Narayan Chandra Ghosh and ORS Vs Kanailal Ghosh and ORS[ALL SC 2005 NOVEMBER]

KEYWORDS:- THIKA TENANCY- RENT- EVICTION DATE:-16-11-2005 AIR 2006 SC 562 : (2005) 5 Suppl. SCR 250 : (2006) 1 SCC 175 : JT 2005 (9) SC 613 : (2005) 9 SCALE 350 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Narayan Chandra Ghosh and OTHERS Appellant Versus Kanailal Ghosh and OTHERS Respondent (Before : B. N. Agrawal And A.… Read More Narayan Chandra Ghosh and ORS Vs Kanailal Ghosh and ORS[ALL SC 2005 NOVEMBER]

M/s. S. B. P. and Co. Versus M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. and ANOTHER[ALL SC 2005 OCTOBER]

KEYWORDS:- ARBITRATION- DATE:-26-10-2005- What is the nature of the function of the Chief Justice or his designate under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? AIR 2006 SC 450 : (2005) 4 Suppl. SCR 688 : (2005) 8 SCC 618 : JT 2005 (9) SC 219 : (2005) 9 SCALE 1 (SUPREME COURT… Read More M/s. S. B. P. and Co. Versus M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. and ANOTHER[ALL SC 2005 OCTOBER]

Charanjit Lal Mehra and others Vs Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan and another[All SC 2005 March]

KEYWORDS: Judgment on admission-Joint tenancy- Date:- 11-03-2005 Order XII, Rule 6, C.P.C. is enacted for the purpose of and in order to expedite the trials if there is any admission on behalf of the defendants or an admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute; then, in such a… Read More Charanjit Lal Mehra and others Vs Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan and another[All SC 2005 March]

Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and another Vs Samir Chandra Chaudhary[ ALL SC 2005 July]

KEYWORD: Effect of Admission-Exhibition of Document- DATE:- 14-07-2005. The effect of admission is that it shifts the onus on the person admitting the fact on the principle that what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so, and until the presumption is rebutted, the fact admitted must be taken… Read More Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and another Vs Samir Chandra Chaudhary[ ALL SC 2005 July]

P. A. Inamdar and others vs State of Maharashtra and others[ALL SC 2005 AUGUST]

KEYWORDS:-  RIGHTS OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION- DATE:-12-08-2005 Coram of 11 Judge- Judicial wing of the State is called upon to act when the other two wings, the Legislature and the Executive, do not act. The real purpose of Article 30 is to prevent discrimination against members of the minority community and to place them on an… Read More P. A. Inamdar and others vs State of Maharashtra and others[ALL SC 2005 AUGUST]

Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice [ALL SC 2018 September]

September 6, 2018:-SECTION 377of IPC-Homosexuality-It is declared that insofar as Section 377 criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults (i.e. persons above the age of 18 years who are competent to consent) in private, is violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It is, however, clarified that such consent must be free consent,… Read More Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice [ALL SC 2018 September]

Maj. Amod Kumar Vs. Union of India & ANR. [ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

September 6, 2018-Writ Petitions under Article 32-Army Service Corps-The Officers belonging to the ASC, Army Ordinance Corps, and Electronic and Mechanical Engineers, i.e. the services stream, do not constitute a common cadre with those serving in the Arms, and Arms Support for the purposes of promotion.4 As a result, they were not entitled to be considered for promotion to the rank of Colonel against the vacancies created in pursuance of the implementation of the AVS Committee Report.

The Petitioners have contended that the Posting Orders passed by the Respondents posting them to operational areas/units is violative of their Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Petitioners have, however, failed to substantiate how their Fundamental Rights have been violated. Postings and transfers are a necessary incident of service. Hence, the grievance, if any, cannot be entertained under Article 32.… Read More Maj. Amod Kumar Vs. Union of India & ANR. [ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

S.K. Raju @ Abdul Haque @ Jagga Vs. State of West Bengal [ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

September 05, 2018: Section 42 OF NDPS ACT-An empowered officer under Section 42(1) is obligated to reduce to writing the information received by him, only when an offence punishable under the Act has been committed in any building, conveyance or an enclosed place, or when a document or an article is concealed in a building, conveyance or an enclosed place. Compliance with Section 42, including recording of information received by the empowered officer, is not mandatory, when an offence punishable under the Act was not committed in a building, conveyance or an enclosed place. Section 43 is attracted in situations where the seizure and arrest are conducted in a public place, which includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public-CONVICTION UPHELD.… Read More S.K. Raju @ Abdul Haque @ Jagga Vs. State of West Bengal [ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

Haribhau Vs. State of Maharashtra [ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

September 04, 2018: ALTERNATIVE SENTENCE-In our considered opinion, firstly, taking into account that the appellant has already undergone one month’s jail sentence out of three months awarded to him, secondly, the fact that the incident in question is quite old and seems to have occurred at the spur of the moment, thirdly, the appellant has no criminal antecedent in his past life and lastly, he is not required in any other criminal case except the one in question which the appellant fairly did not deny having committed and rightly did not challenge his conviction, it is considered to be just and proper to alter the jail sentence awarded to the appellant from three months to the extent of period of one month which was already undergone by him and instead enhance the total fine amount awarded under different Sections from Rs.800/to Rs.15,000/-APPEAL PARTLY ALLOWED… Read More Haribhau Vs. State of Maharashtra [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]