Alphabetical List of Supreme Court Judgments with Headnotes
Supreme Court judgments
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 not live-in-relationship—Court in garb of interpretation cannot change…
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 relevant consideration for eligibility when a revised formula…
Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRS. & Ors- 09/07/2020-The words "right to sue" means the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Order VII Rule 11(d) provides that where a suit appears from the averments in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected.
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.
Dammu Sreenu Vs State of ANDHRA PRADESH-28/05/2009-Penal Code, 1860—Section 306—abetment of suicide—Wife of deceased having illicit relationship with accused-appellant—Fact that appellant had illicit relationship with wife of deceased is an admitted position—Deceased committed suicide due to insult and humiliation out of such shameful development—Definite proximity and…
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.
Deenadayal Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Munjaji and Ors-16/02/2022-That the borrower defaulted in payment of the appellant-bank and Vaidanath Bank in the year 2010. Both the banks initiated separate recovery proceedings against respondent no.1 and the borrower. A Recovery Certificate dated 6.2.2010 was issued in favour of the appellant-bank under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MCS Act, 1960').
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.
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.
Devi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan-8/01/2019-the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved"
Dhananjay Sharma Vs State of Haryana and others-02/05/1995-Contempt of Court—Criminal contempt—Perjury—Submission of affidavit with false statement on oath—Swearing of false affidavit has the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice—It amounts to criminal contempt of court. . SUPREME COURT OF INDIA …
Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors-29/01/2016-The power to order fresh, de-novo or re-investigation being vested with the Constitutional Courts, the commencement of a trial and examination of some witnesses cannot be an absolute impediment for exercising the said constitutional power which is meant to ensure a fair and just investigation. It can never be forgotten that as the great ocean has only one test, the test of salt, so does justice has one flavour, the flavour of answering to the distress of the people without any discrimination.
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
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. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minister & Ors-05/06/2021-The Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in the public services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 as amended in 2019 granting 12% and 13% reservation for Maratha community in addition to 50% social reservation is not covered by exceptional circumstances as contemplated by Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney's case.
Dr. Monica Kumar and ANR Vs State of U.P and ORS-27/05/2008-Under Article 142 of the Constitution this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter' pending before it. The expression “cause” or “matter” would include any proceeding pending in court and it would cover almost every kind of proceeding in court including civil or criminal.
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
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.
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 another Committee as well, which is headed by…
Gopinathan Vs. State of Kerala-24/06/2022-SENTENCE REDUCED- Accused(A1) was charge-sheeted for offence U/S 55(g) and 8(1) read with 8(2) of the Abkari Act and was convicted for the aforestated offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/each
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.
GR Green Life Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Leitwind Shriram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd- 21/02/2021-APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR-The appointment of the Sole Arbitrator is subject to the Declarations to be made under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with respect to independence and impartiality, and the ability to devote sufficient time to complete the arbitration. The Sole Arbitrator will be paid fees as per the Schedule of the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators' Fees) Rules, 2017.
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.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.
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.
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.
High Court, Calcutta and another vs Amal Kumar Roy and others-09/04/1962-The High Court, being the sole authority to decide the question of appointment of a Munsif to the higher rank of a Subordinate Judge, had exercised its power, after fully considering the plaintiff’s case for promotion, to pass him over for a year. His case was later considered and he was promoted to the higher rank of a Subordinate Judge and subsequently to the still higher rank of an Additional District and Sessions Judge.
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.
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.
Hussainara Khatoon and others Vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna--Hussainara Khatoon- 2nd Judgment Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 21 and 39A—Criminal Procedure Code, 1974—Section 304 and 309—Free legal service is an unalienable element of ‘reasonable, fair and just procedure for without it a person suffering from economic or other disabilities…
Icchu Devi Choraria Vs Union of India and others- 09/09/1980-Habeas corpus-Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 32 and 22(5)—Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974—Section 3(3)— It is also necessary to point out that in case of an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the practice evolved by this Court is not to follow strict rules of pleading nor place undue emphasis on the question as to on whom the burden of proof lies. Even a postcard written by a detenu from jail has been sufficient to activise this Court into examining the legality of detention—Once the rule is issued it is the bounden duty of the Court to satisfy itself that all the safeguards provided by the law have been scrupulously observed and the citizen is not deprived of his personal liberty otherwise than in accordance with law.
IN RE- PRASHANT BHUSHAN & ANR. …. ALLEGED CONTEMNOR(S)-14/08/2020-The scurrilous/malicious attacks by the alleged contemnor No.1 are not only against one or two judges but the entire Supreme Court in its functioning of the last six years. Such an attack which tends to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of this Court cannot be ignored. Recently, the Supreme Court in the cases of National Lawyers Campaign for Judical Transparency and Reforms and others vs. Union of India and others15 and Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors (supra) has suo motu taken action against Advocates who had made scandalous allegations against the individual judge/judges. Here the alleged contemnor has attempted to scandalise the entire institution of the Supreme Court.
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: Expeditious trial of cases U/S 138 of NI Act 1881- Creation of Special Courts – 19/05/2022-This court by its subsequent order dated 31.03.2021 had required High Courts to file status reports indicating compliance with the directions contained in the judgment and as to whether rules were framed appropriately in line with the judgment. Similarly, the necessary amendments to the Police Manuals etc. had to be carried out. As on date, all High Courts except the Patna High Court have complied with the directions and proposed the amended Rules. In many states, amended rules have even been notified.
IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR-31/08/2020-The Court, from the very beginning, was desirous of giving quietus to this matter. Directly or indirectly, the contemnor was persuaded to end this matter by tendering an apology and save the grace of the institution as well as the individual, who is an officer of the Court. However, for the reasons best known to him he has neither shown regret in spite of our persuasion or the advice of the learned Attorney General. Thus, we have to consider imposing an appropriate sentence upon him.
In Re: To Issue certain Guidelines regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials-30/03/2017-In the course of discussions at the Bar while considering this case, this Court had generally adverted to certain common inadequacies and imperfections that occur in the criminal trials in our country. I venture to suggest that in the interests of better administration of criminal justice and to usher in a certain amount of uniformity, and acceptance of best practices prevailing over various parts of India, this Court may consider issue of certain general guidelines to be followed across the board by all Criminal Courts in the country.
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 Singh Grewal Appellant Versus State of Punjab and…
INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vs V.P. SHANTHA AND OTHERS-13/11/1995-whether and, if so, in what circumstances, a medical practitioner can be regarded as rendering 'service' u/s 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Connected with this question is the question whether the service rendered at a hospital/nursing home can be regarded as 'service' u/s 2(1)(o) of the Act.
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 Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr-23/07/21-Section 197 of the CrPC seeks to protect an officer from unnecessary harassment, who is accused of an offence committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties and, thus, prohibits the court from taking cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the competent authority.
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 INDIA) Indra Sawhney Appellant Versus Union of India…
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.
Jacob Puliyel Vs Union of India-02/05/2022-Imposing restrictions on the rights of persons who are unvaccinated is totally unwarranted as there is no basis for discriminating against unvaccinated persons. Vaccinated people are also prone to infection
Jagjeet Singh & Ors VS Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr-18/04/2022-The victim’s right to participate in criminal trial and his/her right to know the status of investigation, and take necessary steps, or to be heard at every crucial stage of the criminal proceedings, including at the time of grant or cancellation of bail, were also duly recognised by the Committee.
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.