Supreme Court Judgments

Index Search [1950 – 2018]

Supreme Court Judgments[Without head notes]

A. Geetha vs State of Tamil Nadu and ANR-04/09/2006 - Writ of Habeas corpus dismissed-Penal Code, 1860—Section 366—Kidnapping and inducing woman—Detenu procuring innocent poor girls and under guise of employment forcing them into prostitution—Detenue declared ‘immoral traffic offender’ and detained under Section 3(2) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, DrugDrug Any substance (other than food) that is used to prevent, diagnose, treat, or relieve symptoms of a disease or abnormal condition. Drugs can also affect how the brain and the rest of the bodywork and cause changes in mood, awareness, thoughts, feelings, or behavior. Some types of drugs, such as opioids, may be abused or lead to addiction. Apart from management Allopathic drugs never cure any disease. Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982—All representations submitted by detenu were placed before Advisory Board as well as before Government, which were duly considered and rejected—Subjective satisfaction of authorities to detain detenu cannot be interfered with
A. K. Gopalan Versus State of Madras 19/5/1950 - Keywords-Due process of LawLaw Positive command of sovereign or divine. One can be ruled either...
A. N. Roy Commissioner of Police and ANOTHER Vs Suresh Sham Singh-04/07/2006 - STATUTORY INTERPRETATION-It is now well settled principle of law that the Court cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous. Narrow and pedantic construction may not always be given effect to. Courts should avoid a construction, which would reduce the legislation to futility. It is also well settled that every statute is to be interpreted without any violence to its language. It is also trite that when an expression is capable of more than one meaning, the court would attempt to resolve the ambiguity in a manner consistent with the purpose of the provision, having regard to the great consequences of the alternative constructions.
A.C. Narayanan vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr (13/09/2013) - we are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. An exception to the above is when the power of attorney holder of the complainant does not have a personal knowledge about the transactions then he cannot be examined. However, where the attorney holder of the complainant is in charge of the business of the complainant-payee and the attorney holder alone is personally aware of the transactions, there is no reason why the attorney holder cannot depose as a witness.
A.R. Antulay Versus R.S. Naik and others-29/10/1986 - The Supreme Court cannot exercise its powers under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. and has no power to transfer the case from the Court of Special Judge to the High Court for speedier trial
A.Subramanian and Anr. Vs. R. Pannerselvam-08/02/2021 - SUIT FOR INJUNCTION-It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the Plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the Defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the Plaintiff. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition laid down by Supreme Court in the above cases. But coming to the facts in the present case the present suit giving rise to this appeal, was not a suit for declaration of title and possession rather the suit was filed for injunction.
A.V. Subramanian Vs. Union of India and ANR- 10/01/2017 - In a land acquisition case the claimants have received different amounts by way of compensation and that too in respect of the lands of same nature covered by the same notification and acquired for the same purpose
Abdul Rehman and Others Vs K.M. Anees-ul-Haq-14/11/2011 - Penal Code, 1860—Sections 211 and 500—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 195, 340 and 439—Bail proceedings are judicial proceedings—Any offence punishable under Section 211, IPC could be taken cognizance of only at instance of court in relation to whose proceedings same was committed or who finally dealt with that case—Bar contained in Section 195, Cr.P.C. was clearly attracted to complaint filed by respondent—Impugned orders quashed.
Abhijit Das Vs. State of Tripura-20/01/2019 - The sentence is altered to the period already undergone SUPREME COURT OF INDIAIndia Bharat Varsha...
Abhinandan Jha and others Vs Dinesh Mishra-17/04/1967 - It will be seen that the Code, as such does not use the expression ‘charge-sheet’ or ‘final report’. But is understood in the Police Manual containing Rules and Regulations, that a report by the police, filed under Section 170 of the Code, is referred to as a ‘charge-sheet’. But in respect of the reports sent under Section 169 i. e., when there is no sufficient evidenceEvidence All the means by which a matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted for investigation, is established or disproved. Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Adhiniyam 2023 to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, it is termed variously, in different States, as either ‘referred charge’, ‘final report’, or ‘Summary’.
ADI PHEROZSHAH GANDHI Vs. H.M. SEERVAI, ADVOCATE GENERAL OF MAHARASHTRA, BOMBAY – 21/08/1970 - In a civil proceeding the decision of a criminal court is not res judicata. To give an example, if a person is involved in a traffic offence in which some one is injured he may in the criminal court receive a light sentence but if he is sued in a civil court for heavy damages he can plead and prove that he was not negligent or that accident was due to the contributory negligence of the defendant. The decision of the criminal court would not preclude him from raising this issue before the civil court.
Aditya Khaitan & Ors. Vs. IL&FS Financial Services Ltd (03/10/2023) - "Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt" - the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights is a fundamental legal maxim on which statutes of limitations are premised.
ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS-27/08/2013 - A large crowd gathered in the court premises caused a great deal of inconvenience, as...
AFCONs Infrastructure Ltd. and AnOTHER Vs Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and OTHERS 26/ 7/2010 - A civil court exercising power under Section 89 CPC cannot refer a suit to arbitration unless all the parties to the suit agree to such reference. If the reference is to arbitration or conciliation, the court has to record that the reference is by mutual consent. If the reference is to any other non-adjudicatory ADR process, the court should briefly record the same.
Aftaruddin (D) represented through LRS. Vs. Ramkrishna Datta @ Babul Datta & Ors. 8/12/2017 - A “raiyat” has been defined in Section 2(s) of the TLR & LR Act to...
Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors-27/11/2017 - It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance.
Agra Diocesan Trust Association Vs. Anil David and Ors-19/02/2020 - Concept of "market value" - a wider concept in other contexts, was deemed to be referrable to one or other modes of determining the value under sub clauses (v), (va) or (vb) of Section 7 (iv-A).
Ajay Dabra Vs. Pyare Ram & Ors (31/01/2023) - Ajay Dabra Vs. Pyare Ram & Ors.-The impugned order dismisses the delay condonation applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, declining to condone a delay of 254 days, because the reasons assigned for the condonation were not sufficient reasons for condonation of the delay.
Ajayinder Sangwan and Ors. Vs. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors-5/2/2018 - y means of this application, the applicant, who is practicing as an advocate and is enrolled with the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh seeks a direction to conduct elections and direct the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council and Telangana State Bar Council to conduct election as per the scheduled declared by this Court.
Ajayinder Sangwan vs Bar Council Of Delhi-23/8/2017 - The respective State Bar Councils shall publish a Final Electoral Roll by including the names and particulars of such advocates whose degrees attached with the application forms have been verified by the concerned University authorities. The names of all such advocates who have not removed the defects in the application forms already submitted within the specified timeTime Where any expression of it occurs in any Rules, or any judgment, order or direction, and whenever the doing or not doing of anything at a certain time of the day or night or during a certain part of the day or night has an effect in law, that time is, unless it is otherwise specifically stated, held to be standard time as used in a particular country or state. (In Physics, time and Space never exist actually-“quantum entanglement”) and also such persons whose degrees on verification have been found false or fake by the University authorities shall not be included in the Electoral Rolls.
Ajeet Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (03/01/2024) - the relationship between the appellant and the victim was a consensual relationship which culminated in the marriage. In the legal notice issued on behalf of the appellant, the factum of marriage was admitted. Therefore, on the face of it, the allegation that the physical relationship was maintained due to false promise given by the appellant to marry, is without basis as their relationship led to the solemnization of marriage.
Ajmal Kasab Vs Maharashtra (29/08/2012) - The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death as noted above (vide judgmentJudgment The statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order - CPC 2(9). It contains a concise statement of the case, points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision - Order 20 Rule 4(2). Section 354 of CrPC requires that every judgment shall contain points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. Indian Supreme Court Decisions > Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts (Art 141 Indian Constitution) Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court (Art 144) Supreme Court Network On Judiciary – Portal > Denning: “Judges do not speak, as do actors, to please. They do not speak, as do advocates, to persuade. They do not speak, as do historians, to recount the past. They speak to give Judgment. And in their judgments, you will find passages, which are worthy to rank with the greatest literature….” Law Points on Judgment Writing > The judge must write to provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact which arise for decision. Judgments are primarily meant for those whose cases are decided by judges (State Bank of India and Another Vs Ajay Kumar Sood SC 2022) and order dated May 3/6,2010 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 175 of 2009). The judgment by the trial court gave rise to a reference to the Bombay High Court under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(CrPC), registered as Confirmation Case No. 2 of 2010.
Ajmal Vs State of Kerala-12/07/2022 - Appellants would be entitled for acquittal under section 302 IPC but would be liable to be convicted under section 304 PartII IPC. Rest of the conviction upheld by the High Court and the sentence for the charges under sections 341, 323, 324 and 427 read with section 34 IPC is maintained.
Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and Anr-17/02/2022 - Commercial agreementContract An agreement enforceable by law is a contract. All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void. Indian Contract Act.-CORRECTION-where there is a substantial amendment/alteration in the conditions of agreement, if taken place with its inception, may certainly cause prejudice to the rights of the parties inter se financially or otherwise.
Ajoy Kumar Ghose Vs State of Jharkhand and Another Respondent-18/03/2009. - Difference between Proceeding instituted on Police report and Proceeding instituted otherwise than police report
AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS-19/03/2020 - The consistent view taken by this Court that the exercise of power of judicial review of the decision taken by His Excellency the President of IndiaIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the name of this land mass. The people of this land are Sanatan Dharmin and they always defeated invaders. Indra (10000 yrs) was the oldest deified King of this land. Manu's jurisprudence enlitened this land. Vedas have been the civilizational literature of this land. Guiding principles of this land are : सत्यं वद । धर्मं चर । स्वाध्यायान्मा प्रमदः । Read more in Mercy Petition is very limited.Keeping in view the above principles, when we considered the grounds raised by the petitioner, we do not find any ground to hold that there was non-application of mind by the President of India. Insofar as the alleged torture of the petitioner in the prison, as we have held in earlier Writ Petition (criminal) Diary No. 3334 of 2020, the alleged torture in the prison cannot be a ground for review of the order of rejection of the Mercy Petition by the President of India.
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Ors.-1/5/2018 - Section 37 provides that the Special Court shall try cases in camera and in the presence of the parents of the child or any other person in whom the child has trust or confidence; Section 36 casts a duty on the Special Court to ensure that the child is not exposed in any way to the accused at the time of recording of the evidence while at the same time ensuring that the accused is in a position to hear the statement of the child and communicate with his advocate.
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS – 08/02/2001 - The Shetty Commission has recommended assured career progressive scheme and functional scales. We have accepted the said recommendation and a suggestion was mooted to the effect that in order that a judicial officer does not feel that he is stagnated, there should be a change in the nomenclature with the change of the pay scale.
All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India & Ors(19/05/2023) - The Commission has recommended that where a judicial officer dies while in service, the family pension and death cum retirement gratuity as per the applicable rules is payable to the spouse/dependent, of the deceased officer. The recommendation of the Commission is in terms of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. This recommendation is reasonable and in furtherance of the principle of uniformity across services. Therefore, it meritsMerits Strict legal rights of the parties; a decision “on the merits” is one that reaches the right(s) of a party as distinguished from a disposition of the case on a ground not reaching the rights raised in the action; for example, in a criminal case double jeopardy does not apply if charges are nolle prossed before trial commences, and in a civil action res judicata does not apply if a previous action was dismissed on a preliminary motion raising a technicality such as improper service of process. acceptance by this Court.
ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA-23/4/1965 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIAIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the name of this land mass....
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs State of West Bengal-11/11/2009 - Penal Code, 1860—Section 306 read with Section 107—abetment of suicide—In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commission of suicide—Act of abetment by person charged with said offence must be proved and established by prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306—Merely on allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to time of occurrence on the part of accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. Error! No text of specified style in document. vs. Error! No text of specified style in document.
Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. and others Versus Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara -10/02/1961 - there was no legislative power for the levy of the tax and that consequently the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Art. 19(1)(f) and (g) are being violated.
Ameet Lalchand Shah and Others Vs. Rishabh Enterprises and Another-3/5/2018 - An arbitration agreement means an agreement which is enforceable in law and the jurisdictionJurisdiction Authority by which courts receive and decide cases. Limited Jurisdiction: the authority over only particular types of cases, or cases under a prescribed amount in controversy, or seeking only certain types of relief, the District Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Original Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction of the first court to hear a case. of the arbitrator is on the basis of an arbitration clause contained in the arbitration agreement. However, in a case where the parties alleged that the arbitration agreement is vitiated on account of fraud, the Court may refuse to refer the parties to arbitration.
Aminuddin Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (23/09/2022) - Merely recording "having perused the record" and "on the facts and circumstances of the case" does not subserve the purpose of a reasoned judicial order. It is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
Aminuddin Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.(30/09/2022) - BAIL CANCELLED-There can be no manner of doubt that the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 is a constitutional value which has to be respected by the High Court, as indeed by all courts. Equally, in a matter such as the present, where a serious offence of murder has taken place, the liberty of the accused has to be necessarily balanced with the public interest in the administration of criminal justice system which requires that a person who is accused of a crimeCrime A positive or negative act in violation of penal law; an offense against the state classified either as a felony or misdemeanor. is held to account. The length or the period of custody of any of the co-accused persons has hardly any bearing on the subjectmatter of these appeals. Similarly, even if stringent conditions have been imposed, the orders impugned cannot sustain themselves, for being hit by the dictum of this Court.
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. DemocracyDemocracy It is a power word. power rests with the ordinary Citizens. Only educated people understand power. A corrupt or controlled court system can cover failure of it. The religious concept is incompatible with it. Promise to spend more from the public treasury moves to Dictatorship. 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.
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.
Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors.2/2/2017 - the scheme of Sections 154, 157 and 173 in particular of the Cr.P.C and the pattern of consequences to follow in the two contingencies referred to herein above, this Court propounded that in case the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process.
Anand Kumar Sharma Vs. Bar Council of India through Secretary & Another-1/3/2019 - Suppressing the fact at the time of seeking enrolment in the Bar Council pertains to being in Government service in the State of Himachal Pradesh and involvement in a criminal case and Subsequent acquittal cannot come to the rescue an applicant. Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961 confers power on the Bar Council of India to remove the name of a person who entered on the Roll of Advocates by misrepresentation.
Anjali Bhardwaj Vs CPIO, Supreme Court of India, (RTI Cell)-09/12/2022 - After due deliberation and discussion and after completing the consultative process, when a final decision is taken and thereafter, the resolution is drawn and signed by the members of the Collegium can be said to be a final decision and till then it remains the tentative decision. Only after the final resolution is drawn and signed by the members of the Collegium, which is always after completing the due procedure and the process of discussion/deliberations and consultation, the same required to be published on the Supreme Court website as per Resolution dated 03.10.2017
Anju Chaudhary vs State Of U.P.& Anr-13/12/2012 - A cardinal question of public importance and one that is likely to arise more often than not in relation to the lodging of the First Information Report (FIR) with the aid of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) or otherwise independently within the ambit of Section 154 of the Code is as to whether there can be more than one FIR in relation to the same incident or different incidents arising from the same occurrence.
Anu Bhanvara etc. Vs. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors- 9/8/2019 - Adequate compensation – which of the respondents, that is the owner and driver, or the...
Apex Court is in favour of disclosing marks of Main Exam before conducting viva-voce in Judicial Services-13/12/2019 - Pranav Verma & Others Vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & anr-As regards the petitioners' plea that marks of the Main Exam should be disclosed before conducting viva-voce, we are of the considered opinionOpinion A judge's written explanation of a decision of the court. In an appeal, multiple opinions may be written. The court’s ruling comes from a majority of judges and forms the majority opinion. A dissenting opinion disagrees with the majority because of the reasoning and/or the principles of law on which the decision is based. A concurring opinion agrees with the end result of the court but offers further comment possibly because they disagree with how the court reached its conclusion. that such a practice may not insulate the desired transparency, rather will invite criticism of likelihood of bias or favourtism.As the written examination assesses knowledge and intellectual abilities of a candidate, the interview is aimed at assessing their overall intellectual and personal qualities which are imperative to hold a judicial post.
APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD VS SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS & ORS- 14/2/2020 - Section 138 of the N.I-It appears that both, the Learned Trial Court as well as the High Court, have committed error in shifting the burden upon the complainant to prove the debt or liability, without appreciating the presumptionPresumption An inference of the truth or falsehood of a proposition or fact that stands until rebutted by evidence to the contrary. under Section 139 of N.I. Act.
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS-9/10/2017 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the name of...
Arjun Gopal vs Union Of India-29/10/2021 - On Diwali days or on any other festivals like Gurupurab, etc., when such fireworks generally take place, it would strictly be from 8.00 p.m. till 10.00 p.m. only. On Christmas eve and New Year's eve, when such fireworks start around midnight i.e. 12.00 a.m., it would be from 11.55 p.m. till 12.30 a.m. only.
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.
Aroon Purie Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors (31/10/2022) - DEFAMATION-There is no statutory immunity for the Managing Editor, Resident Editor or Chief Editor against any prosecution for the alleged publication of any matter in the newspaper over which these persons exercise control. In all these cases, the complainants have specifically alleged that these appellants had knowledge of the publication of the alleged defamatory matter and they were responsible for such publication; and the Magistrates who had taken cognizance of the offence held that there was prima facie case against these appellants. It was under such circumstances that the summonses were issued against these appellants.
Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to supplant the statutory provision - Anupal Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and Others-30/09/2019-The power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to supplant the statutory provision under the UP Reservation Act, 1994.
Aruna Oswal vs Pankaj Oswal & ors-06/07/2020 - the proceedings before the NCLT filed under sections 241 and 242 of the Act should not be entertained because of the pending civil dispute and considering the minuscule extent of holding of 0.03%, that too, acquired after filing a civil suit in company securities, of respondent no. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in order to maintain the proceedings, the respondent should have waited for the decision of the right, title and interest, in the civil suit concerning shares in question.
Asgar & Ors. Vs. Mohan Varma & Ors-05/02/2019 - An issue which the appellants might and ought to have asserted in the earlier round of proceedings is deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue. The High Court was, in this view of the matter, entirely justified in coming to the conclusion that the failure of the appellants to raise a claimA Claim A claim is “factually unsustainable” where it could be said with confidence before trial that the factual basis for the claim is entirely without substance, which can be the case if it were clear beyond question that the facts pleaded are contradicted by all the documents or other material on which it is based. would result in the application of the principle of constructive res judicata both having regard to the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1958 and to the provisions of Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of the CPC.
Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh Vs. State of Gujarat – 07/05/19 - Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC- Life imprisonment converted into acquittal by giving benefit of doubt-Supreme Court would be slow to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. In an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse (vide Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 11 SCC 141). Where the appreciation of evidence is erroneous, the Supreme Court would certainly appreciate the evidence.
Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. Vs. Alok Kumar Lodha & Ors (12/07/2022) - Commercial Suits under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure-if, by permitting plaintiffs to amend the plaint including a prayer clause nature of the suit is likely to be changed, in that case, the Court would not be justified in allowing the amendment.
Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik Versus Union of India and others-04/04/1989 - constitutional requirement of expeditious consideration of the petitioner’s representation by the Government as spelt out from Art. 22(5) of the Constitution
Assam Public Works Vs. Union of India & Ors. 13/08/ 2019 - The entire NRC exercise having been performed and the same cannot be now ordered to be reopened by initiation of a fresh exercise on certain other parameters that have been suggested on behalf of the intervenors/applicants on the strength of the provisions of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act.
Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another Vs M/s. Ashok Saw Mill-16/07/2009 - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002—Sections 13 and 17—Enforcement of security interest—Jurisdiction of DRT with regard to post 13(4) events—DRT is entitled to question the action taken by secured creditor and transactions entered into by virtue of Section 13(4)—DRT has been vested with authority to even set aside a transaction including sale and to restore possession to borrower in appropriate cases—DRT has jurisdiction to deal with a post 13(4) situation—Action taken by a secured creditor in terms of Section 13(4) is open to scrutiny and cannot only be set aside but even status quo ante can be restored by DRT.
Ayillyath Yadunath Nambiar Vs P. Sreedharan (18/08/2022) - Specific performanceSpecific performance The remedy of specific performance is special and extraordinary and is at the court’s discretion, which the court would only exercise “if, under all the circumstances, it is just an equitable to do so”. Factors affecting the court’s discretion include considerations such as: (a) whether damages would be an adequate remedy; and (b) whether the person against whom the relief of specific performance is being sought would suffer substantial hardship. of contractContract An agreement enforceable by law is a contract. All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void. Indian Contract Act.-Court has sufficient reason to arrive at a conclusion of not awarding the relief of specific performance of contract rather directing for refund of advance amount at adequate interest rate.
B. Venkateswaran & Ors Vs P. Bakthavatchalam (05/01/2023) - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.-Private civil dispute between the parties is converted into criminal proceedings. Initiation of the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, therefore, is nothing but an abuse of processAbuse of process It is found where the judicial process is used as a means of vexation and oppression in the process of litigation. of law and Court. From the material on record, we are satisfied that no case for the offences under Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out, even prima facie.
Babu Venkatesh and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr-18/02/2022 - Section 156(3) CrPC- applications under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. are to be supported by an affidavitAffidavit An ex parte statement in writing made under oath before a notary public or other officer authorized to administer oaths, about facts which the affiant either knows of his own personal knowledge or is aware of to the best of his knowledge. duly sworn by the complainant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate
Bachan Singh Vs State of Punjab-16/08/1982 - constitutional issues arising out of the challenge to the validity of the death penalty
Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal Vs. Central Bank of India & ANR-11/09/2019 - Section 13 (13) SARFAESI Act-
Bakulbhai And Anr vs Gangaram & Anr (27/01/1988) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 125 & 397(3)-Maintenance for wife and child-The amount of Rs.50 per month was allowed as the maintenance of the child in 1984. The revision application filed before the Sessions Judge was rejected. A second application before the High Court was, therefore, not maintainable. We will, therefore, assume that the decision assessing the amount of maintenance as Rs.50 per month in 1984 became final. However, on account of change of circumstances, this amount can be revised after efflux of time.
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.
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...
Balram Singh Vs. Kelo Devi (23/09/2022) - Second Appeal-Permanent Injunction-Counter-claimA Claim A claim is “factually unsustainable” where it could be said with confidence before trial that the factual basis for the claim is entirely without substance, which can be the case if it were clear beyond question that the facts pleaded are contradicted by all the documents or other material on which it is based. seeking the decree of possession-Agreement to sell-An unregistered document/agreement to sell shall not be admissible in evidence. It may be true that in a given case, an unregistered document can be used and/or considered for collateral purpose. However, at the same time, the plaintiff cannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in a suit for substantive relief, namely, in the present case the relief for specific performance.
Balwinder Kaur Vs Hardeep Singh 18/11/1997 - Even where the Family Courts are not functioning, the objects and principles underlying the constitution of these Courts can be kept in view by the civil Courts trying matrimonial causes.
Bandhu Mahto (dead) by L.Rs. AND ANOTHER Vs Bhukhli Mahatain AND OTHERS-14/02/2007 - In view of this evidence on record, the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the tenancy held by the defendants will be deemed as permanent tenancy and not tenancy-at-will as alleged by the plaintiffs.
Bar Council of India Vs. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors (10/02/2023) - If a person has a law degree or enrolment, it does not mean that his ability to assist the court would continue with him if there are long hiatus period of time in some unconnected job. He would have to hone and test his skills afresh. Thus, if there is a substantial break, norms should be specified by the Bar Council of India that to regain that qualification, the person would be subject to re-examination and would be required to take the All India Bar Examination once more.
Bar Council of India Vs. Rabi Sahu & Anr (09/06/2023) - Section 49 read with Section 24(3)(d) of the Act of 1961 vested BCI with the power to prescribe the norms for entitlement to be enrolled as an Advocate and in consequence, the interdict placed by the decision in V. Sudeer (supra) on the power of BCI could not be sustained. The Constitution Bench, accordingly, held that V. Sudeer (supra) did not lay down the correct position of law.
Basavaraj R. Patil and others Vs State of Karnataka and others - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 313—Examination of accused—Personal presence of accused—Whether can be dispensed with—Yes.
BENEDICT DENIS KINNY VS TULIP BRIAN MIRANDA & ORS-19/03/2020 - ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION-When a citizen has right to judicial review against any decision of statutory authority, the High Court in exercise of judicial review had every jurisdiction to maintain the status quo so as to by lapse of time, the petition may not be infructuous.
BGS SGS SOMA JV Vs. NHPC Ltd-10/12/2019 - ARBITRATION-whether the "seat" of the arbitration proceedings is New Delhi or Faridabad, consequent upon which a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 may be filed dependent on where the seat of arbitration is located.
Bhagwan Dutt Versus Smt. Kamla Devi and another-07/10/1974 - As the Magistrate is required to exercise that discretion in a just manner, the income of the wife, also, must be put in the scales of justice as against the means of the husband.
Bhagwant Singh Vs Commissioner of Police and another- 25/04/1985 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 154(1) and 157(1)- The injured person or any relative of the deceased, though not entitled to notice from the Magistrate, has locus to appear before the Magistrate at the time of consideration of the report, if he otherwise comes to know that the report is going to be considered by the Magistrate and if he wants to make his submissions in regard to the report, the Magistrate is bound to hear him.
Bhagwat Sharan (Dead Thr. Lrs.) vs Purushottam & Ors-03/04/2020 - HinduHindu A geographical name given by non-Hindus, who came to visit Bharatvarsha (Hindusthan). Sanatan Dharma is the actual Dharmic tradition of the Hindus. People who live in Hindusthan are Hindu, whether they Follow Islam, Chris, Buddha, Mahavira, or Nanaka. In this way, Tribals are also Hindu. Undivided Family-It is held that where one of the coparceners separated himself from other members of the joint family there was no presumption that the rest of coparceners continued to constitute a joint family. However, it is also held that at the same time there is no presumption that because one member of the family has separated, the rest of the family is no longer a joint family.
Bhagwati Prasad Sah and others Vs Dulhin Rameshwari Kuer and another-07/05/1951 - Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 101 to 104—Burden of proof—Joint Hindu Family—Presumption of—A Hindu family is presumed to be joint unless proved to the contrary—The burden of proving the status of the family is on the person claiming the relief on the basis of such status—It is a question to be determined in each case.
Bhagwati Prasad Versus Chandramaul- 19/10/1965 - If a party asks for a relief on a clear and specific ground, and in the issues or at the trial, no other ground is covered either directly or by necessary implication, it would not be open to the said party to attempt to sustain the same claim on a ground which is entirely new.
Bhajan lal Versus State of Punjab and Others – 28/09/1970 - Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953
Bhawanipore Banking Corporation Ltd Vs Gouri Shanker Sharma-14/03/1950 - Limitation Act, 1908—Article 182—Limitation for execution—Computation of—Review of decree—Dismissal of review application in default—Pendency of proceedings seeking restoration of review petition—Pendency of appeal against the order rejecting the restoration application—Clause (2) and (3) have no application on the basis of pendency of such proceedings.
BHAWNA BAI VS GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS- 03/12/2019 - For framing the charges under Section 228 Crl.P.C., the judge is not required to record detailed reasons. As pointed out earlier, at the stage of framing the charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case is to be seen.
Bhoopendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr (29/10/2021) - On the touchstone of the above decisions and for the reasons we have indicated above, the impugned order granting bail is unsustainable. The High Court has failed to notice relevant circumstances bearing on the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the role attributed to the second respondent. The High Court has proceeded on the erroneous basis that no overt act has been assigned to the second respondent. There was no change in circumstances warranting the grant of bail.
Biltu Bhattacharya Vs. State of West Bengal-10/05/2022 - CRIMINAL REVIEW PETITION DISMISSED-SEC 302 IPC-We have gone through the grounds raised in the Review Petition and do not find any error apparent on record to justify interference.
Binod Kumar Versus State of Jharkhand and Others – 29/03/2011 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002—Sections 4, 45(1A), 43 and 44-The investigationInvestigation Purpose of all investigation is to reveal the unvarnished truth. The constitutional courts are duty bound to ensure that the truth is revealed. under the PML Act is solely and exclusively within the jurisdiction and domain of the Enforcement Directorate, which is of course subject to the exercise of powers by the Central Government under Section 45(1A) of the said Act.
Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs State of Gujarat and Another- 22/02/2001 - Trial—Delay in proceeding-Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial Court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment.
Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai Shah Vs Prabhavati-19/10/1956 - In EnglandEngland In England, the Parliament was originally an advisory body summoned to consult with the monarch, and the courts exercised delegated royal powers, as “lions beneath the throne”. until 1858 the only remedy for desertion was a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. But by the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857, desertion without cause for two years upwards was made a ground for a suit for judicial separation. It was not till 1937 that by the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, desertion without cause for a period of three years immediately preceding the institutions of proceedings was made a ground for divorce. The law has now been consolidated in the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950 (14 Geo. VI, C. 25). It would thus appear that desertion as affording a cause of action for a suit for dissolution of marriage is a recent growth even in England.
Birendra Prasad Sah Vs. State of Bihar & ANR – 08/05/19 - Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881-Issuance of successive notices is permissible under the provisions of Section 138-Condonation of Delay-The CJM condoned the delay on the cause which was shown by the appellant and it is evident that the appellant had indicated sufficient cause for seeking condonation of the delay in the institution of the complaint.
Biswanath Agarwalla Vs Sabitri Bera and Ors Respondent – 04/08/2009 - court fees Act, 1870—Section 7(v)—Payment of court-fee—For obtaining a decree for recovery of possession, court-fees is required to be paid in terms of Section 7(v), according to value of subject-matter of suit.
Boloram Bordoloi Vs Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and Ors-08/02/2021 - it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passes an order on the basis thereof, no further detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment.
Bombay High Court refused to quash FIR against Gautam Navlakha in Koregaon-Bhima violence - Bombay High Court dismissed the petition filed by Navlakha seeking to quash the FIR lodged...
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.
Brajnandan Sinha Vs Jyoti Narain-08/11/1955 - Contempt Of Courts Act, 1952—Section 3—Court—MEANING of—Courts subordinate to High Court—MEANING of—Court of a quasi judicial tribunal created under Statute is not covered by the EXPRESSION ‘court’.
Bramchari Sidheswar Shai and others Versus State of WEST BENGAL – 02/07/1995 - Can the citizens of IndiaIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the name of this land...
BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs Sh. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma & Anr-05/12/2019 - Pension Denied: Even if the first respondent had served twenty years, under Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules his past service stands forfeited upon resignation. The first respondent is therefore not entitled to pensionary benefits.
C. Ravichandran Iyer Vs Justice A. M. Bhattacharjee and others (05/09/1995) - In case the allegations are against Chief Justice of a High Court, the Bar should bring them directly to the notice of the Chief Justice of India. On receipt of such complaint, the Chief Justice of India would in the same way act as stated above qua complaint against a Judge of the High Court, and the Bar would await for a reasonable period the response of the Chief Justice of India.
C.R. NEELAKANDAN AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS-07/05/2014 - Tamil Nadu is entitled to the reliefs as prayed in para 40 (i) and (ii) of the suit. Consequently, it is declared that the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006 passed by the Kerala legislature is unconstitutional in its application to and effect on the Mullaperiyar dam.
Can conviction be based solely on dying declaration? Supreme court said yes- (16/08/2022) - The dying declaration can be the sole basis for recording conviction and if it is found reliable and trustworthy, no corroboration is required. In case there are multiple dying declarations and there are inconsistencies between them, the dying declaration recorded by the higher officer like a Magistrate can be relied upon.
Canara Bank Vs. N.G. Subbaraya Setty & ANR-20/04/2018 - One well-known exception is that the doctrine cannot impart finality to an erroneous decision on...
