basic structure – Advocatetanmoy Law Library

Sajjan Singh and Others vs The State of Rajasthan -30/10/1964

Posted by Advocatetanmoyon October 9, 2017August 28, 2019in Constitution, Supreme Court Judgments

As long as the words ‘sovereign democratic republic’ are there, could the Constitution be amended so as to depart from the democratic form of Government or its republic character? If that cannot be done, then, as long as the words “justice, social, economic and political etc.”, are there could any of the rights enumerated in Arts. 14, to 19, 21, 25, 31 and 32 be taken away?

L. C. Golak Nath and others Vs State of Punjab and another[ALL SC 1967 February]

Posted by Advocatetanmoyon October 9, 2017June 5, 2019in CIVIL

KEYWORDS:- Basic structure of the Constitution- DATE:-27-02-1967 There is no restriction in the Constitution itself which prevents this Court from reviewing its earlier decisions AIR 1967 SC 1643 : (1967) 2 SCR 762 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) L. C. Golak…

I. R. Coelho (dead) by L.Rs Vs State of Tamil Nadu -11/01/2007

Posted by Advocatetanmoyon October 8, 2017August 28, 2019in Constitution, Supreme Court Judgments

The power to amend cannot be equated with the power to frame the Constitution. This power has no limitations or constraints, it is primary power, a real plenary power.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Manoj Pratap Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan-24/06/2022

DEATH PENALTY CONFIRMED-Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed; conviction of the appellant of offences under Sections 363, 365, 376(2)(f), 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is confirmed; and the sentences awarded to the appellant, including the death sentence for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are also confirmed.

ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI VS STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR-24/06/2022

FURTHER INVESTIGATION-No fault can be found with the approach of the SIT in submitting final report , which is backed by firm logic, expositing analytical mind and dealing with all aspects objectively for discarding the allegations regarding larger criminal conspiracy (at the highest level) for causing and precipitating mass violence across the State against the muslim community.

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

Krishna Rai (D) through LRS. & Ors. Vs. Banaras Hindu University through Registrar & Ors-16/06/2022

Whether principle of estoppel and acquiescence will prevail over statutory service rules prescribing the procedure for promotion of ClassIV employees to ClassIII working in the Banaras Hindu University(BHU)

Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors-09/06/2022

Habeas corpus – the writ petition seeking writ of habeas corpus for production of corpus – Pranav Acharya aged 5 years

Vallal Rck Vs. M/s. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. and Ors-03/06/2022

Apex Court has, time and again, emphasized the need for minimal judicial interference by the NCLAT and NCLT in the framework of IBC

Mahendra Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Madya Pradesh-03/06/2022

It is a sound and well established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. A. Balakrishnan & Anr (30/05/2022)

Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016-the application under Section 7 of the IBC was filed within a period of three years from the date on which the Recovery Certificate was issued. As such, the application under Section 7 of the IBC was within limitation.