C. Mohammad Yunus Vs Syed Unnissa and others [ALL SC 1961 FEBRUARY]

KEYWORDS:- Shariat law a statute which takes away or impairs vested rights under existing laws is presumed not to have retrospective operation. AIR 1961 SC 808 : (1962) 1 SCR 67 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) C. Mohammad Yunus Appellant Versus Syed Unnissa and others Respondent (Before : J. L. Kapur, M. Hidayatullah And J. C. Shah,… Read More C. Mohammad Yunus Vs Syed Unnissa and others [ALL SC 1961 FEBRUARY]

K. M. Nanavati Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra[ALL SC 1961 NOVEMBER]

KEYWORDS:-MURDER-ACQUITTAL- DATE:-24-11-1961 AIR 1962 SC 605 : (1962) 1 Suppl. SCR 567 : (1962) 1 CriLJ SC 521 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) K. M. Nanavati Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra Respondent (Before : S. K. Das, K. Subba Rao And Raghubar Dayal, JJ.) Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 1960, Decided on : 24-11-1961. Penal Code,… Read More K. M. Nanavati Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra[ALL SC 1961 NOVEMBER]

Bidi, Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants’ Association, Gondia Appellant Versus State of Bombay[SC 1961 November]

Keywords :- Doctrine of implied Power , Doctrine of Enabling Act AIR 1962 SC 486 : (1962) 1 Suppl. SCR 381 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Bidi, Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants’ Association, Gondia Appellant Versus State of Bombay Respondent (Before : P. B. Gajendragadkar, A. K. Sarkar, K. N. Wanchoo, K. C. Das Gupta And… Read More Bidi, Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants’ Association, Gondia Appellant Versus State of Bombay[SC 1961 November]

Puranlal Lakhanpal Vs President of India and others Respondent[SC 1961]

Keywords-Modification The President had the power to make the modification which he did in Art. 81 of the Constitution (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) (Before : P. B. Gajendragadkar, A. K. Sarkar, K. N. Wanchoo, K. C. Das Gupta And N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, JJ.) Writ Petition. No. 139 of 1957, Decided on : 30-03-1961. Constitution of… Read More Puranlal Lakhanpal Vs President of India and others Respondent[SC 1961]

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS Vs. C.N. SAHASRANAMAN AND ORS [ALL SC 1986 APRIL]

The main question which needs determination is whether part of the scheme mentioned before introduced by the Reserve Bank of India is violative of guarantee of equality before law and of equal opportunity in public employment as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The High Court noted that the point arose at the instance of three petitioners who were Grade II working at Nagpur branch of Reserve Bank ever since their employment which commenced somewhere between 1960 to 1965.… Read More RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS Vs. C.N. SAHASRANAMAN AND ORS [ALL SC 1986 APRIL]

Smt. Kavita Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary & Ors.[ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

September 05, 2018: The U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961-Validity of the notice-Whether in a given case, the Collector has transgressed the limits of his own jurisdiction is a matter which can be addressed in a challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. We clarify that we have not provided an exhaustive enumeration or list of circumstances in which the Collector can determine the validity of the notice furnished under sub-section (2) in each case and it is for the Collector in the first instance and for the Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review, if it is moved, to determine as to whether the limits on the power of the Collector have been duly observed-APPEAL DISMISSED.… Read More Smt. Kavita Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary & Ors.[ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & Ors [ALL SC 2013 DECEMBER]

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10972 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.15436 of 2009) Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & Ors Decided on: 11 December 2013 Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya JUDGMENT G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are directed against order… Read More Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & Ors [ALL SC 2013 DECEMBER]

C. Venkatachalam Versus Ajitkumar C. Shah and Others [ALL SC 2011 AUGUST]

In order to ensure smooth, consistent, uniform and unvarying functioning of the National Commission, the State Commissions and the District Forums, we deem it appropriate to direct the National Commission to frame comprehensive rules regarding appearances of the agents, representatives, registered organizations and/or non-advocates appearing before the National Commission, the State Commissions and the District Forums governing their qualifications, conduct and ethical behaviour of agents/non-advocates/representatives, registered organizations and/or agents appearing before the consumer forums.… Read More C. Venkatachalam Versus Ajitkumar C. Shah and Others [ALL SC 2011 AUGUST]

Mattapalli Chelamayya (dead) by his legal reps and anr Vs Mattapalli Venkataratnam (dead) by his legal reps and anr [SC 1972 JANUARY]

The partition of the immovable properties had been effected in about the middle of 1952 and the parties were since then in possession of the lands etc. which had been allotted to their share. The recital in the award is no more than a reference to an existing fact and does not purport to create or declare, by virtue of the award itself, right title or interest in immovable property.… Read More Mattapalli Chelamayya (dead) by his legal reps and anr Vs Mattapalli Venkataratnam (dead) by his legal reps and anr [SC 1972 JANUARY]

Kuldip Nayar Versus Union of India and Ors [ALL SC 2006 AUGUST]

In the writ petition, there is a further challenge to the amendments in Sections 59, 94 and 128 of the RP Act, 1951 by which Open Ballot System is introduced which, according to the petitioner, violates the principle of ‘secrecy’ which, according to the petitioner, is the essence of free and fair elections as also the voter’s freedom of expression which is the basic feature of the Constitution and the subject matter of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.… Read More Kuldip Nayar Versus Union of India and Ors [ALL SC 2006 AUGUST]

Board Of Control For Cricket In vs Kochi Cricket Pvt Ltd And Etc [ALL SC

all cases where the Section 34 petition is filed after the commencement of the Amendment Act, and an application for stay having been made under Section 36 therein, will be governed by Section 34 as amended and Section 36 as substituted. But, what is to happen to Section 34 petitions that have been filed before the commencement of the Amendment Act, which were governed by Section 36 of the old Act? Would Section 36, as substituted, apply to such petitions? To answer this question, we have necessarily to decide on what is meant by “enforcement” in Section 36. On the one hand, it has been argued that “enforcement” is nothing but “execution”, and on the other hand, it has been argued that “enforcement” and “execution” are different concepts, “enforcement” being substantive and “execution” being procedural in nature.… Read More Board Of Control For Cricket In vs Kochi Cricket Pvt Ltd And Etc [ALL SC