Center for PIL and Others Versus Union of India and Others-11/04/2011 - In larger public interest, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 136 of the Constitution has been monitoring the investigation in a most comprehensive manner.
Central Bureau of Investigation & ANR. Vs. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum Etc-05/07/19 - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION-the provisions of Article 32 do not specifically indicate who can move the court. In the absence of such a provision in that respect, it is plain that the petitioner may be anyone in whom the law has conferred power to maintain an action of such nature. It is open to anybody who is interested in the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for relief.
Central Bureau of Investigation etc. Vs. Mrs. Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal & ANR. etc 25/09/2019 - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION-The absence of sanction no doubt can be agitated at the threshold but the invalidity of the sanction is to be raised during the trial. In the instant facts, admittedly there is a sanction though the accused seek to pick holes in the manner the sanction has been granted and to claim that the same is defective which is a matter to be considered in the trial.
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh Etc (10/04/2023) - The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution / investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution / investigating agency.
Chaitu Lal Vs. State of Uttarakhand-20/11/2019 - RAPE-The attempt to commit an offence begins when the accused commences to do an act with the necessary intention. In the present case, the accused appellant pounced upon the complainant victim, sat upon her and lifted her petticoat while the complainant victim protested against his advancements and wept.
Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Versus Ashalata S. Guram-25/09/1986 - Statutory tenant is in the same position as a contractual tenant until the decree for eviction was passed against him and the rights of a contractual tenant included the right to create licence even if he was the transferor of an interest which was not in fact the transfer of interest.
Chandi Puliya Vs. State of West Bengal (12/12/2022) - DISCHARGE-the stage of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is a stage prior to framing of the charge (under Section 228 Cr.P.C.) and it is at that stage alone that the court can consider the application under Section 300 Cr.P.C. Once the court rejects the discharge application, it would proceed to framing of charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C.
Chandigarh Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Punjab & Anr-14/2/2020 - Arbitration Award-an Award can neither be remitted nor set aside merely on the ground that it does not contain reasons in support of the conclusion or decision reached in it except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission requires it to give reasons. In that light the learned advocate would point out that in the instant case the agreement between the parties would require that the learned Arbitrator has to assign reasons for the Award and when such requirement is stipulated the Award passed without reasons would not be sustainable being contrary to the explicit requirement in the contract between the parties.
CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN – 09/05/2014 - The basic ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreementContract An agreement...
Chandrabhan (D) LRS. & Ors. Vs. Saraswati & Ors (22/09/2022) - Substantial Question of LawLaw Positive command of sovereign or divine. One can be ruled either by a Statute, a Statue, or a Statement. Legislation is the rule-making process by a political or religious organisation. Physics governs natural law. Logical thinking is a sign of a healthy brain function. Dharma is eternal for Sanatanis.-The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be, whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court.
Chanmuniya Vs Chanmuniya Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Another – 07/10/2010 - Keywords:- Live in a relationship:- wife- Women in live-in relationships are also entitled to all...
Charanjit Lal Chowdhury Vs The Union of India and others – 04/12/1950. - Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 14, 19, 31, 32—Deprivation of property
Charansingh Vs State of Maharashtra and others-24/03/2021 - A GD entry recording the information by the informant disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence can be treated as FIR in a given case and the police has the power and jurisdiction to investigate the same. The appellant has been summoned for a preliminary enquiry only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. If the preliminary enquiry discloses the cognizable offence, then a first information report will be registered against the appellant.
Chaturbhuj Versus Sita Bai-27/11/2007 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 125—Phrase “unable to maintain herself”—Meaning of—It would mean that means available to deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself efforts made by wife after desertion to survive somehow.
Chherturam @ Chainu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (13/09/2022) - Son Murdered Father-The only redeeming feature is that the appellant has already undergone 12 years of sentence and on completion of the sentence, as per remission policy, he would be liable to be considered for release. The only aspect which we are inclined to consider is to issue a direction to the State to consider the case of the appellant for remission, the moment he completes the mandatory sentence as per the policy for such consideration.
Chhote Lal Vs. Rohtash & Ors (14/12/2023) - The appellant/complainant, a sole eyewitness, happens to be the most interested witness being the father of the deceased and having long enmity with the group to which the accused persons belong, therefore, his testimony was to be examined with great caution and the High Court was justified in doing so and in doubting it so as to uphold the conviction on his solitary evidence.
Chief Election Commissioner of India Vs. M.R Vijayabhaskar & Ors-06/05/2021 - we must emphasize the need for judges to exercise caution in off-the-cuff remarks in open court, which may be susceptible to misinterpretation. Language, both on the Bench and in judgments, must comport with judicial propriety. Language is an important instrument of a judicial process which is sensitive to constitutional values. Judicial language is a window to a conscience sensitive to constitutional ethos. Bereft of its understated balance, language risks losing its symbolism as a protector of human dignity.
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER VS HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND-04/03/2020 - If The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating a third party to have access to the information/obtaining the certified copies of the documents or orders requires to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information, is not inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act;
Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act: SC - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VS SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL 13/11/2019-Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act: SC
Chirag M. Pathak & Ors. Etc. Vs. Dollyben Kantilal & Ors (15/11/2017) - The condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under S.157 of the Code is that the F.I.R. must disclose, prima facie, that a cognizable offence has been committed. It is wrong to suppose that the police have an unfettered discretion to commence investigation under S.157 of the Code. Their right of inquiry is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably, have reason so to suspect unless the F.I.R., prima facie, discloses the commission of such offence.
Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)-10/08/2009 - InstigationInstigation In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (11) SCALE 24, the court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. It is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.—A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation—Presence of mens rea is necessary concomitant of instigation.
Church of North India Vs Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai and others-03/05/2005 - AIR 2005 SC 2544 : (2005) 3 SCR 1037 : (2005) 10 SCC 760 :...
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi-iii vs M/S. Uni Products India Ltd-01/05/2020 - The common parlance test”, “marketability test”, “popular meaning test” are all tools for interpretation to arrive at a decision on proper classification of a tariff entry. These tests, however, would be required to be applied if a particular tariff entry is capable of being classified in more than one heads.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Vs. M/s. Krishna Wax Pvt. Ltd-14/11/2019 - Writ in Excise Matter-It has been laid down by this Court that the excise law is a complete code in itself and it would normally not be appropriate for a Writ Court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the concerned person must first raise all the objections before the authority who had issued a show causeShow Cause A process directed to a person to appear in court and present reasons why a certain order, judgment, or decree should not be made final. notice and the redressal in terms of the existing provisions of the law could be taken resort to if an adverse order was passed against such person.
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal – 13/08/2019 - Income Tax Act - According to Section 292BB of the Act, if the assessee had participated in the proceedings, by way of legal fiction, notice would be deemed to be valid even if there be infractions as detailed in said Section.
COMMON CAUSE, A REGISTERED SOCIETY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS- 03/08/1999 - Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or reconstruction. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility Yet in the realm of law the Courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality ot decision legally and properly made Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage ot justice Even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest Court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the Courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice,
Competition Commission of India Versus Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Another-9/9/2010 - Competition act, 2002—Sections 16(1), 4, 6, 3, 26, 29 and 19—competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009—Regulations 30(2), 18(2), 35 and 17(2)—U.P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings act, 1960—Section 9(2)—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 14.
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.
Cotton Corporation of India Limited VS United Industrial Bank Limited and others-19/09/1983 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 39, Rules 1 and 2—Restraint on legal proceedings—Permissibility—The Court cannot grant injunction restraining a person from initiating legal proceedings.
D. Sasi Kumar Vs. Soundararajan-23/09/2019 - If as on the date of filing the petition the requirement subsists and it is proved, the same would be sufficient irrespective of the time-lapse in the judicial process coming to an end.
D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal- 21/10/2010 - Key Words:– Maintenance-Delay-a relationship in the nature of marriage-Polimony-common lawCommon law The legal system that...
D.S. NAKARA AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) – 17/12/1982 - Do pensioners entitled to receive superannuation or retiring pension under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,...
Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRS. & Ors- 09/07/2020 - The words "right to sue" means the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Order VII Rule 11(d) provides that where a suit appears from the averments in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected.
Dalbir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors-02/07/19 - Summary General Court Martial-In service matters the past conduct, both positive and negative will be relevant not only while referring to the misconduct but also in deciding the proportionality of the punishment, the Court should be cautious while considering the case of an officer/soldier/employee of a disciplined force and the same yardstick or sympathetic consideration as in other cases cannot be applied. The resources of the country are spent on training a soldier to retaliate and fight when the integrity of the nationNation A collective consciousness, founded in ancient origin within a geographic area, with definite history and heritage, culture and way of life, language and literature, food and clothing, coupled with a deep understanding of war and peace is to be known as a nation. Rasra is the Vedic word for it. is threatened and there is aggression. In such grave situation if a soldier turns his back to the challenge, it will certainly amount to cowardice.
Dalip Singh and others Versus State of Punjab-12/01/1979 - Although a dying declaration recorded by a Police Officer during the course of the investigation is admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act is view of the exception provided in sub section (2) of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is better to leave such dying declarations out of consideration until and unless the prosecution satisfies the court as to why it was not recorded by a Magistrate or by a Doctor.
Dalip Singh Versus State of U.P. and ORS -03/12/2009 - False statement on oath-it is clear that in this case efforts to mislead the authorities and the courts have transmitted through three generations and the conduct of the appellant and his son to mislead the High Court and this Court cannot, but be treated as reprehensible. They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting the course of justice.
Dammu Sreenu Vs State of ANDHRA PRADESH-28/05/2009 - Penal Code, 1860—Section 306—abetment of suicide—Wife of deceased having illicit relationship with accused-appellant—Fact that appellant...
Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ANR-06/02/2018 - If an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to...
Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors-29 /07/2022 - SEC-482 Cr.P.C-Inherent power to recall a judgment and/or order which was without jurisdiction or a judgment and/or order passed without hearing a person prejudicially affected by the judgment and/or order.
Dayal Saran Sanan Vs Union of India and others-16/01/1980 - Constitution of India, 1950—Article 311(2)—Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965—Rule 19(1)—Natural justice—Petitioner dismissed from service because of conviction by Criminal Court—In appeal dismissal was modified to one of compulsory retirement—No notice was issued before passing order of dismissal—No summary inquiry was held and no opportunity was given before passing order of dismissal or of compulsory retirement—Order liable to be set aside.
Dayanandi Vs Rukma D. Suvarna and Others-31/10/2011 - Hindu Law—Partition—Partition suit decreed by High Court in favour of defendant-respondent reversing decree of Trial Court—Some manipulative alterations were made in Will giving an impression that before putting his left thumb mark, testator had consciously disinherited respondent—Execution of second Will was highly suspicious and not a voluntary act of testator—Appeal dismissed.
Deb Narayan Shyam and others Vs State of WEST BENGAL and others-01/12/2004 - whether the qualifications, the duties discharged by the surveyors and Amins are same and identical so as to treat the Amins at par with that of the surveyors may be taken up for consideration.
Deenadayal Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Munjaji and Ors-16/02/2022 - That the borrower defaulted in payment of the appellant-bank and Vaidanath Bank in the year 2010. Both the banks initiated separate recovery proceedings against respondent no.1 and the borrower. A Recovery Certificate dated 6.2.2010 was issued in favour of the appellant-bank under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MCS Act, 1960').
Deepak Gaba and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr (02/01/2023) - In case of a private complaint, the Magistrate can issue summonsSummons It means an application to the Court in relation to an action or appeal which has to be served on other parties or non‑parties. when the evidence produced at the pre-summoning stage shows that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The material on record should indicate that the ingredients for taking cognizance of an offence and issuing summons to the accused is made out.
Deepak Vs. Chhattisgarh (19/02/2024) - Police machinery is not for recovering money: The case involves allegations of financial impropriety and broken promises, leading to an investigation by the police. The appeal contests the correctness of the judgment dismissing the petition to quash the criminal proceedings. It emphasizes the need for judicious allocation of law enforcement resources and concludes that the criminal prosecution should be quashed due to the dubious nature of the claims.
Delhi International Airport Ltd Vs Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (04/12/2023) - SUPREME COURT OF INDIAIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the name of this land mass....
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress and others – 4/09/1990 - whether the employer, Statutory CorporationCorporation A legally established entity that can enter into contracts, own assets and incur debt, as well as sue and be sued—all separately from its owner(s). The term covers both for-profit and nonprofit corporations and includes nonstock corporations, incorporated membership organizations, incorporated cooperatives, incorporated trade associations, professional corporations and, under certain circumstances, limited liability companies. or instrumentality or other authority under Art. 12 of the Constitution has unbridled power to terminate the services of a permanent employee by issue of notice or pay in lieu thereof without inquiry or opportunity, in exercise of the power in terms of contract which include statutory Rules or Regulations or instructions having force of law.
Deoki Nandan Versus Murlidhar and others – 04/10/1956 - Under the Hindu law, an idol is a juristic person capable of holding property and the properties endowed for the institution vest in it.
DEOKINANDAN PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS - SUPREME COURT OF INDIAIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the name of this land mass....
DEV KARAN @ LAMBU VS STATE OF HARYANA- 06/08/2019 - "We may also notice that there are concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, which have appreciated the evidence, and we do not think that this Court should convert itself into a third court of appeal for appreciation of evidence."
Devendra and OTHERS Vs State of U.P. and ANOTHER – 06/05/2009 - When the allegations made in the First Information Report or the evidences collected during investigation do not satisfy the ingredients of an offence, the superior courts would not encourage harassment of a person in a criminal court for nothing.
Devi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan-8/01/2019 - the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved"
Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai Vs. State of Bihar (14/07/2022) - CRIMINAL APPEAL- the plain language of Sections 385-386 does not contemplate dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter. On the contrary, the Code envisages disposal of the appeal on merits after perusal and scrutiny of the record.
Dhananjay Sharma Vs State of Haryana and others-02/05/1995 - Contempt of CourtContempt of Court Failure to obey a court order. A disregard of, or...
DHANPAT VERSUS SHEO RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS-19/03/2020 - WILL-it is the overall assessment of the Court on the basis of the unusual features appearing in the Will or the unnatural circumstances surrounding its execution, that justifies a close scrutiny of the same before it can be accepted.
Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors-29/01/2016 - The power to order fresh, de-novo or re-investigation being vested with the Constitutional Courts, the commencement of a trial and examination of some witnesses cannot be an absolute impediment for exercising the said constitutional power which is meant to ensure a fair and just investigation. It can never be forgotten that as the great ocean has only one test, the test of salt, so does justice has one flavour, the flavour of answering to the distress of the people without any discrimination.
Dharmarajan and Ors Vs Valliammal and Ors- 11/12/2007 - Adverse possession—possession has to be open and adverse to the owner of the property—Evidence did not show this openness and adverse nature because it is not even certain as to against whom the adverse possession was pleaded—Held that plea of adverse possession is not maintainable.
Dharmendra Kumar Vs Usha Kumar-19/08/1977 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 13(1A)(i) & (ii) and 23—Scope and applicability of—Mere non-compliance with the decree for Restitution does not constitute a wrong within the meaning of Section 23(1)(a)—In order to be a wrong under the section, the conduct alleged must be more than a mere disinclination to agree to an offer of reunion—It must be serious misconduct
Digambar Vs State of Maharashtra (28/04/2023) - we find that the present case cannot be considered to be 'rarest of rare' case. In any case, the report of the Probation Officer, Nanded as well as the Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison would show that the appellant-Digambar has been found to be well-behaved, helping and a person with leadership qualities. He is not a person with criminal mindset and criminal records.
Dilawar Singh Vs State of Delhi-05/09/2007 - Penal Code, 1860—Sections 392, 395, 397 and 452—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 154(3), 210 and 465
DILIP SHAW @ SANATAN & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS-02/03/2020 - Common object-The fact that there was short time gap and little deviation in describing the exact place of occurrence by themselves cannot detach the involvement of the persons who had hurled the bombs from rest of the accused persons altogether, who were part of the same group. They were harbouring common object, which fact emerges from various factors including having assembled therewith weapons of assault and their participation in the acts of assault. These weapons were capable of causing death. The act of hurling bombs was in very close proximity in time to the act of assault on Sarban.
Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Padmanabhan Kishore (31/10/2022) - Prevention of Money Laundering Act-Proceeds of crime-By handing over money with the intent of giving bribe, such person will be assisting or will knowingly be a party to an activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Without such active participation on part of the person concerned, the money would not assume the character of being proceeds of crime
Dr. Abraham Patani of Mumbai & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (02/09/2022) - we deem the present case to be an appropriate instance where public interest must have paramountcy over private interest. We emphasize once again before parting that the rights of the individual must only be watered down when the necessary circumstances demanding such a drastic measure exist.
Dr. Ashwani Kumar Vs. Union of India and Another – 5/09/2019 - The right to life with dignity under Article 21, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Central Government to enact a suitable stand-alone, comprehensive legislation against custodial torture as it has directed in the case of mob violence/lynching vide its judgment 17th July 2018.
Dr. Jagdish Saran and others Vs Union of India and others-28/01/1980 - In the adversary system, advocacy in the superior courts, which by their decisions, declare the law for all, must broaden beyond the particular lis into a conspectus of sociological facts, economic factors and educational conditions so that other persons aggrieved, who will potentially be bound by the decision, do not suffer by not being eo nomine parties. Surely, on the available material, counsel have done their best.
Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minister & Ors-05/06/2021 - The Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in the public services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 as amended in 2019 granting 12% and 13% reservation for Maratha community in addition to 50% social reservation is not covered by exceptional circumstances as contemplated by Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney's case.
Dr. Manik Bhattacharya Vs. Ramesh Malik and Ors (18/10/2022) - PROTECTION FROM ARREST GRAMTED-The case on hand is a case where the criminal law is directed to be set in motion on the basis of the allegations made in anonymous petition filed in the High Court. No judicial order can ever be passed by any court without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person likely to be affected by such order and particularly when such order results in drastic consequences of affecting one's own reputation.
Dr. Manik Bhattacharya Vs. Ramesh Malik and Ors (20/10/2022) - The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("2002 Act"), money laundering is an independent offence and in the event there is any allegation of the Enforcement Directorate having acted beyond jurisdiction or their act of arrest is not authorized by law, the petitioner would be entitled to apply before the appropriate Court of law independently. But that question could not be examined in a Special Leave Petition arising from the proceedings in which the question of Money Laundering were not involved.
Dr. Monica Kumar and ANR Vs State of U.P and ORS-27/05/2008 - Under Article 142 of the Constitution this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter' pending before it. The expression “cause” or “matter” would include any proceeding pending in court and it would cover almost every kind of proceeding in court including civil or criminal.
Dr. S. Kumar & Ors. Vs. S. Ramalingam-16/07/19 - Section 41 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882-Easement of necessity-The argument that right of easement stands extinguished once the easement of necessity comes to an end is not applicable if the rights of the parties arise out of a sale deed and the rights of the parties have to be adjudicated upon as they exist on the date of filing of the suit. The subsequent events of inheritance vesting the property in the same person will not take away the easement right. The appellants have been granted right to use passage in the sale deed.
DR. SHAH FAESAL AND ORS. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR- 02/03/2020 - Supreme Court is of the opinion that there is no conflict between the judgments in the Prem Nath Kaul case (supra) and the Sampat Prakash case (supra). The plea of the counsel to refer the present matter to a larger Bench on this ground is therefore rejected
EIH Ltd. Vs. Nadia A Virji (01/08/2022) - West Bengal Tenancy Law-Under the tenancy agreement, the rent payable would be Rs. 10,000/- per month which does not include the municipal taxes payable. The liability to pay the taxes under the agreement would be over and above the amount of rent, i.e., Rs. 10,000/- per month.
Essemm Logistics Vs Darcl Logistics Ltd. & Anr (01/05/2023) - No notice under Section 16 of the new Act was necessary for instituting any suit or legal proceedings much less counter-claim against the common carrier for recovering the loss other than the loss of or damage to the consignment and, therefore, the courts below manifestly erred in rejecting the counter-claim under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as barred by Section 16 of the new Act.
Farhana Vs. UP (19/02/2024) - Continuing prosecution under Gangsters Act stands struck off and in consequence, prosecution of appellants is abusing the process of Court. The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, stating that as the appellants were exonerated in the predicate offences, the prosecution under the Gangsters Act was unjustified.
Federation of Bank of India Staff Unions & ANR. Vs. Union of India & ANR- 1/3/2019 - Indeed, the qualifications and disqualifications are bound to vary from category to category and would depend on the post, experience and the stream from where a person is being nominated as a Director.
Firdous Omer (D) by LRs and OTHERS Versus Bankim Chandra Daw (D) by LRs and OTHERS-28/07/2006 - Dismissal of a suit-whether an application for restoration of the suit dismissed under Rule 35 of Chapter X of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court is maintainable and if it is maintainable whether an application could be entertained only if it is filed before the order dismissing the suit is drawn up, completed and filed.
Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade P. Ltd. Versus AMCI (I) Ltd. AND ANOTHER-27/07/2009 - In an adversarial process, each party to a dispute presents its case to the natural...
Fr. Issac Mattammel Cor-Episcopa Vs. St. Mary’s Orthodox Syrian Church & Ors.- 6/09/2019 - Malankara ChurchChurch A creedal political organization of Christian People (Ecclesia) created by Constantine with a reading manual (Bible), Bishop as prince and CEO, and deacons as servants in a given jurisdiction within Roman provinces. A church prayer house is also called a church (building). Christian groups are divided into Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and countless reformed denominations. A church is maintained by donations and taxation from its members. is episcopal in character to the extent it is so declared in the 1934 Constitution. The 1934 Constitution fully governs the affairs of the parish churches and shall prevail.
Franklin Templeton Trustee Services Private Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Amruta Garg and Ors. Etc-14/07/2021 - Since the Regulations are in the nature of economic regulations, while exercising the power of judicial review, we would exercise restraint unless clear grounds justify interference. We would not supplant our views for that of the experts as this can put the marketplace into serious jeopardy and cause unintended complications.
Full text of the Supreme Court Judgment on Ram Janmabhumi Title appeal - M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs Vs Mahant Suresh Das & Ors Date: SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 9TH,...
Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC & Ors-15/02/2022 - Before we deal with the issue at hand, it may be necessary to recount brief facts. Aggrieved by the sale transaction between Future Retail Limited (FRL)Reliance Group, Amazon initiated an arbitration proceeding before the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC), in terms of Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. (FCPL)Amazon agreements.
G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. and another Vs Govt. of Karnataka and another-29/04/1991 - REJECTION OF LEAVE GRANTED BY SC-It is well settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for ‘such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the Special Leave Petitions.
G.J. Raja Vs. Tejraj Surana(30/07/2019) - NI ACT-The applicability of Section 143A of the Act must, therefore, be held to be prospective in nature and confined to cases where offences were committed after the introduction of Section 143A, in order to force an accused to pay such interim compensation.
Ganpati Babji Alamwar (D) by LRS. Ramlu and Others Vs. Digambarrao Venkatrao Bhadke and Others- 12/09/2019 - Mortgage by conditional sale-There must exist a debtor and creditor relationship. The valuation of the property, and the transaction value, along with the duration of time for reconveyance, are important considerations to decide the nature of the agreement.
Gautam Sarup Versus Leela Jetly and OTHERS- 07/03/2008 - An admission made in a pleading is not to be treated in the same manner as an admission in a document.
Gayatri Devi Pansari Versus State of Orissa and others – 11/04/2000 - The Policy of the State Government, indisputably being to provide 30% of the 24 hours Medical Stores within a District in favour of ladies by virtue of specific orders passed, therefore, that would itself provide sufficient and valid as well as legal basis for extending preference in favour of a lady applicant as long as the ceiling limit is not violated.
Gazi Khan alias Chotia Vs State of Rajasthan and anr- 02/05/1990 - Constitution of India, 1950—Article 22(5)—Habeas corpus—Return—Affidavit of Police Officer having no personal knowledge of the matter—Practice deprecated.
Gelus Ram Sahu and others Vs. Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh and others-18/02/2020 - It is the well-settled legal position that an amendment can be considered to be declaratory and clarificatory only if the statute itself expressly and unequivocally states that it is a declaratory and clarificatory provision. If there is no such clear statement in the statute itself, the amendment will not be considered to be merely declaratory or clarificatory.
Ghanshyam Vs Yogendra Rathi (02/06/2023) - The suit is for eviction of the defendant-appellant from the suit premises and for recovery of mesne profits on the ground that after the defendant-appellant has parted with the possession of the property in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in part performance of the agreement, he has no right to disturb his possession. He is simply a licencee and the licence having been terminated, he has no right to remain in possession but to restore possession to the person having rightful possessory title over it.
Google India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Visakha Industries and Another-10/12/2019 - DEFAMATION: Google hosts the Google Groups. The only question of fact is whether the appellant is in control of the said Group or it is, as claimed, controlled by its Parent Company. Hence, the issue is limited as to the role of appellant and its participation in the business of providing Google Groups platform and raising revenues for the same through advertisements, etc. apart from marketing it. The appellant, it is contended, cannot be allowed to disown its role in Google Groups. The appellant has withheld the actual nature of the activities it is carrying on in India. A party must come to court with clean hands.
Gopal Jha Vs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India – 25/10/2018 - In accordance with these rules, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of IndiaIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa)...
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
Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji Vs Shah Ranchhoddas Kalidas (Dead) and others-09/09/1969 - Though most of the present day Hindu public temples have been founded as public temples, there are instances of private temples becoming public temples in course of time.
Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Subhash Jain and Ors(02/12/2022) - The expression "paid" in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act.
Govind Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and another-18/03/1975 - M.P. Police Regulations—Regulation—855-The right to privacy in any event will necessarily have to go through a process of case-by-case development. Therefore, even assuming that the right to personal liberty, the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the freedom of speech create an independent right of privacy as an emanation from which one can characterize as a fundamental right, we do not think that the right is absolute.
Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel & Ors. Vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai-23/09/2019 - In the absence of any evidence of any forgery or fabrication and in the absence of specific denial of the execution of the gift deed, the Donee was under no obligation to examine one of the attesting witnesses of the gift deed.
GR Green Life Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Leitwind Shriram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd- 21/02/2021 - APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR-The appointment of the Sole Arbitrator is subject to the Declarations to be made under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with respect to independence and impartiality, and the ability to devote sufficient time to complete the arbitration. The Sole Arbitrator will be paid fees as per the Schedule of the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators' Fees) Rules, 2017.
Guda Vijayalakshmi Vs Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry-13/03/1981 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 21 and 21A—Sections 24 and 25 C. P. C. not excluded—Husband’s Divorce Suit can be transferred to the place where the wife’s maintenance suit is tried.
Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Solar Semiconductor Power Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others (25/10/2017) - The inherent power is not a provision of law to grant any substantive relief. But it is only a procedural provision to make orders to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court. It cannot be used to create or recognize substantive rights of the parties.
Guman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan – 24/5/2019 - A witness can be graded as reliable, unreliable, neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and consequences shall be followed accordingly
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Versus The State of Punjab-9/04/1980 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 437 and 438—Anticipatory bail—Considerations for—Anticipation of foul play—The provision for grant of bail can be invoked to meet such contingency in addition to other grounds.
Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Anr- 28/09/2007 - On a careful reading of Sec. 319 of the Code as well as the aforesaid...
Guru @ Gurubaran & Ors. Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police 27/09/2019 - Section 302, Indian Penal Code -the accused can only be held guilty of having committed the offence under Section 324 IPC. He has already undergone imprisonment for around 11 years and, therefore, his conviction under Section 302 IPC is altered to Section 324 IPC and the sentence is reduced to the period of incarceration already undergone.
H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs B.N. Thimmajamma and others-13/11/1958 - Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 67, 68, 45 and 47—Execution of Will—Proof of—The burden of proof is on the person propounding the Will.
H.V.P.N.L. Vs Mahavir-21/07/2000 - The Appellate Forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons.
Harendra Nath Bhattacharya and others Vs Kaliram Das (dead) by his legal representatives and others -22/11/1971 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 92—Leave to sue—Necessity of—No allegation of breach of trust or necessity of scheme of administration—Provision has no application.
Hari Narain Vs Badri Das-04/03/1963 - It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue and misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading.
Hari Sankaran Vs. Union of India & Others – 04/06/19 - Section 130(1) & (2) read with sections 211/212 and Sections 241/242 of the Companies Act, 2013- Report of the RBI Report can be taken note of, while upholding the order passed by the learned Tribunal under Section 130 of the Companies Act. As a larger public interest has been involved and reopening of the books of accounts and recasting of financial statements of the aforesaid companies is required to be carried out in the larger public interest, to find out the real truth, and the conditions precedent while invoking power under Section 130 of the Companies Act are satisfied/complied with, therefore order passed by the learned Tribunal passed under Section 130 of the Companies Act, confirmed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, is not required to be interfered with.
Harinarayan G. Bajaj Versus State of Maharashtra and Others-06/01/2010 - Under Section 244, Cr. P.C. the accused has a right to cross-examine the witnesses and in the matter of Section 319, Cr.P.C. when a new accused is summoned, he would have similar right to cross-examine the witness examined during the inquiry afresh.
Haripada Dey Versus The State of West Bengal and another- 05/09/1956 - No High Court can arrogate that function to itself and pass on to us a matter which in its view is purely one involving questions of fact, because it finds itself helpless to redress the grievance. In such a case, the High Court should refuse to give a certificate under Art. 134 (1) (c) and ask the parties to approach us invoking our special jurisdiction under Art. 136 (1) of the Constitution.
Harjit Singh Vs. Inderpreet Singh @ Inder and Anr – 24/08/2021 - Apex Court does not interfere with Bail order of HC. But, where the discretion of HC to grant bail has been exercised without due application of mind or in contravention of directions of apex Court, granting bail is liable to be set aside.
Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu(16/12/2022) - While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint.
Hemaji Waghaji Jat Vs Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and others-23/09/2008 - The law of adverse possession which ousts an owner on the basis of inaction within limitation is irrational, illogical and wholly disproportionate. The law as it exists is extremely harsh for the true owner and a windfall for a dishonest person who had illegally, taken possession of the property of the true owner. The law ought not to benefit a person who in a clandestine manner takes possession of the property of the owner in contravention of law. This in substance would mean that the law gives seal of approval to the illegal action or activities of a rank trespasser or who had wrongfully taken possession of the property of the true owner.
Hemareddi (D) through LRS. Vs. Ramachandra Yallappa Hosmani and Ors – 07/05/19 - ABATEMENT OF SUIT- Death of a party during the currency of a litigation -The impact of death of the late brother of the appellant qua the proceeding is one arising out of the incompatibility of a decree which has become final with the decree which the appellant invites the appellate court to pass.
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr-29/09/2021 - GRANTING BAIL-The issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudenceJurisprudence It is a branch of philosophy, that discusses the legality of Law. Oppenheimer v Cattermole (1976), the court considered the question of whether a Nazi law was so iniquitous that it should refuse to recognise it as a law, thus raising the connection between the concepts of law and morality. of bail is integral to a socially sensitised judicial process
High Court, Calcutta and another vs Amal Kumar Roy and others-09/04/1962 - 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.
Himani Alloys Ltd. Vs Tata Steel Ltd-05/07/2011 - JUDGMENT ON ADMISSION-It is true that a judgment can be given on an “admission” contained in the minutes of a meeting. But the admission should be categorical. It should be a conscious and deliberate act of the party making it, showing an intention to be bound by it. Order 12 Rule 6 being an enabling provision, it is neither mandatory nor peremptory but discretionary. The court, on examination of the facts and circumstances, has to exercise its judicial discretion, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the Defendant, by way of an appeal on merits.
Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar Versus Sunanda-20/03/2001 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 13(1A) and 23—Divorce—Non-cohabitation for more than one year after judicial separation—Divorce not granted—Husband obliged to pay maintenance to wife—Refusal to pay maintenance is ‘wrong’ within the meaning of Section 23.
