corrected in the appropriate manner. So long as that decision stands, despite its being erroneous, it must be regarding as one authorised by law and where, under such a decision a person is held liable to pay a tax that person cannot treat the decision as a nullity and contend that what is demanded of him is something which is not authorised by law. The position would be the same even though upon a proper construction, the law under which the decision was given did not authorise such a levy.
  • Snigdha Mukherjee –vs- State of West Bengal & Anr – 20/07/2018 - Reduction of the amount of interim maintenance awarded by the  Magistrate u/s 23 of DV Act without giving an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party/wife is illegal on a petition by husband before Sessions Judge u/s 29 of DV Act.
  • Sopanrao & ANR. Vs. Syed Mehmood & Ors-03/07/19 - CIVIL SUIT-The limitation for filing a suit for possession on the basis of title is 12 years . Merely because one of the reliefs sought is of declaration that will not mean that the outer limitation of 12 years is lost. In a suit filed for possession based on title the plaintiff is bound to prove his title and pray for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit land because his suit on the basis of title cannot succeed unless he is held to have some title over the land.
  • State of Haryana and others Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal and others – 21/11/1990. - Quashing of investigation—Quashing of proceedings—FIR—Cognizable offence—Quashing of F.I.R. and investigation by High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.—Guidelines for exercise the power.
  • State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Farid Ahmad Tak – 02/05/19 - Mere summary disposal of a Special Leave Petition does not conclude the issue on merits. The acts of commission and omission on part of the concerned Respondents as a result of which there was wrongful loss to the State and public interest was compromised.
  • State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kalicharan & Ors-31/05/19 - Section 302/149 of the IPC & Section 304 Part II of the IPC- it was a case of free fight,  the weapon used by the accused was Farsa and he caused the injury on the vital part of the body i.e. head which proved to be fatal and again the evidence on record, more particularly, the medical evidence and the manner in which the incident took place, the accused should have been held guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part I and not 304 Part II of the IPC.
  • State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Chandra Nandi - Every judicial or/and quasi-judicial order passed by the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned, which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion. In the absence of […]
  • State of Orissa Vs. Mamata Sahoo & Ors-16/07/19 - It was found that the respondents had violated the provisions under Sections 3(2), 5 and 29 of the PC and PNDT Act which is punishable under Sections 23 and 25 of the said Act. For violation of PC and PNDT Act and Rule, the authorized officer of the Collector-cum-District Appropriate Authority, Dhenkanal, seized the ultrasound machine and other equipments from the said clinic. For such violation, the registration of ultrasound clinic of the respondents has been suspended vide order of the Collector dated 18.06.2014. A complaint was filed against the accused-respondent under Section 28(2) of the PC and PNDT Act. The Trial Court took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 3(2), 5, 29, 23 and 25 of the PC and PNDT Act and issued summons to the respondents.
  • STATE OF RAJASTHAN  VS MAHESH KUMAR @ MAHESH DHAULPURIA & ANR- 16/7/2019 - In the cases of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a complete chain of evidence as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused and none else.
  • State of West Bengal Vs Subodh Gopal Bose and others-17/12/1953 - Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 19-Article 31(1), though part of an Article is in essence an independent provision to some extent overlapping with the requirements of the law of the Eminent Domain. It is on a par with Art. 21.
  • STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. THE DALHOUSIE INSTITUTE SOCIETY - Adverse Possession- “the position of the respondent Corporation and its predecessor in title was that of a person having no legal title but nevertheless holding possession of the land under colour of […]
  • State represented by Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. M. Subrahmanyam – 07/05/19 - Section 173(2)(5)(a), Cr.P.C- The failure to bring the authorisation on record, as observed, was more a matter of procedure, which is but a handmaid of justice. Substantive justice must always prevail over procedural or technical justice. To hold that failure to explain delay in a procedural matter would operate as res judicata will be a travesty of justice considering that the present is a matter relating to corruption in public life by holder of a public post. The rights of an accused are undoubtedly important, but so is the rule of law and societal interest in ensuring that an alleged offender be subjected to the laws of the land in the larger public interest. To put the rights of an accused at a higher pedestal and to make the rule of law and societal interest in prevention of crime, subservient to the same cannot be considered as dispensation of justice. A balance therefore has to be struck. A procedural lapse cannot be placed at par with what is or may be substantive violation of the law.
  • Sunil Batra Versus Delhi Administration- 20/12/1979 - Right of prisoners to know their rights and responsibilities—Direction given for display of rights and responsibilities inside the prison
  • Supreme Court Judgments [SC 1950] INDEX - A.K. Gopalan Vs. The State of Madras [1950] INSC 14 (19 May 1950) A.M. Mair & Co. Vs. Gordhandass Sagarmull [1950] INSC 33 (30 November 1950) Abdulla Ahmed Vs. Animendra Kissen Mitter […]
  • Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and Others Vs. Virender Gandhi-29/05/19 - Section 138 /148 Read with section 143A of the N.I. Act-Whether the first appellate court is justified in directing the appellants - original accused who have been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation/fine imposed by the learned trial Court, pending appeals challenging the order of conviction and sentence and while suspending the sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., considering Section 148 of the N.I. Act as amended? Held yes.
  • Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs. Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd – 02/05/19 - As a matter of fact, what was agreed in the Principles of Agreement more amount than that has been ordered to be paid on the basis of principles of business equilibrium and other factors
  • Tejaswini Gaud and Others Vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and Others – 06/05/19 - Custody of the Child given to the father - Writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative process for securing the liberty of the subject by affording an effective means of immediate release from an illegal or improper detention. The writ also extends its influence to restore the custody of a minor to his guardian when wrongfully deprived of it. The detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody is treated as equivalent to illegal detention for the purpose of granting writ, directing custody of the minor child.
  • The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, (Patna) Vs Mahanth Sri Biseshwar Das- 09/02/1971 - Hindu Law—Religious endowment—Nature of grant—Property given to Head of Mutt—Nature of grant—Determination of.
  • The Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Ispat Khandan Janta Mazdoor Union-05/07/19 - where the contract was to supply of labour and necessary labour was supplied by the contractor who worked under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer, that in itself will not in any manner construe the contract entered between the contractor and contract labour to be sham and bogus per se.
  • The Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade – 03/05/19 - The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.
  • The State of West Bengal   Versus The Administrator, Howrah Municipality and others- 14/12/1971. - AIR 1972 SC 749 : (1972) 2 SCR 874 : (1972) 1 SCC 366 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) The State of West Bengal   Versus The Administrator, Howrah Municipality and others (Before : […]
  • The Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd Madras Vs M/s. Fraser and Ross and another- 04/05/1960 - all DEFINITIONS in statutes generally begin with the qualifying words similar to the words used in the present case, namely, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.
  • Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj AND OTHERS Versus State of Rajasthan-21/01/1963 - The participation of the members of the public in the Darshan in the temple and in the daily acts of worship or in the celebrations of festival occasions may be a very important factor to consider in determining the character of the temple.
  • TRIAL OF MAHATMA GANDHI-1922 - The account of this trial is in substance taken from an admirable summary of it given by Sir Thomas Strangman in his book “Indian Courts and Characters”. In March 1922, Gandhi was […]
  • Tularam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh-2/5/2018 - MURDER-DISTINCTION BETWEEN MURDER AND CULPABLE HOMICIDE EXPLAINED-Section 300 of the IPC explains what is murder and it provides that culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or the act complained of is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or "such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
  • Union of India Vs Hassan Ali Khan and Another-30/09/2011 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002—Section 4—Money Laundering—Bail granted by High Court—No attempt on part of Respondent to disclose source of large sums of Money handled by him—Having a foreign bank account and also having sizeable amounts of Money deposited therein does not ipso facto indicate commission of offence under PML Act, 2002—However, when there are other surrounding circumstances which reveal that there were doubts about origin of accounts and monies deposited therein, same principles would not apply—Respondent had not been able to establish that same were neither proceeds of crime nor untainted property—Bail cancelled.
  • Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others Vs State of ANDHRA PRADESH and others – 04/02/1993 - whether a citizen has a Fundamental Right to education for a medical, engineering or other professional degree.
  • UP Govt extend the tenure of Special Judge SK Yadav, hearing the Babri Masjid demolition case - The Uttar Pradesh government on Friday informed the Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman that it has complied with the Apex court’s order to extend the tenure of Special […]
  • Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Appellant Versus Union of India and ORS - KEYWORDS:-POLLUTION CONTROL-PIL DATE:-28-08-1996 Precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of the environmental law of the country. AIR 1996 SC 2715 : (1996) 5 Suppl. SCR 241 : (1996) 5 […]
  • VISHAL N. KALSARIA Vs. BANK OF INDIA & ORS -20/01/2016 - If we accept the legal submissions made on behalf of the Banks to hold that the provisions of SARFAESI Act override the provisions of the various Rent Control Acts to allow a Bank to evict a tenant from the tenanted premise, which has become a secured asset of the Bank after the default on loan by the landlord and dispense with the procedure laid down under the provisions of the various Rent Control Acts and the law laid down by this Court in catena of cases, then the legislative powers of the state legislatures are denuded which would amount to subverting the law enacted by the State Legislature. Surely, such a situation was not contemplated by the Parliament while enacting the SARFAESI Act
  • WAZIR CHAND Vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – 22/04/1954 - A person in possession of the goods even if not belonging to him cannot be dispossessed without authority of law. Goods in the possession of a person who is not lawfully in possession of them cannot be seized except under authority of law, and in absence of such authority, one could not be deprived of them.

Categories: Supreme Court