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 […]
Saradamani Kandappan Vs S. Rajalakshmi and Others-04/07/2011
In a contract for sale of immoveable property, normally it is presumed that time is not the essence of the contract. Even if there is an express stipulation to that effect, the […]
Krishna Gopal Singh and others Vs State of U.P-09/02/1999
Penal Code, 1860—Sections 148, 395, 427, 149 and 390—U.P. Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Act, 1984—Sections 6(b) and 6(c)—Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922—Section 3—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 136. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Krishna […]
BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) Vs Union of India and others-10/12/2001
No ex-parte relief by way of injunction or stay especially with respect to public projects and schemes or economic policies or schemes should be granted. It is only when the Court is […]
Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot Versus State of Maharashtra-17/08/1978
Social defence is the criminological foundation of punishment. The trial judge has confused between correctional approach to prison treatment and nominal punishment verging on decriminalisation of serious social offences. The first is […]
Hussainara Khatoon and others Vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna-19/04/1979.
It is the constitutional right of every accused person who is unable to engage a lawyer and secure legal services on account of reasons such as poverty, indigence or incommunicado situation, to […]
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 […]
Hussainara Khatoon and Others Vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna-26/02/1979
The expression ‘protective custody’ is a euphemism calculated to disguise what is really and in truth nothing but imprisonment. It is an expression intended to appease the conscience. It cannot be gainsaid […]
The Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay Vs M/s. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and others-10/03/1976
It is trite, going by Anglophonic principles, that a ruling of a Superior Court is binding law. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA The Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay Versus M/s. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and others […]
State of Rajasthan and Others Vs Basant Nahata-07/09/2005
A legislative policy must conform to the provisions of the constitutional mandates. Even otherwise a policy decision can be subjected to judicial review. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA State of Rajasthan and others […]
State of Nagaland Vs Ratan Sing and Ors-9/3/1966
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA STATE OF NAGALAND Versus RATAN SING AND OTHERS (Before : P. B. Gajendragadkar, C.J.I., K. N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, J. C. Shah And S. M. Sikri, JJ.) Criminal […]
Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Another-11/10/2011
Immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of ‘GPA sales’ or ‘SA/GPA/WILL transfers’ do not convey title and do not […]
AMIT SAHNI Vs COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS-07/10/2020
We have to make it unequivocally clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely. Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone. The present case was not even one of protests taking place in an undesignated area, but was a blockage of a public way which caused grave inconvenience to commuters. We cannot accept the plea of the applicants that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest.
Sarika Vs. The Administrator, Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee, Ujjain, MP-1/9/2020
The original work in the temple is required to be restored. As assured by the Committee, let restoration work be done concerning eyesore painting by 15th December 2020. The Temple Committee is directed to ensure in future not to permit or resort to such painting and covering of the original work, objected by the Expert Committee. Let a report be submitted to this Court in this regard by 15th December 2020.
Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi)-31/08/2020
In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like factor.-Case overruled: Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627 [Complainant can not be Investigator]
Amitabh Bachchan Corpn. Ltd. vs Mahila Jagran Manch And Ors-20/01/1997
Unless any law is violated, the Court ought not to interfere in such matters. These are not matters which can be judicially assessed and the pressure which the agitators bring to bear ought motto sway the Court into exercising jurisdiction.
Bal Thackeray Vs Prabhakar Kashinath Kunthe and Ors-11/12/1995
Three speeches of Bal Thackeray amount to corrupt practice under sub-section (3), while the first speech is a corrupt practice also under sub-section (3A) of Section 123 of the R. P. Act.
Metalware and Co.Vs Bansilal Sarma and others-4/5/1979
If the Rent Controller has to be satisfied about the bona fide requirement of the landlord which must mean genuineness of his claim in that behalf the Rent Controller will have to take into account all the surrounding circumstances including not merely the factors of the landlord being possessed of sufficient means or funds to under take the project and steps taken by him in that regard but also the existing condition of the building, its age and situation and possibility or otherwise of its being put to a more profitable use after reconstruction.
Corporation of Calcutta vs Mulchand Agarwala-17/11/1955
Appeal—Interference with discretion—Permissibility—Unless the discretion is exercised on some mistake of fact or mis-apprehension of principle, interference by appellate Court is not called for.
Vidyawati Gupta and Ors. Vs. Bhakti Hari Nayak and Ors-3/2/2006
In August 1861, the British Parliament passed the Indian High Courts Act which empowered the Crown to establish, by Letters Patent, High Courts of Judicature at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. Consequent to such authority, the Letters Patent dated 14th May, 1862 was issued establishing the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. By subsequent Letters Patent dated 26th June, 1862, the High Court at Bombay and Madras were also established.