HIRAL P. HARSORA AND ORS. VERSUS KUSUM NAROTTAMDAS HARSORA AND ORS – 6/10/2016 - The words “adult male” in Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act will stand deleted since...
Hotel Priya, A Proprietorship Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors-18/02/2022 - DANCE BAR-whenever challenges arise, particularly based on gender, it is the task of the judges to scrutinize closely, whether, if and the extent to which the impugned practices or rules or norms are rooted in historical prejudice, gender stereotypes and paternalism.
How to compute compensation payable to the dependants of the deceased under MV Act-United India Insurance Vs. Satinder Kaur-30/06/2020 - United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors-U/S. 166/168 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988-The Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors[ (2017) 16 SCC 680]affirmed the view taken in Sarla Verma (supra) and Reshma Kumari (supra), and held that the age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. Another three-judge bench in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud & Ors.[(2019) 5 SCC 554] traced out the law on this issue, and held that the compensation is to be computed based on what the deceased would have contributed to support the dependants.
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...
Hussainara Khatoon and others Vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna- - Hussainara Khatoon- 2nd JudgmentJudgment The statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a...
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...
I. R. Coelho (dead) by L.Rs Vs State of Tamil Nadu -11/01/2007 - 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.
Icchu Devi Choraria Vs Union of India and others- 09/09/1980 - Habeas corpus-Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 32 and 22(5)—Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974—Section 3(3)— It is also necessary to point out that in case of an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the practice evolved by this Court is not to follow strict rules of pleading nor place undue emphasis on the question as to on whom the burden of proof lies. Even a postcard written by a detenu from jail has been sufficient to activise this Court into examining the legality of detention—Once the rule is issued it is the bounden duty of the Court to satisfy itself that all the safeguards provided by the law have been scrupulously observed and the citizen is not deprived of his personal liberty otherwise than in accordance with law.
IN RE- PRASHANT BHUSHAN & ANR. …. ALLEGED CONTEMNOR(S)-14/08/2020 - The scurrilous/malicious attacks by the alleged contemnor No.1 are not only against one or two judges but the entire Supreme Court in its functioning of the last six years. Such an attack which tends to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of this Court cannot be ignored. Recently, the Supreme Court in the cases of National Lawyers Campaign for Judical Transparency and Reforms and others vs. Union of India and others15 and Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors (supra) has suo motu taken action against Advocates who had made scandalous allegations against the individual judge/judges. Here the alleged contemnor has attempted to scandalise the entire institution of the Supreme Court.
In re: Arundhati Roy – 06/03/2002 - As the respondent has not shown any repentance or regret or remorse, no leinent view should be taken in the matter. However, showing the magnanimity of law by keeping in mind that the respondent is a woman, and hoping that better sense and wisdom shall dawn upon the respondent in the future to serve the cause of art and literature by her creative skill and imagination, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if she is sentenced to symbolic imprisonment besides paying a fine of ` 2000/-.
In Re: Expeditious trial of cases U/S 138 of NI Act 1881- Creation of Special Courts – 19/05/2022 - This court by its subsequent order dated 31.03.2021 had required High Courts to file status reports indicating compliance with the directions contained in the judgment and as to whether rules were framed appropriately in line with the judgment. Similarly, the necessary amendments to the Police Manuals etc. had to be carried out. As on date, all High Courts except the Patna High Court have complied with the directions and proposed the amended Rules. In many states, amended rules have even been notified.
In Re: Framing Guidelines Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances to be Considered While Imposing Death Sentences (19/09/2022) - In light of the above, there exists a clear conflict of opinions by two sets of three judge bench decisions on the subject. Consequently, this court is of the view that a reference to a larger bench of five Hon'ble Judges is necessary for this purpose. Let this matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders in this regard.
IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR-31/08/2020 - The Court, from the very beginning, was desirous of giving quietus to this matter. Directly or indirectly, the contemnor was persuaded to end this matter by tendering an apology and save the grace of the institution as well as the individual, who is an officer of the Court. However, for the reasons best known to him he has neither shown regret in spite of our persuasion or the advice of the learned Attorney General. Thus, we have to consider imposing an appropriate sentence upon him.
IN RE: THE DELHI LAWS ACT, 1912, THE AJMER-MERWARA (EXTENSION OF LAWS) ACT, 1947 AND THE PART C STATES (LAWS) ACT, 1950 - ( 1951) 2 SCR 747 SUPREME COURT OF INDIAIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the...
In Re: To Issue certain guidelines regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors- 20/04/2021 - This suo motu proceeding under Article 32 was initiated during the course of hearing of a criminal appeal (Crl.A.400/2006 & connected matters). The Court noticed common deficiencies which occur in the course of criminal trials and certain practices adopted by trial courts in criminal proceedings as well as in the disposal of criminal cases and causes.
In Re: To Issue certain Guidelines regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials-30/03/2017 - In the course of discussions at the Bar while considering this case, this Court had generally adverted to certain common inadequacies and imperfections that occur in the criminal trials in our country. I venture to suggest that in the interests of better administration of criminal justice and to usher in a certain amount of uniformity, and acceptance of best practices prevailing over various parts of India, this Court may consider issue of certain general guidelines to be followed across the board by all Criminal Courts in the country.
In West Bengal Panjabi speaking Sikhs are linguistic minority against Bengali: SC - Chandana Das (Malakar) Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors-25/09/2019- In the State of West Bengal, Sikhs are a linguistic minority vis-à-vis their language, namely, Punjabi, as against the majority language of the State, which is Bengali.
Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr Vs State of Uttaranchal and Ors -09/10/2007 - In complaint cases, at the first instance, the court should direct serving of the summons along with the copy of the complaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the summons, the court, in the second instance should issue bailable warrant. In the third instance, when the court is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the courts proceeding intentionally, the process of issuance of the non-bailable warrant should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount, therefore, we caution courts at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants.
Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State of Punjab and Another- 23/08/11 - Fraud-Equity-Void Ab initio-Domestic Violence-false statement-Conjugal Right For setting aside such an order, even if void,...
India does not have structured sentencing guidelines : Supreme Court Observed - State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Lal & Another
INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vs V.P. SHANTHA AND OTHERS-13/11/1995 - whether and, if so, in what circumstances, a medical practitioner can be regarded as rendering 'service' u/s 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Connected with this question is the question whether the service rendered at a hospital/nursing home can be regarded as 'service' u/s 2(1)(o) of the Act.
Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain- 07/11/1975 - When the constituent power exercises powers the constituent power comprises legislative, executive and judicial powers. All powers flow from the constituent power through the Constitution to the various departments or heads.
Indra Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr-23/07/21 - Section 197 of the CrPC seeks to protect an officer from unnecessary harassment, who is accused of an offence committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties and, thus, prohibits the court from taking cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the competent authority.
Indra Sawnhey v. Union of India – 16/11/1992 - KEYWORDS:- RESERVATION- AIR 1993 SC 477 : (1992) 2 Suppl. SCR 454 : (1992) 3...
Indusind Media & Communications Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi-27/09/2019 - CUSTOM-The basic principle of levy of customs duty, in view of the aforementioned provisions, is that the value of the imported goods has to be determined at the time and place of importation. The value to be determined for the imported goods would be the payment required to be made as a condition of sale. Assessment of customs duty must have a direct nexus with the value of goods which was payable at the time of importation.
International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd. Vs. The Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Others (24/10/2017) - The appeal is to be preferred before the Tribunal, as distinct from the appellate tribunal, within 30 days. Section 24 of the RDB Act, therefore, manifestly makes the provisions of the Limitation Act applicable only to such an original "application" made under Section 19 only. The definition of an "application" under Rule 2(c) cannot be extended to read it in conjunction with Section 2(b) of the Act extending the meaning thereof beyond what the Act provides for and then make Section 24 of the RDB Act applicable to an appeal under Section 30(1) of the Act. Any such interpretation shall be completely contrary to the legislative intent, extending the Rules beyond what the Act provides for and limits. Had the intention been otherwise, nothing prevented the Legislature from providing so specifically.
INTERNET AND MOBILE ASSOCIATION OF INDIA Vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA-04/03/2020 - Crypto Currency-The petitioner in the first writ petition is a specialized industry body known as ‘Internet and Mobile Association of India’ which represents the interests of online and digital services industry. The petitioners in the second writ petition comprise of a few companies which run online crypto assets exchange platforms, the shareholders/founders of these companies and a few individual crypto assets traders.
Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs Meenakshi Marwah and another-11/03/2005 - Civil vs Criminal Proceeding-effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal Courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein.
Iqbal Singh Narang and Others Vs Veeran Narang-30/11/2011 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 195 and 340—Perjury—Making of false statement in court of Rent Controller—Though Rent Controller discharges quasi-judicial functions, he is not a Court, as understood in conventional sense and he cannot make complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C.—Complaint could be made by a private party in the proceedings—Rent Controller, being a creature of Statute, has to act within four corners of Statute and could exercise only such powers as had been vested in him by Statute—No reason to quash proceedings.
Jacob Puliyel Vs Union of India-02/05/2022 - Imposing restrictions on the rights of persons who are unvaccinated is totally unwarranted as there is no basis for discriminating against unvaccinated persons. Vaccinated people are also prone to infection
Jagjeet Singh & Ors VS Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr-18/04/2022 - The victim’s right to participate in criminal trial and his/her right to know the status of investigation, and take necessary steps, or to be heard at every crucial stage of the criminal proceedings, including at the time of grant or cancellation of bail, were also duly recognised by the Committee.
Jagraj Singh Vs Birpal Kaur-13/02/2007 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 23(2)—Matrimonial Dispute—Court is expected, not bound, to make all efforts to bring about reconciliation between the partners—Personal presence of parties—Issuance of non-bailable warrants—Court has jurisdiction to pass such order which is in consonance with Section 23(2) of the Act.
JAI PRAKASH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS-28/11/2019 - Murder Conviction-Sections 302 IPC and 120-B IPC-The duty of the appellate court is to consider and appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution and arrive at an independent conclusion. Like the trial court, the appellate court also must be satisfied of its conclusion.
Jaiveer Singh Vs Uttarakhand (28/11/2023) - Prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority-Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine.
Janardhan Reddy and others Versus The State OF Hyderabad-14-12-1950 - Special Leave Petition—Scope of jurisdiction—Judgement passed by High Court of Hyderabad under the rule of H.E.H. Nizam of Hyderabad which was not part of territory of India before adoption of the Constitution of India—Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain Special Leave Petition against the order of High Court of Hyderabad.
Jasmeet Kaur Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr-12/12/ 2019 - It was evident from the conduct of the parties that they had abandoned their domicile of origin i.e. India, had set up their matrimonial home in the U.S. and raised their daughter in that environment. When the Petitioner - wife decided not to return to the U.S. in January, 2016 she acted in her self-interest, and not in the best interest of her children.
Jignesh Shah & ANR. Vs. Union of India & ANR-25/09/2019 - A winding up proceeding is a proceeding 'in rem' and not a recovery proceeding
Jiten K. Ajmera & ANR. Vs. M/s. Tejas Cooperative Housing Society – 06/05/19 - Consumer Complaint - Additional evidence before State Consumer Commission - Section 107(1) (d) r.w. Rule 27 of Order XLI, CPC - Under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC a party can produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, if it establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within its knowledge, or could not even after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed.
Jitendra Panchal Vs Intelligence Officer, NCB and Another 03/02/2009: The concept of double jeopardy - This appeal raises an interesting legal conundrum involving the laws of the United States of...
Jogi Ram Vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors -01/02/2022 - where a widow gets a share in the property under a preliminary decree before or at the time when the 1956 Act had been passed but had not been given actual possession under a final decree, the property would be deemed to be possessed by her and by force of s. 14(1) she would get absolute interest. in the property.
John White vs Kathleen White: Proof of Adultery by wife - In a suit based on a matrimonial offence it is not necessary and it is indeed rarely possible to prove the issue by any direct evidence for in very few cases can such proof be obtainable. The question to be decided in the present case therefore, is whether on the evidence which has been led, the court can be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that adultery was committed by the wife with respondent No. 2 at Patna between July 25, 1950, and July 28, 1950.
Jose Paulo Coutinho Vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira & ANR- 13/09/2019 - Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 as applicable in the State of Goa, which shall govern the rights of succession and inheritance even in respect of properties of a Goan domicile situated outside Goa, anywhere in India
Joseph Salvaraj A. Versus State of Gujarat and Others – 04/07/2011 - ( 2011) 6 SCALE 731 : (2011) 7 SCC 59 : AIR 2011 SC 2258...
Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh Samra & Ors. Vs. National Investigation Agency (01/05/2023) - Whether an accused is entitled to seek default bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the CrPC') on the ground that although the chargesheet might have been filed within the statutory time period as prescribed in law yet the chargesheet sans a valid order of sanction passed by a competent authority is no chargesheet in the eye of law and therefore, it is as good as saying that no chargesheet was filed by the investigating agency within the statutory time period as prescribed in law?
Justice V.S. Dave President vs Kusumjit Sidhu 18/04/2018 - the medical reimbursement of a retired Chief Justice and/or a retired judge of a High Court should be reimbursement of all medical expenses including hospital charges which a retired Chief Justice and/or a retired Judge of a High Court may have had to incur in connection with the medical treatment of himself and/or his/her dependent family members. Except for certain inadmissible items of expenditure, on which there can be no dispute, such reimbursement should extend to all items of expenditure including hospital charges.
K. Arjun Das Vs. Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa & Ors-17/9/2019 - The deity cannot be divested of any title or rights of immovable property in violation of the statutory provisions and this fact cannot be ruled out that the property belonging to the deity must fetch the best possible price..
K. Balakrishna Rao and others Versus Haji Abdulla Sait and others-10/10/1979 - Parties could not either by consent or acquiescence confer jurisdiction on court when law had taken it away.
K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr - Notice unclaimed and notice refused has the same meaning and to be understood as valid...
K. C. Gajapati Narayan Deo and others Vs State of Orissa-29/05/1953 - The legislature cannot violate the constitutional prohibitions by employing an indirect method.
K. Hasim Versus State of Tamil Nadu-17/11/2004 - Necessity and meaning of—Rule requiring corroboration for acting upon testimony of an accomplice is a rule of prudence
K. Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka-19/03/21 - SENTENCING POLICY-Many factors which may not be relevant to determine the guilt, must be seen with a human approach, at the stage of sentencing. While imposing the sentence, all relevant factors are to be considered, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of each case.
K. Shanthamma Vs. State of Telangana-21/02/2022 - The offence under Section 7 of the PC Act relating to public servants taking bribe requires a demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof. The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act
K. Subramani Vs. K. Damodara Naidu-13/11/2014 - Section 139 of the N.I. Act-Capacity to lend money-the complainant had no source of income to lend a sum of Rs.14 lakhs to the accused and he failed to prove that there is legally recoverable debt payable by the accused to him.
K. Virupaksha & Anr. Vs The State of Karnataka & Anr-03/02/2020 - Criminal Complaint in connection with SARFAESI- DRT Act-Complainant filed the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The said complaint being taken on record, the learned Magistrate has referred the same for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and to submit a report. Based on such direction an FIR was registered.
K.H. Nazar Vs. Mathew K. Jacob & Ors -30/09/2019 - Statutory Interpretation- Beneficial Legislation-Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of ‘bread and butter’ statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions
K.K. Velusamy Versus N. Palanisamy -30/03/2011 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 18, Rule 17 read with Section 151—Recall of witness—Ideally, recording of evidence should be continuous, followed by arguments, without any gap—Courts should constantly endeavour to follow such time schedule—Amended Code expects them to do so—If that is done, applications for adjournments, re-opening, recalling, or interim measures could be avoided.
