Skip to content

Category: Supreme Court Judgments

P. T. Thomas  Vs Thomas Job – 04/08/2005

The Lok Adalat will pass the award with the consent of the parties, therefore there is no need either to reconsider or review the matter again and again, as the award passed by the Lok Adalt shall be final. Even as under Section 96(3) of C.P.C. that “no appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with he consent of he parties”. The award of the Lok Adalat is an order by the Lok Adalat under the consent of the parties, and shall be deemed to be decree of he civil Court, therefore an appeal shall not lie from the award of the Lok Adalt an under Section 96(3) C.P.C.

State of U.P vs Amarmani Tripathi-26/09/2005

while granting bail discretion must be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. It may not be necessary to do detailed examination of evidence and documentation of the merit of the case but there is a need to indicate reasons for prima facie conclusion why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed serious offence.

Rajasthan, Jaipur vs Balchand-20/09/1977

The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors- 27/11/2020

Court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while considering the applications for bail since the petitioner is already in Judicial custody. The legislature has provided specific remedy under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for applying for regular bail.

Bondada Gajapathi Rao vs State of Andhra pradesh-16/10/1964

The appellant was convicted under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. He was granted special leave to appeal by this Court. During the pendency of this appeal the appellant died on August 30, 1963. After his death his sons and daughters applied to this Court on October 5, 1963 for permission to continue to prosecute the appeal. Their petition is all that we are concerned with at the present moment.

High Court, Calcutta and another vs Amal Kumar Roy and others

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.