Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court Current Judgments
-
Smt. Saroj Rani Versus Sudarshan Kumar Chadha-08/08/1994
It is significant to note that unlike a decree of specific performance of contract, for restitution of conjugal rights, the sanction is provided by court where the disobedience to such a decree is willful i.e. is deliberate, in spite of…
-
SMT. UJJAM BAI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH -28/04/1961
A mere misconstruction of a provision of law does not render the decision of a quasi-judicial tribunal void (as being beyond its jurisdiction). It is a good and valid decision in law until and unless it is corrected in the…
-
Som Parkash Vs State of Delhi-25/01/1974
Penal Code, 1860—Section 161—Bribe—Object—Bribes are paid not only for illegal acts but also for lawful acts to be performed promptly.
-
Somesh Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr-22/07/21
Post Conviction Bail Cancelled-Observed: The courts comprised in the district judiciary are the first point of interface with citizens. If the faith of the citizen in the administration of justice has to be preserved, it is to the district judiciary…
-
Sopanrao & ANR. Vs. Syed Mehmood & Ors-03/07/19
CIVIL SUIT-The limitation for filing a suit for possession on the basis of title is 12 years . Merely because one of the reliefs sought is of declaration that will not mean that the outer limitation of 12 years is…
-
SOU. SANDHYA MANOJ WANKHADE Vs. MANOJ BHIMRAO WANKHADE AND ORS-31/01/2011
Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 2(q) – Ambit – Legislature never intended to exclude female relatives of husband or male partner from ambit of complaint that can be made under provisions of Domestic Violence Act,…
-
Soumitra Kumar Nahar Vs. Parul Nahar-18/02/2020
While deciding the welfare of the child, it is not the view of one spouse alone which has to be taken into consideration. The Courts should decide the issue of custody on a paramount consideration which is in the best…
-
South India Corporation (P) Ltd Vs Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum and another-13/08/1963
Art. 372 cannot be construed in such a way as to enlarge the scope of the saving of taxes, duties, cesses or fees. To state it differently, Art. 372 must be read subject to Art. 277. We have already held…
-
SRI ADI VISHESHWARA OF KASHI VISHWANATH TEMPLE VARANASI AND ORS. ETC. VS STATE OF U.P. AND ORS-14/03/1997
According to the religious literature a Pooja Puddhatti in Kashi Visheshwara, most of the traditional Mantras are in the Paramparagata (Lokik tradition) so it does not find place in Dharma Shastras, Pooja Puddhatti as being observed at Kashi Visheshwara Temple…
-
Sri Prabodh Ch. Das and Anr. Vs. Mahamaya Das and Ors-13/12/2019
whether the High Court is justified in dismissing the second appeal on merits in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellants.
-
Sri-Renganathaswamy Vs. P.K. Thoppulan Chettiar- 19/02/2020
Specific endowment-The Deed of Settlement must be examined as a whole to determine the true intention of the settlor. Where the settlor seeks to divest himself of the property entirely for a religious purpose, a public religious charity is created.
-
SRS Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Mr. Kamal Garg & Anr-16/02/2022
The High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that what was challenged before it was regarding nongrant of any interim relief pending the appeal before the DRAT. Main appeal was yet to be considered by the DRAT on merits.…
-
State of Haryana and others Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal and others – 21/11/1990.
Quashing of investigation—Quashing of proceedings—FIR—Cognizable offence—Quashing of F.I.R. and investigation by High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.—Guidelines for exercise the power.
-
State of Haryana Vs Mukesh Kumar and Others Respondent-30/09/2011
The Parliament must seriously consider at least to abolish “bad faith” adverse possession, i.e., adverse possession achieved through intentional trespassing. Actually believing it to be their own could receive title through adverse possession sends a wrong signal to the society…
-
State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Gian Chand- 01/05/2001
Rape—Proof of—Medical opinion—Rape clearly proved by medico legal examination of prosecutrix—Mere suggestion to doctor that injury of the nature found on hymen of prosecutrix could be caused by fall—Cannot be said to be fatal.
-
State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. Vs. Shaheena Masarat & Anr- 29/09/2021
SERVICE LAW-Appointments to public posts should be strictly in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Eligibility criteria should be uniform and there cannot be scope of arbitrary selections
-
State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Farid Ahmad Tak – 02/05/19
Mere summary disposal of a Special Leave Petition does not conclude the issue on merits. The acts of commission and omission on part of the concerned Respondents as a result of which there was wrongful loss to the State and…
-
State of Kerala Vs. K. Ajith & Ors-28/07/21
CJM declining to grant permission to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution. An application for withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of the CrPC. It is not the duty of this Court, in an application under Section 321 of…
-
State Of M.P. vs Mangilal Sharma (18/12/1997)
A declaratory decree merely declares the right of the decree holder vis-a-vis the judgment debtor and does not in terms direct the judgment debtor to do or refrain from doing any particular act or thing. Since in the present case…
-
State of MADHYA PRADESH Versus Kedia Leather and Liquor Ltd. and others -19/08/2003
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 133—Public nuisance—Enactment of Pollution Acts—Effect on provision of Section 133.
-
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr Vs. Madhya Pradesh Transport Workers Federation-29/01/2020
The Labour Bar Association, Satna and M.P. Transport Workers Federation sought to assail the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Labour Laws (Amendment) and Misc. Provisions Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Amendment’) enforced by Notification dated 5.8.2005 as ultra vires the…
-
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Amar Lal-10/12/2019
Acquittal-It appears from the records that the respondent as under trial had undergone 2 years 8 months 11 days of custody and after his conviction on 24.01.1995 by the Sessions Judge he remained incustody till 18.11.2006 completing 11 years 9…
-
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kalicharan & Ors-31/05/19
Section 302/149 of the IPC & Section 304 Part II of the IPC- it was a case of free fight, the weapon used by the accused was Farsa and he caused the injury on the vital part of the body i.e.…
-
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Killu @ Kailash and Ors- 19/11/2019
MURDER: Merely because the other three accused persons i.e. the present respondents had not used their weapons does not absolve them of the responsibility and vicarious liability on which the very idea of charge under Section 149 IPC is founded.…
-
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Nandu @ Nandua (02/09/2022)
There cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life, if an accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Any punishment less than the imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 would be…