K.P. Natarajan & Anr. Vs. Muthalammal & Ors-16/07/2021 - In a Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”), challenging an order of the trial Court refusing to condone the delay of 862 days
Kailash Gour and Others Vs State of Assam -15-12-2011 - This Court in State of H.P. v. Gian Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71 dealt with the effect of failure of prosecution to satisfactorily explain the delay in the lodging of the FIR and declared that if the delay is not satisfactorily explained the same is fatal to the prosecution.
Kale and others VS Deputy Director of Consolidation and others- 21/01/1976 - FAMILY SETTLEMENT-the family settlement arrived at by the parties was oral, and the petition filed by them on August 7, 1956 before the Assistant Commissioner was merely an information of an already completed oral transaction. In other words, the petition was only an intimation to the Revenue court or authority that the matters in dispute between the parties had been settled amicably between the members of the family, and no longer required determination and that the mutation be effected in accordance with that antecedent family settlement. Since the petition did not itself create or declare any rights in immovable property of the value of Rupees 100 or upwards, it was not hit by Sec. 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act, and as such was not compulsorily registrable.
Kamalapati Trivedi Versus The State of West Bengal-13/12/1978 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 195—Court—Meaning of—Order of discharge passed by the Magistrate—Taking of cognizance by the Magistrate is not necessary to regard him as a Court.
Kamatchi Vs. Lakshmi Narayanan-13/04/2022 - The provisions of the Act contemplate filing of an application under Section 12 to initiate the proceedings before the concerned Magistrate. After hearing both sides and after taking into account the material on record, the Magistrate may pass an appropriate order under Section 12 of the Act. It is only the breach of such order which constitutes an offence as is clear from Section 31 of the Act.
Kamlakar Vs. State of Maharashtra-31/05/19 - Section 302 & Section 147, 148 of Indian Penal Code- Supreme Court not interfered when having reappreciated the evidence to the extent it is required and a detailed perusal of the judgment passed by the Sessions Court as also the High Court would indicate that both the Courts have adverted to the evidence in detail and have ultimately arrived at the conclusion and when the concurrent judgment based upon the evidence have found the appellant to be guilty of the charge alleged against him in committing the murder and had convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Kanaklata Das & Ors. Vs. Naba Kumar Das & Ors-25/01/2018 - EVICTION SUIT-a necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively, a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding.
Kanchan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (14/09/2022) - DISCHARGE APPLICATION WAS ALLOWED BY SC-Allegation relating to Appellant's disproportionate income in the period between 1974 and 1988 was levelled in an FIR filed twelve years after the said period concluded. The charge-sheet came to be filed seven years after the registration of the FIR. The application for discharge came to be dismissed on 28.03.2016, almost after a decade of filing of the charge sheet. The dismissal was affirmed by the High Court seven months thereafter, i.e., on 05.10.2016. Finally, and most unfortunately, the present SLP has been pending before this Court for the last six years. In the meanwhile, the Appellant superannuated from service in 2010, but had no option except to contest the case. He is now 72 years. Continuation of the prosecution, apart from the illegality as indicated hereinabove, would also be unjust.
Kapila Hingorani Vs State of Bihar-09/05/2003 - Thus, the right equality of all human beings has been declared in the Vedas, which are regarded as inviolable. In order emphasize the dignity of the individual, it was said that all are brothers as all are the children of GodGod People in most cultures believe in the existence of supernatural beings and other supernatural concepts. God is attributed to both anthropomorphic properties (“listens to prayers”) and non-anthropomorphic properties (“knows everything”). Conceptualizing God is associated with willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine or Vaccine hesitancy. Pope requested people not to practice “Jesus is my vaccine”. For the Jewish, family (Avestan universal) god became national God: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,”(ex 3:15). See Ishwar. . No one is inferior or superior. Similarly the Atharvanaveda stressed that all have equal right over natural resources and all were equally important like spokes in a wheel. Both the RigvedaRigveda Rig Veda First Mandala-ऋग्वेद- in Devanagari Script Rigveda: A Historical Analysis by Shrikant G. Talageri (2000) Rigveda is at least ninety thousand years old, perhaps more: OSHO वेदपारायणविधिः-The method of reciting the Vedas List of the Vedic Rishis ऋग्वेद भाष्यम् – Rig Veda Bhashyam by Sayanacharya Core Hinduttva Philosophy in Rig Veda and Atharvanaveda declared that co-operation between individuals in necessary for happiness and progress. It is also of utmost importance note that right equality and made a part of “Dharma” long before the State came be established.
KAPILDEO SINGH Vs THE KING - The essential question in a case under s. 147 is whether there was an unlawful...
Karam Kapahi and Ors Vs Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Another: 07/04/2010 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 12, Rule 6—Judgment on admission—Termination of lease—Non-payment of rent—Prayer for judgment on admission under Order 12, Rule 6 of CPC-Where controversy is between parties on an admission of non-payment of rent, judgment can be rendered on admission by Court—Club seeks to approbate and reprobate—Club was very negligent in pursuing its case—Doctrine of election squarely applies as Club has advanced inconsistent pleas—Club not entitled to any discretionary remedy—
Kari Choudhary Vs Most. Sita Devi and others-11/12/2001 - Legal position is that there cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same case. But when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency. Even that apart, the report submitted by the Court styling it is as FIR No. 208 of 1998 need be considered as an information submitted to the Court regarding the new discovery made by the police during investigation that persons not named in FIR No. 135 are the real culprits. To quash the said proceeding merely on the ground that final report had been laid in FIR No. 135 is, to say the least, too technical. The ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been committed and, if so who have committed it.
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VS B. HEERA NAIK & ORS. ETC- 26/11/2019 - Criminal-Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974- whether Commissioner of City Municipal Council and Chief Officers of City Municipal Council can be prosecuted under Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1974”).
Karuppanna Gounder Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police – 17/09/2019 - Accused acquitted : The question is whether the death of the deceased could be attributed...
Kashi Math Samsthan and Another Vs Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy and Another-02/12/2009 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Order 41, Rule 5 and Section 151—Injunction—By impugned judgment, High Court rejected interim applications filed by appellants seeking status quo and stay of execution of decree in a suit for declaration and injunction.
Kedar Nath Singh and ORS Vs State of Bihar AND ORS-24/01/1962 - SEDITION-The gist of the offence of ‘sedition’ is incitement to create public disorder by words spoken or written which have the tendency or the effect of bringing the Government established by law into hatred or contempt or creating disaffection in the sense of disloyalty to the State, in other words bringing the law into line with the law of sedition in England, as was the intention of the legislators when they introduced Section 124A into the Indian Penal Code in 1870 as aforesaid, the law will be within the permissible limits laid down in clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution.
Kesar Bai Vs. Genda Lal & Anr (14/10/2022) - ADVERSE POSSESSION-Suit seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction-In that view of the matter and once the substantial question of law on adverse possession was held in favour of the appellant - original defendant No.1 and the title/ownership claimed on the basis of the Sale Deed dated 31.08.1967 (Ex.P.1) was negated by all the Courts below, thereafter the possession/alleged possession of the plaintiffs could not have been protected by passing a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadgalvaru and others Versus State of Kerala and another 24/04/1973 - The view that Art. 368 is a complete code in itself in respect of the procedure provided by it and does not contemplate any amendment of a Bill for amendment of the Constitution after it has been introduced, and that if the Bill is amended during its passage through the House, the Amendment Act cannot be said to have been passed in conformity with the procedure prescribed by Art. 368 and would be invalid, is erroneous.
Keshavan Madhava Menon Vs The State of Bombay-22/01/1951 - What Art. 13(1) provides is that all existing laws which clash with the exercise of the fundamental rights (which are for the first time created by the Constitution) shall to that extent be void. As the fundamental rights became operative only on and from the date of the Constitution the question of the inconsistency of the existing laws which those rights must necessarily arise on and from the date those rights came into being.
Kewal Krishan Puri and another Vs State of Punjab and others- 04/05/1979 - Court pointing out the difference between “tax” and “fee” with reference to the constitutional provisions and otherwise also, the problem before us has presented some new angles and facets.
Kharak Singh Versus State of U.P. and others -18/12/1962 - An unauthorised intrusion into a person’s home and the disturbance caused to him thereby, is as it were the violation of a common lawCommon law The legal system that originated in England and is now in use in the United States. It is based on court decisions rather than statutes passed by the legislature. right of a man—an ultimate essential of ordered liberty, if not of the very concept of civilisation.
Khushal Rao Versus State of Bombay-25/09/1957 - Though under Section 133 of the Evidence Act, it is not illegal to convict a person on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Act, lays down as a rule of prudence based on experience, that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless his evidence is corroborated in material particulars and this has now been accepted as a rule of law.
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.
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)...
KRISHNA PRASAD VERMA (D) THR. LRS. VS STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 26/09/2019 - We are in no manner indicating that if a judicial officer passes a wrong order, then no action is to be taken. In case a judicial officer passes orders which are against settled legal norms but there is no allegation of any extraneous influences leading to the passing of such orders then the appropriate action which the High Court should take is to record such material on the administrative side and place it on the service record of the judicial officer concerned.
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)
Kumar Ghimirey Vs. State of Sikkim-22/04/2019 - Protection of children from sexual offences act-The failure on the part of the State Government to prefer an appeal does not, however, preclude the High Court from exercising suo motu power of revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code since the High Court itself is empowered to call for the record of the proceeding of any court subordinate to it. Subsection 4 of Section 401 operates as a bar to the party which has a right to prefer an appeal but has failed to do so but that subsection cannot stand in the way of the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction suo motu.
Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors – 19/08/2021 - It is made clear that person is entitled to claim benefit of reservation in either of the successor State of Bihar or State of Jharkhand, but will not be entitled to claim benefit simultaneously
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others-20/09/1990 - This was done in spite of the clear provisions in the L. R. Manual laying down detailed procedure for appointment, termination and renewal of tenure and the requirement to first consider the existing incumbent for renewal of his tenure and to take steps for a fresh appointment in his place only if the existing incumbent is not found suitable in comparison to more suitable persons available for appointment at the time of renewal
Kunhayammed and others Versus State of Kerala and another – 19/07/2000. - The logic underlying the doctrine of merger is that there cannot be more than one...
L. C. Golak Nath and others – 27/02/1967 - majority of six against five, the fundamental rights were held to be unamendable by Parliament under Article 368, was overruled as a result of the decision in Kesavananda Bharati’s case.
L. Chandra Kumar Vs Union of India and others- 18/3/1997 - The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court
L. Janakirama Iyer And Others vs P. M. Nilakanta Iyer And Others (26/10/1961) - It should be noted that the amendment sought had a bearing on the operative portion of the decree inasmuch as the expression 'mesne profits' was to be replaced by the expression 'net profits'. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the expression 'mesne profits' would have brought in a question of limitation as regards the period of accountability. Yet, the Supreme Court held that it was only an error which could be corrected under Ss. 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and consequently the High Court had jurisdiction to do so in spite of the pendency of the appeals in the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the tenant submits that the ruling will not apply to the present case as in the case before the Supreme Court, appeals were pending and there was no question of merger of the decree of the High Court with appellate Decree. The said contention cannot be rejected as untenable.
L.K. Trust Vs EDC Ltd. and Others Respondent – 10/05/2011 - Dismissal of an earlier suit for redemption whether as abated or as withdrawn or in default would not debar the mortgagor from filing a second suit for redemption so long as the mortgage subsists.
Labishwar Manjhi vs Pran Manjhi And Ors-19/07/2000 - once finding is recorded by the first Appellant Court and confirmed by the High Court that the parties are Hinduised then they would be governed by the law as is applicable on any Hindu and if that be so the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would be applicable to the parties.
Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani Vs Meena alias Mota-14/08/1963 - The burden of proving desertion—the “factum” as well as the “animus deserendi”—is on the petitioner; and he or she has to establish beyond reasonable doubt, to the satisfaction of the Court, the desertion throughout the entire period of two years before the petition as well as that such desertion was without just cause. In other words, even if the wife, where she is the deserting spouse, does not prove just cause for her living apart, the petitioner-husband has still to satisfy the Court that the desertion was without just cause.
Lakshman Singh Vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)-23/07/21 - Production of an injury report for the offence under Section 323 IPC is not a sine qua non for establishing the case for the offence under Section 323 IPC. Section 323 IPC is a punishable section for voluntarily causing hurt. "Hurt" is defined under Section 319 IPC.
Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors- 12/11/2013 - Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected.
Laxmidas Bapudas Darbar and anr Vs Smt. Rudravva and Ors-27/08/2001 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 111—Lease—Determination—Fixed term contractual lessee—Non obstante clause in Rent Act—Eviction sought on bona fide need of lessor as a ground for eviction under the Rent Act—Held: After enforcement of Rent Act a fixed term contractual lessee, during subsistence of lease, be evicted only on grounds of eviction provided in the Rent Act and that too only if such grounds have been provided as one of the grounds for forfeiture of lease rights in the lease deed.
Leeladhar (D) through LRS. Vs. Vijay Kumar (D) through LRS-26/09/2019 - Specific performance of the contract-The agreement was an agreement to sell and after entering into the agreement to sell, Appellant received the full sale consideration and handed over the possession to Respondent, the question of exercising any discretionary favour to the appellant does not arise.
Lt. Col. Nitisha and Ors. Vs. UOI and Ors-25/03/2021 - Discrimination against women -The pattern of evaluation in Indian ArmyArmy The Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran shall be an Islamic army, which is an ideological and peoples army and which shall recruit competent individuals faithful to the objectives of the Islamic Revolution and ready to make sacrifices for attaining the same. (Art-144) in case of women, by excluding subsequent achievements of the petitioners and failing to account for the inherent patterns of discrimination that were produced as a consequence of casual grading and skewed incentive structures, has resulted in indirect and systemic discrimination. This discrimination has caused an economic and psychological harm and an affront to their dignity.
M. C. Mehta and another Vs Union of India and others-17/02/1986 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 133(1)—Factories Act, 1948—Section 40(2)—Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Section 25—Air (Prevention and Control and Pollution) Act, 1981—Section 19(1)
M. Gurudas and Ors Vs Rasaranjan and Ors-13/09/2006 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 39, Rules 1 and 2—Temporary injunction—Ingredients—Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury—Finding on prima facie case would be a finding of fact.
M. Radha Hari Seshu Vs The State of Telangana-14/08/2020 - Sections 304B, 498A and 302, IPC-we do not wish to go into the merits of the matter at this stage. However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel and other material placed on record and further taking into account that the appellant is in jail since 15th December 2016, we deem it appropriate that it is a fit case to suspend the sentence imposed on the appellant and to enlarge the appellant on bail, pending Criminal Appeal
M. SUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHER VS S. JANAKI AND ANOTHER- 20/03/2020 - FARE INVESTIGATION-Section 156(3) CrPC is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police.
M/s. Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors-02/07/19 - A contract is interpreted according to its purpose. The purpose of a contract is the interests, objectives, values, policy that the contract is designed to actualise. It comprises the joint intent of the parties. Every such contract expresses the autonomy of the contractual parties' private will. It creates reasonable, legally protected expectations between the parties and reliance on its results. Consistent with the character of purposive interpretation, the court is required to determine the ultimate purpose of a contract primarily by the joint intent of the parties at the time of the contract so formed. It is not the intent of a single party; it is the joint intent of both the parties and the joint intent of the parties is to be discovered from the entirety of the contract and the circumstances surrounding its formation.
M/s. Avinash Hitech City 2 Society & Ors. Vs. Boddu Manikya Malini & ANR. etc. 6/9/2019 - Application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
M/s. Canara Nidhi Ltd. Vs. M. Shashikala and Others-23/09/2019 - Issues need not be struck at the stage of hearing a Section 34 application, which is a summary procedureSummary judgment In an application for summary judgment, the claimant has to show that he has a prima facie case for summary judgment, following which the burden shifts to the defendant to show that there is a fair or reasonable probability that he has a real or bona fide defence. It will only be granted if the court is satisfied that all the defences raised by the defendant to resist the application are “wholly unsustainable”. Leave to defend would ordinarily be granted where triable issues or questions are militating in favour of a full evaluation of the evidence and arguments. However, mere assertions by a defendant which are equivocal, or lacking in precision, or are inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents or other statements, or are inherently improbable would not be sufficient for a court to grant leave to defend.
