Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court Current Judgments
-
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ramesh and Another-18/03/2011
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 378—Appeal against acquittal—Appellate Court being final Court of fact is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review evidence and take its own decision—Law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power…
-
State of Madras Vs Smt. Champakam Dorairajan and Anr
constitution of India—Article 13, 14, 16 and 29—Admission—Executive Orders of Admission in educational Institutions.
-
State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee 5/11/2020
September 05, 2018-ILLEGAL ARREST-Habeas corpus-whether a writ of habeas corpus could be maintained in respect of a person who is in police custody pursuant to a remand order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate in connection with the offence under investigation,…
-
State of Maharashtra Vs Dr. Praful B. Desai-01/04/2003
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 273 and 284—Recording of evidence by video conferencing—Issuance of commission—Permissibility—When attendance of a witness cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience—Commission can be issued to record evidence by way of video conferencing.
-
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 Appeals Nos. 198 of 1965 and 29 to…
-
State of NCT of Delhi Vs Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors – 05/12/2019
Order of Discharge-Sections 120B, 302, 201 r.w. S.34 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act- In the present case, on account of the inconsistency in framing charges by the Sessions Court against the six accused, the…
-
State of Odisha & Another Vs. Anup Kumar Senapati & Another-16/09/2019
It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has…
-
State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Chandra Nandi
Every judicial or/and quasi-judicial order passed by the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned, which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion. In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and the findings on…
-
State of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi-29/11/2004
Can the trial Court at the time of framing of charge consider material filed by the accused, is the point for determination in these matters.
-
State of Orissa Vs. Mamata Sahoo & Ors-16/07/19
It was found that the respondents had violated the provisions under Sections 3(2), 5 and 29 of the PC and PNDT Act which is punishable under Sections 23 and 25 of the said Act. For violation of PC and PNDT…
-
State Of Punjab Vs Ajaib Singh and anothers-10/11/1952
The sole point for our consideration then is whether the taking into custody of an abducted person by a police officer under S. 4 of the Act and the delivery of such person by him into the custody of the…
-
State of Rajasthan Vs Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta- 01/12/2011
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 374 and 378—Appeal—There is very thin but fine distinction between appeal against conviction and acquittal—There is no substantial difference between appeal against conviction and appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal…
-
State of Rajasthan and Ors Vs Love kush Meena-24/03/2021
Whether a benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused in a case charged under Sections 302,323,341/34 of the Indian Penal Code can create an opportunity for the accused to join as a constable in the Rajasthan Police service-NO-…
-
State of Rajasthan Vs Basant Nahata: Power of Attorney is not an instrument of transfer
The Supreme Court of India adjudicated a case involving the constitutionality of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, challenged by Basant Nahata after the registration of his power of attorney was refused by the Sub-Registrar based on a government notification…
-
State of Rajasthan vs Mehram & Ors-06/05/2020
QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT-The learned counsel for the accused No. 5 was at pains to persuade us that the said accused is now about 70/75 years of age and at this distance of time, it may not be appropriate to send…
-
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS MAHESH KUMAR @ MAHESH DHAULPURIA & ANR- 16/7/2019
In the cases of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt…
-
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…
-
State of U.P. and another Vs Johri Mal-21/04/2004
The age old tradition on the part of the States in appointing the District Government counsel on the basis of the recommendations of the District Collector in consultation with the District Judge is based on certain principles. Whereas the District…
-
State of U.P. and Ors. etc. v. U.P. State Law Officers Association and Ors. etc- 25/01/1994
The appointment of lawyers by the Government and the public bodies to conduct work on their behalf, and their subsequent removal from such appointment have to be examined from three different angles viz., the nature of the legal profession, the…
-
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Ehsan & Anr (13/10/2023)
The factum of possession is essentially a question of fact. Although there is no hard and fast rule that a question of fact cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction but, in the event of a serious dispute between the parties…
-
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Sudarshana Chatterjee-10/12/2019
Summoning of officers to the court-The High Court, in our view, was not right in directing the Principal Secretary to appear in the court and explain the reason for passing the order dated 04.01.2019. Observing that merely because an order…
-
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Katheria – 23/09/2019
Misconduct of a workman: For proving the misconduct of a workman, it is desirable that enquiry should be held with a view to determine whether charge framed against the respondent-delinquent is proved or not and care must be taken to…
-
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Jail Superintendent, Ropar and Ors-26/03/2021
The Court in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot curtail the fundamental rights of the citizens conferred under the Constitution and pass orders in violation of substantive provisions which are based on fundamental policy principles, yet…