M/s. Indian and Eastern Newspapers Society, New Delhi Vs The Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi-31/08/1979 - “information”—Meaning of—When Section 147 (b) of the Income-tax, Act is read as referring to “information” as to law, what is contemplated is information as to the law created by a formal source.
M/s. Julien Educational Trust Vs Sourendra Kumar Roy and ors-02/12/2009 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 39, Rules 1 and 2—Injunction-Prima facie case made out by appellant-Trust as to agreement for sale, which has to go to trial—Whether there was a concluded contract or not between appellant-Trust and the respondents is a matter of evidence and can only be gone into during trial of suit—Interim order is required to be passed to maintain status quo of suit property—Prima facie case is in favour of appellant-Trust
M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Ram Lal and others-25/01/2005 - Interpretation of Statutes—non-obstante clause—Effect of—Two special statutes containing non-obstante clause—Endeavour should be made to give effect to both—In case of conflict later shall prevail.
M/s. S. M. Dyechem Ltd. Vs M/s. Cadbury (India) Ltd-09/05/2019 - Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 : The onus to prove ‘deception’ is on the part of the plaintiff who alleges infringement. A mark is said to be infringed by another trader if, even without using the whole of it, the latter uses one or more of its “essential features.” The identification of an essential feature depends partly on the Courts own judgment and partly on the burden of the evidence that is placed before it.
M/s. Shaf Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Doordarshan (A Constituent of Prasar Bharti) & ANR-7/11/2019 - APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR- Even though the arbitration agreement provides for a three member arbitral tribunal, the Counsel for all the parties at the time of hearing, requested for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator in modification of the arbitration clause stipulating a three member tribunal, to adjudicate the disputes.
M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd Versus The Government of Andhra Pradesh – 22/10/1963 - A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.
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...
Madhav Prasad Aggarwal & ANR. Vs. Axis Bank Ltd. & ANR-01/07/19 - Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code -A plaint can either be rejected...
Madhav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh-18/08/2021 - It happens at times that the real culprit lodges the first information against known or unknown persons, to misdirect the investigation of an offence
Madhu Limaye Vs State of Maharashtra-31/10/1977 - By a rule of harmonious construction, we think that the bar in sub-s. (2) of S. 397 is not meant to be attracted to such kinds of intermediate orders. They may not be final orders for the purposes of Art. 134 of the Constitution, yet it would not be correct to characterise them as merely interlocutory orders within the meaning of S. 397 (2). It is neither advisable, nor possible, to make a catalogue of orders to demonstrate which kinds of orders would be merely, purely or simply interlocutory and which kinds of orders would be final, and then to prepare an exhaustive list of those types of orders which will fall in between the two. The first two kinds are well known and can be culled out from many decided cases. We may, however, indicate that the type of order with which we are concerned in this case, even though it may not be final in one sense, is surely not interlocutory so as to attract the bar of sub-sec. (2) of S. 397. In our opinion it must be taken to be an order of the type falling in the middle course.
Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Anr-14/07/2021 - The Madras Bar Association has filed this Writ Petition seeking a declaration that Sections 12 and 13 of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 and Sections 184 and 186 (2) of the Finance Act, 2017 as amended by the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 as ultra vires
Mahadeo & Ors. Vs Sovan Devi & Ors-30/08/22 - It is well settled that inter-departmental communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right. This Court examined the said question in a judgment reported as Omkar Sinha v. Sahadat Khan. Reliance was placed on Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab to hold that merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order.
Mahadev Govind Gharge and Others Vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka-10/05/2011 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 41, Rule 22 read with Order 8, Rule 1—Appeal against decree—Default from filing appeal within one month—Right of cross-objector is not taken away in absolute terms in case of such default—There is no indefeasible divestment of right of cross-objector in case of a delay and his rights to file cross-objections are protected even at a belated stage by discretion vested in Courts—If a cross-objector fails to file cross-objections within the stipulated time, then his right to file cross-objections is taken away only in a limited sense.
Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das Vs Surjanarayan Das and another -06/05/1966 - AIR 1967 SC 256 : (1966) Suppl. SCR 436 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIAIndia Bharat Varsha...
Maharao Saheb Shri Bhim Singhji Versus Union of India and others - There can be no scheme for nationalisation of any industry, there can be no socio-economic measures enacted if the concept of ‘just equivalent’ were to be introduced even after the 25th Amendment.
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.
Mahipal Vs Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr-05/12/2019 - Cancellation of Bail -Where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind which may require the intervention of this Court. Where an earlier application for bail has been rejected, there is a higher burden on the appellate court to furnish specific reasons as to why bail should be granted.
Maj. Amod Kumar Vs. Union of India & ANR. -16/09/2018 - September 6, 2018-Writ Petitions under Article 32-Army Service Corps-The Officers belonging to the ASC, Army Ordinance Corps, and Electronic and Mechanical Engineers, i.e. the services stream, do not constitute a common cadre with those serving in the Arms, and Arms Support for the purposes of promotion.4 As a result, they were not entitled to be considered for promotion to the rank of Colonel against the vacancies created in pursuance of the implementation of the AVS Committee Report. The Petitioners have contended that the Posting Orders passed by the Respondents posting them to operational areas/units is violative of their Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Petitioners have, however, failed to substantiate how their Fundamental Rights have been violated. Postings and transfers are a necessary incident of service. Hence, the grievance, if any, cannot be entertained under Article 32.
Mallappa Vs State of Karnataka-07/05/2021 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIAIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the name of this land mass....
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India- 25/01/1978 - Preventive Detention must be in the interest of the general public- It should Right , Fair and Just.
Mani Vs. State of Kerala and Others-1/4/2019 - Offence of Murder - In view of sudden fight without any premeditation, the conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 302 is not made out. The cause of death of the deceased is knife blow on the chest of the deceased-Soman. Such injury is with the knowledge that such injury is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death. Thus, the death of Soman is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder as the death has occurred in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel falling within Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC. Therefore, it is an offence punishable under Section 304 Part I, IPC.
Manisha Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr- 19/04/2022 - At the stage of granting bail the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence in the case. Such an exercise may be undertaken at the stage of trial.
Manju Puri Vs. Rajiv Singh Hanspal & Ors-14/11/2019 - Revocation of probate-even though learned Single Judge had discretion to issue citation or not but in the facts of the present case a citation ought to have been issued in exercise of discretion conferred under Section 283 of the Succession Act and the probate granted without issuance of such citation in the facts of the present case deserves to be revoked and learned Single Judge and the Division Bench committed error in rejecting the application for revocation filed by the appellant.
Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors-27/10/2021 - Pegasus suite of spywares-we constitute a Technical Committee comprising of three members, including those who are experts in cyber security, digital forensics, networks and hardware, whose functioning will be overseen by Justice R.V. Raveendran,
Manohar Lal Vs The State-23/05/1951 - Legislation—Legislative competence—Trade and commerce—Scope of legislative entry—The State Government under Item 27 of List II of Seventh Schedule of constitution is entitled to legislate in regard to entry, regulation of powers, place, date and manner of sale of particular commodity or commodities including restricting sales on particular day or days of religious festivals and so forth.
Manohar Singh Versus D. S. Sharma and others – 13/11/2009 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Sections 35B and 148—Non-payment of costsCosts Subject to any written law, costs are at the discretion of the Court, and the Court has the power to determine all issues relating to the costs of or incidental to all proceedings, including by whom and to what extent the costs are to be paid, at any stage of the proceedings or after the conclusion of the proceedings. Generally “Costs” includes charges, disbursements, expenses, fees, and remuneration. Costs in any matter are payable from the date of the order of the Court unless the parties otherwise agree. The costs of a third-party funding contract are not recoverable as part of the costs of, or costs.—Consequences—Suit cannot be dismissed for non-payment of costs—If costs levied are not paid by party on whom it is levied, such defaulting party is prohibited from any further participation in suit—Award of costs, is an alternative available to Court instead of dispensing with cross-examination and closing evidence of witness—If cost is not paid by due date Court has discretion to extend time for such payment—However, such extension can be only in exceptional circumstances and by subjecting defaulting party to further terms—No party can routinely be given extension of time for payment of costs.
Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary Vs. State of Haryana & Anr-15/02/2022 - Juvenile Justice-Question of Juvenility-The plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner. If the reliance is on a document to seek juvenility which is not reliable or dubious in nature, the appellant cannot be treated to be juvenile keeping in view that the Act is a beneficial legislation.
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.
Masroor Ahmad Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors- 03/12/2018 - POSSESSION-It is a settled principle of law that in order to prove that the possession of any person in any immovable property is legal, it is necessary for such person to prove prima facie that he is either the owner of such property or is in possession as a lawful tenant or is in its permissive possession with the express consent of its true owner. Such is not the case here.
Mathai M. Paikeday Vs C.K. Anthony- 11/07/2011 - Indigent person: in terms of explanation I to Rule 1 of Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is one who is either not possessed of sufficient means to pay court feeCourt fee It has to be paid on the plaint as framed and not as it ought to have been framed. Law of Suit Valuation in India when such fee is prescribed by law, or is not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees when such court fee is not prescribed. In both the cases, the property exempted from the attachment in execution of a decree and the subject-matter of the suit shall not be taken into account to calculate financial worth or ability of such indigent person.
Md. Abrar Vs. Meghalaya Board of Wakf & ANR-26/09/2019 - WAKF- in order to establish a claim of hereditary succession to mutawalliship, the intention of the waqif, as manifested either through the directions given in the waqf deed or the creation of a custom, is of paramount importance
Md. Anowar Hussain Vs. State of Assam (13/10/2022) - SEC-302-CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE-it is not a case where the motive could have played any decisive role nor it had been a case where two views were possible. Equally, the present case had not been of conviction on suspicion alone. Fact of the matter remains that all the aforesaid facts and factors, which ought to be in the knowledge of the appellant, are either not clarified or the explanation given by the appellant turns out to be false. Hence, in the given set of facts and circumstances, the legal consequence is that such omission coupled with such falsehood indeed provide additional links in the chain of circumstances.
MD. HANIF QUARESHI AND ORS VS STATE OF BIHAR-23/04/1958 - What should be the scope of the ban on the slaughter of animals. One view is that the slaughter of all animals (cattle and buffaloes) of all categories should be regulated by the State and that animals below a specified age or not suffering from some natural deformity should not be allowed to be slaughtered. Drastic and stringent regulations have been imposed by municipal laws and have been tried but experience shows that they are not sufficient at least to protect the cow.
Meenakshiammal (deceased by LRs) and others – Vs Chandrasekaran and another-03/11/2004 - Succession Act, 1925—Section 63-Will—Execution of—Burden of proof—Onus of proving Will lies on propounder—In absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of Will, proof of testamentary capacity and proof of signature of testator as required by law, sufficient to discharge the onus—However, in case of existence of suspicious circumstances, onus lies on propounder to explain the genuineness of Will to the satisfaction of Court.
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.
Michael Machado and anr Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and anr-17/02/2000 - The basic requirements for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, had committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned.
Minerva Mills Ltd. and others Versus Union of India and others-31/07/1980 - Whether Directive Principles of State policy can have primacy over the fundamental rights
Mobarik Ali Ahmed Vs The State of Bombay-06/09/1957 - whether there is anything in the language of the sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to the general scheme of the Code which compels the construction that the various sections of the Penal Code are not intended to apply to a foreigner who has committed an offence in India while not being corporeally present therein at the time.
Modi Vs Jawaharlal Nehru: Doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” - The view expressed was that the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" can only be invoked when employees are similarly situated and there is wholesale identity between holders of the two posts.
Mohammad Aslam Versus State of U.P. – 22/09/1976 - Criminal Law—Practice of letting the main culprit escape while punishing the small offender in offences connected with public funds— Strongly deprecated—Need for keeping up prosecutorial credibility—Emphasised— Wide spread out of the malaise—Pointed out.
Mohammad Azam Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (19/05/2022) - WRIT-Article 142 of the Constitution of India-personal liberty-BAIL-grant interim bail to the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, till he files the application for regular bail and the same is considered by the Competent Court.
Mohammed Zubair Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors – 20/07/2022 - BAIL- In terms of Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC, the police officer in question must be satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent the person sought to be arrested from committing any further offence, for proper investigation of the offence, to prevent the arrestee from tampering with or destroying evidence, to prevent them from influencing or intimidating potential witnesses, or when it is not possible to ensure their presence in court without arresting them.
MOHANDAS AND OTHERS VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS -29/1/2020 - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966-This is a case where the Municipal Council, which is the Authority, which must make available the funds for the acquisition of the property, is in dire financial straits and is unable to finance the acquisition.
Mohd. Aslam Versus State of Rajasthan- 07/06/2011 - conversion of offence against the Appellant Md. aslam from Section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code to 304 Part-I read with 34 Indian Penal Code and convict him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with fine of ` 5000/-.
Mohd. Aslam Versus State of U.P. -12/02/1974 - We think that the High Court would have been well advised, having regard to the age of the appellant and also the circumstances of the crime, to have reduced the sentence to one of life imprisonment.
Mohd. Aslam Obhure, Acchan Rizvi vs Union Of India, State Of Uttar-24/10/1994 - If the minister has personally broken the law, the litigant can sue the minister, in this case Mr. Kenneth Baker, in his personal capacity. For the purpose of enforcing the law against all persons and institutions, including ministers in their official capacity and in their personal capacity, the courts are armed with coercive powers exercisable in proceedings for contempt of courtContempt of Court Failure to obey a court order. A disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a judicial body or an interruption of its proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language. Civil Contempt: Noncompliance with a court order or rule that affects another person; punishment is administered to compel compliance.
Mohd. Aslam Versus State of MADHYA PRADESH – 24/11/1978. - Evidence Act, 1872—Section 3—Witness—Withholding of—Allegation of bribe—The person playing prominent part in respect of payment not examined as witness—Conviction, set aside.
Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (21/10/2022) - SENTENCE- the appellant-petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years for the offence under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m) of IPC, and for a period of 20 years for the offence under Section 5 (i) and 5 (m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Mohd. Yousuf Vs Smt. Afaq Jahan and ANOTHER-02/01/2006 - Proceeding under section 200 and thereafter sending it for inquiry and report under Section 202. When the magistrate applies his mind not for the purpose of proceeding under the subsequent sections of this Chapter, but for taking action of some other kind, e.g., ordering investigation under Section 156(3), or issuing a search warrant for the purpose of the investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence
Mohit Vs Uttarakhand: Instigation must be intense with proximity u/s 306 IPC - The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide.
Monetary damage is not an irreparable loss: Kerala Vs UOI (SC-01/04/2024) - The Supreme Court of India heard the case of State of Kerala Vs. Union of India, wherein the State challenged certain actions taken by the Union, including imposing a 'Net Borrowing Ceiling' and limiting the State's borrowings. The Court considered the constitutional implications of these actions and the potential impact on the country's fiscal health. After critical analysis, the Court found that the State did not establish a strong case for the interim relief sought. The Court highlighted the interconnectedness of State and Union finances and emphasized the need to balance the interests of both entities. The case was disposed of with the matter referred for further consideration.
Mrs. Akella Lalitha v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao & Anr- 28/07/2022 - Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956-After the demise of her first husband, being the only natural guardian of the child we fail to see how the mother can be lawfully restrained from including the child in her new family and deciding the surname of the child. A surname refers to the name a person shares with other members of that person's family, distinguished from that person's given name or names; a family name.
MRS. SANTOSH SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER-22/07/2016 - Judicial Process-There is a tendency on the part of public interest petitioners to assume that every good thing which society should aspire to achieve can be achieved through the instrumentality of the court. The judicial process provides remedies for constitutional or legal infractions. Public interest litigation allows a relaxation of the strict rules of locus standi.
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]
MUKESH VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI-19/03/2020 - NIRBHYA DEATH ROW ACCUSED-In this writ petition, the petitioner has raised the points on merits of the matter:- (i) That there was no proper consideration of evidence; (ii) regarding the disability of Ram Singh (accused no.1) who subsequently allegedly committed suicide in the prison; and (iii) raising doubts about the arrest of the petitioner at Karoli, Rajasthan.
Munawwar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh-16/07/19 - Murder and kidnapping of a seven-year old-The identity of the kidnappers been established. There is...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) Vs. Abhilash Lal & Ors-15/11/2019 - STATUTORY INTERPRETATION-if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all, articulated in Nazir Ahmad v. Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253, has found widespread acceptance.
Munna Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (24/01/2023) - Although, mere defects in the investigative process by itself cannot constitute ground for acquittal, it is the legal obligation of the Court to examine carefully in each case the prosecution evidence de hors the lapses committed by the Investigating Officer to find out whether the evidence brought on record is at all reliable and whether such lapses affect the object of finding out the truth.
Murari Lal Vs. Munishwar Singh (04/03/2024) - The case involved a land dispute between the first respondent and Special Armed Forces (SAF) officers. The first respondent alleged that the SAF officers trespassed and threatened him. However, the court found discrepancies in the complaint and dismissed it, noting that the same cause of action had been raised in a previously dismissed Contempt Petition.
Nachhatar Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab-03/02/2011 - Penal Code, 1860—Sections 304B and 306—EvidenceEvidence All the means by which a matter of fact,...
Nagubai Ammal and others Vs B. Shama Rao and others (26/04/1956) - An admission is not conclusive as to the truth of the matter stated therein. It is only a piece of evidence, the weight to be attached to which must depend on the circumstances under which it is made. It can be shown to be errorneous or untrue, so long as the person to whom it was made has not acted upon it to his detriment, when it might become conclusive by way of estoppel.
Nandini Satpathy Vs P. L. Dani and another-07/04/1978 - The very act of directing a woman to come to the police station in violation of Section 160(1), Cr.P.C. may make for tension and negate voluntariness. It is likely that some of the questions are self-criminatory. More importantly, the admitted circumstances are such that the trying Magistrate may have to hold an elaborate enquiry about other investigations, potential and actual, to decide about the self-accusatory character of the answers. And, finally, the process of proving proneness for self-incrimination will itself strike a blow on the very protection under Article 20(3).
Nanhe Vs Uttar Pradesh (21/11/2023) - Nanhe Vs Uttar Pradesh-MURDER-the appellant herein is guilty of committing an offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under section 302 IPC and that the intention to kill some other person is not material in as much as he had the intention of committing the aforesaid offence though accidently he might have killed another person.
NARANDAS KARSONDAS Vs. S.A. KAMTAM AND ANOTHER-07/12/1976 - In India, the word "transfer" is denned with reference to the word "convey". The word "transfer" in English law in its narrower and more usual sense refers to the transfer of an estate in land. Section 205 of the Law of Property Act in England defines : "Conveyance" includes a mortgage, charge, lease, assent, vesting declaration, vesting instrument The word "conveys" in Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act is used in the wider sense of conveying ownership-the right to redeem a mortgage given to a mortgagor u/s 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, is not extinguished by a contract of sale of the mortgaged property entered into by a mortgagee in exercise of the power of sale given to him under the mortgage deed. Until the sale is completed by a registered instrument, the mortgagor can redeem the mortgage on payment of the requisite amount.
NARAYAN BHAGWANTRAO GOSAVI BALAJIWALE Vs. GOPAL VINAYAK GOSAVI AND OTHERS -22/09/1959 - Admission is the best evidenceEvidence All the means by which a matter of fact, the...
Narayan Chandra Ghosh and ORS Vs Kanailal Ghosh and ORS – 16/11/2005 - Thika tenant-the provisions of the Premises tenancy Act would apply to Bharatias. Such suits cannot be effectively disposed of after the commencement of 1981 Act as earlier it was not necessary to prove the grounds for eviction enumerated under the Premises tenancy Act and the Bharatia would be thereby denied the protection granted to him under the Premises tenancy Act although he was entitled to such protection even in pending suits.
Narbada Devi Gupta Vs Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and another- 03/11/2003 - Evidence Act, 1872—Section 67—Documentary evidence—Admitted documents—Rent receipts—Signature of landlord admitted and a mark as exhibit put on the back portion of rent receipt—Plea that whole document cannot be treated as an admitted document, unsustainable.
Naresh Chandra Ganguli for Shri Ram Prasad Das Vs The State of West Bengal and others-20/05/1959 - Preventive detention—Grounds—Vagueness—Meaning of—The statement of facts providing sufficient particulars to enable the detenu to make his representation—Grounds are not vague.
Naresh Kumar Vs Kalawati and Ors-25/03/2021 - A dying declaration is admissible in evidence under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It alone can also form the basis for conviction if it has been made voluntarily and inspires confidence. If there are contradictions, variations, creating doubts about its truthfulness, affecting its veracity and credibility or if the dying declaration is suspect, or the accused is able to create a doubt not only with regard to the dying declaration but also with regard to the nature and manner of death, the benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the accused. Therefore much shall depend on the facts of a case. There can be no rigid standard or yardstick for acceptance or rejection of a dying declaration.
NARMADA Bachao Andolan Versus State of Madhya Pradesh – 26/07/2011 - a decision to be the decision of the Government must satisfy the requirements of the Business Rules framed by the State Government under the provisions of Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India.
NARMADA Bachao Andolan Versus Union of India and others – 18/10/2000 - One of the indicators of the living standard of people is the per capita consumption...
National Company Law Tribunal Bar Association Vs. Union of India-01/08/2022 - Whether Supreme Court should in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution entertain a petition filed by the Bar Association and direct the extension of tenures, especially in view of the supervening developments which have taken place in the meantime.
Naveen Kohli Versus Neelu Kohli-21/03/2006 - Irretrievable breakdownIrretrievable breakdown V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat [(1994) 1 SCC 337]- Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. The period of separation should be sufficiently long, and anything above six years or more will be a relevant factor. [Smt. Roopa Soni vs Kamalnarayan Soni] of marriage-Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act-Supreme Court recommend the Union of India to seriously consider bringing an amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the grant of divorce.
Naveen Vs. State of Haryana & Ors-(01/11/2022) - SECTION 319 Cr.P.C-Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant and the crucial test as noticed above has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.
Nawabuddin Vs. State of Uttarakhand-08/02/2022 - Thee case would fall under Section 3(b) of the POCSO Act and it can be said to be penetrative sexual assault and considering Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act as such penetrative sexual assault was committed on a girl child aged four years (below twelve years) the same can be said to be 'aggravated penetrative sexual assault' punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, both, the Trial Court as well as the High Court have rightly convicted the accused for the offences under Section 5 of the POCSO Act punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Neeraj Garg Vs. Sarita Rani and Ors. Etc-02/08/2021 - Expunging certain observations made against the LAWYER by the learned Judge of the High Court while deciding four cases
Netaji Achyut Shinde (Patil) & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra-23/03/2021 - A cryptic phone call without complete information or containing part-information about the commission of a cognizable offence cannot always be treated as an FIR. This proposition has been accepted by this Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala-5 and Damodar v. State of Rajasthan-6. A mere message or a telephonic message which does not clearly specify the offence, cannot be treated as an FIR.
New Delhi Municipal Committee vs Kalu Ram & Anr – 20/04/1976 - If the recovery of any amount is barred by the law of limitation, it is difficult to hold that the Estate Officer could still insist that the said amount was payable. When a duty is cast on an authority to determine the arrears of rent, the determination must be in accordance with law.
NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD. VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-03/04/2020 - INCOME TAX-whether the revenue has sufficient reasons to believe that undisclosed income of the asseessee has escaped assessment and therefore there are grounds to issue notice. An assessing officer can only reopen an assessment if he has ‘reason to believe’ that undisclosed income has escaped assessment. Mere change of opinion of the assessing officer is not a sufficient to meet the standard of ‘reason to believe’.
NIDHI KAIM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (13/02/2017) - National character, in our considered view, cannot be sacrificed for benefits - individual or societal. If, we desire to build a nation, on the touchstone of ethics and character, and if our determined goal is to build a nation where only the rule of law prevails, then we cannot accept the claim of the appellants, for the suggested societal gains. Viewed in the aforesaid perspective, we have no difficulty whatsoever, in concluding, in favour of the rule of law.
Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India & Anr- 23/11/2017 - We declare Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, insofar as it imposes two further conditions for release on bail, to be unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Nirmal singh Kahlon Vs State of Punjab and others-22/10/2008 - The second FIR, in our opinion, would be maintainable not only because there were different versions but when new discovery is made on factual foundations. Discoveries may foe made by the police authorities at a subsequent stage. Discovery about a larger conspiracy can also surface in another proceeding, as for example, in a case of this nature. If the police authorities did not make a fair investigation and left out conspiracy aspect of the matter from the purview of its investigation, in our opinion, as and when the same surfaced, it was open to the State and/or the High Court to direct investigation in respect of an offence which is distinct and separate from the one for which the FIR had already been lodged.
NIRMALA KOTHARI VS UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD-04/03/2020 - Section Section 149(2)(a)(ii) -While hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise.
Noorul Huda Maqbool Ahmed Vs Ram Deo Tyagi and Others-04/07/2017 - Criminal LawLaw Positive command of sovereign or divine. One can be ruled either by a...
North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors-03/08/2021 - The doctors, both under AYUSH and CHS, render service to patients and on this core aspect, there is nothing to distinguish them.
OFFICIAL TRUSTEE, WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS Vs. SACHINDRA NATH CHATTERJEE AND ANOTHER -13/12/1968 - Court has no jurisdiction to alter the terms of the deed of the trust.
Om Prakash Vs. Suresh Kumar-30/01/2020 - The principal argument of the appellant is that the statement made by his counsel before the High Court was not binding on him, as it was made without his instructions.We hasten to add neither the client nor the court is bound by the lawyer's statements or admissions as to matters of law or legal conclusions. Thus, according to generally accepted notions of professional responsibility, lawyers should follow the client's instructions rather than substitute their judgment for that of the client. We may add that in some cases, lawyers can make decisions without consulting the client.
ONGC LTD. & ORS. Vs CONSUMER EDUCATION RESEARCH SOCIETY & ORS- 09/12/2019 - Consumer- whether any amount is being paid by the employees for contribution to the services rendered by the Trust, it is apparent that the service, if any, is being rendered by the Trust and not by the ONGC. Therefore, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the claimants and the ONGC.
P. CHIDAMBARAM VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT – 5/9/2019 - Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation.
P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep Versus State of Kerala and Anr. – 29/11/2019 - Whether the contents of the memory card/pendrive submitted to the Court alongwith the police report can be treated as “document” as such.
P. K. Palanisamy Versus N. Arumugham and Another- 23/07/2009 - Deficit court fee: Section 149 provides that where the whole or any part of court fee prescribed for any document has not been paid, the court may, in its discretion, at any stage, allow the person by whom such fee is payable, to pay the whole or part as the case may be, of such court fee, and upon such payment, the document in respect of which such fee is payable, shall have the same force and effect as if such court fee had been paid in the first instance. Section 4 of the court fees Act bars the court from receiving the plaint if it does not bear the proper court fee. Section 149 acts as an exception to the said bar.
P. Lakshmi Reddy Vs L. Lakshmi Reddy-05/12/1956 - Limitation Act, 1963—Articles 64 and 65—Adverse possession—Co-owner—Permissibility—Sole possession by one co-owner is not sufficient—There must be open assertion of hostile title against the other.
P. Nazeer Etc. Vs. Salafi Trust & Anr. Etc-30/03/2022 - A society registered under the Societies Registration Act is entitled to sue and be sued, only in terms of its byelaws. The byelaws may authorise the President or Secretary or any other office bearer to institute or defend a suit for and on behalf of the society.
P. S. R. Sadhanantham Vs Arunachalam and another-01/02/1980 - P. S. R. Sadhanantham Versus Arunachalam and another – The High Court of Madras in its appellate jurisdictionJurisdiction...
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.
P.Chidambaram Vs Directorate of Enforcement – 4/12/2019 - The instant appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 15.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application No.2718 of 2019 impugned herein is set aside; The appellant is ordered to be released on bail if he is not required in any other case, subject to executing bail bonds for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs with two sureties of the like sum produced to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge; The passport ordered to be deposited by this Court in the CBI case shall remain in deposit and the appellant shall not leave the country without specific orders to be passed by the learned Special Judge. The appellant shall make himself available for interrogation in the course of further investigation as and when required by the respondent. The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to intimidate or influence the witnesses;
P.N. Eswara Iyer Vs The Registrar, Supreme Court of India-01/02/1980 - Supreme Court widened the scope of review in criminal proceedings DATE:-01-02-1980 An oral hearing is...
Pallavi Bhardwaj Vs Pratap Chauhan-4/7/2011 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 9—Restitution of conjugal rights
Parminder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors – 01/07/19 - Motor Accident Claim-functional disability at 100% -loss of earning capacity- The Appellant is entitled to the following amounts: i) Rs. 32,40,000/to be awarded towards loss of future earnings by taking the income of the Appellant at Rs. 10,000/p. m., and granting Future Prospects @50%; ii) Rs. 7,50,000/to be awarded towards repeated hospitalizations and medical expenses for undergoing surgeries and medical treatment; iii) Rs. 10,00,000/to be awarded towards future medical expenses and attendant charges; iv) Interest @ 9% awarded by the High Court from the date of the Claim Petition, till the date of recovery to be maintained. And If the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving license, the principle of 'pay and recover' can be ordered to direct the insurance company to the pay the victim, and then recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount from the owners and drivers of the two offending trucks.
Parsa Kente Collieries Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd- 27/05/19 - ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996- Arbitral tribunal must decide in accordance with the terms of the contract, but if an arbitrator construes a term of the contract in a reasonable manner, it will not mean that the award can be set aside on this ground. It is further observed and held that construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an arbitrator to decide unless the arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that it could be said to be something that no fair minded or reasonable person could do.
Pashupati Nath Sukul Versus Nem Chandra Jain and others- 25/11/1983 - Representation of the People Act, 1951—Section 21—Appointment of Returning officers—Section 21 of the Act expressly including the officers of the State Legislatures amongst the persons qualified to be appointed as Returning Officers even though it has amended that section once by specifically including officers of local authorities. Parliament all along has treated the Secretaries of the State Legislatures as officers of Government for purposes of Section 21 and has found it convenient to do so having regard to the nature of the work to be carried out by them. It may be noted that even though Article 98 and Article 187 of the Constitution contemplate the establishment of a separate secretariat staff for each House of Parliament and of the State Legislature respectively, the salaries and allowances of the members of that staff are paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India or of the State, as the case may be, after they are voted by the House or Houses concerned. Their appointment and other conditions of service are regulated by Rules made by the President or the Governor, as the case may be, until an appropriate law is made by Parliament or the State Legislature, as the case may be.
Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs The Motor and General Traders-18/03/1975 - It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the hand-maid and not the mistress of the judicial process. If a fact, arising after the lis has come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decretal remedy.
Patricia Mukhim Vs State of Meghalaya- 25/03/2021 - Disapprobation of governmental inaction cannot be branded as an attempt to promote hatred between different communities. Free speech of the citizens of this country cannot be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases, unless such speech has the tendency to affect public order. The sequitur of above analysis of the Facebook post made by the Appellant is that no case is made out against the Appellant for an offence under Section 153 A and 505 (1) (c) IPC.
Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.(17/11/2022) - IMPORTANCE OF PLEADING IN NI ACT-It is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint under Section 141 that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 and has to be made in a complaint. Without this averment being made in a complaint, the requirements of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied.
PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI -20/03/2020 - When the power is vested in the very high contitutional authority, it must be presumed that the said authority had acted carefully after considering all the aspects of the matter. It cannot be said that His Excellency the President of India did not consider the mercy petition with open mind filed by the petitioner Pawan Kumar Gupta.
Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd-26/11/2019 - ARBITRATION-In exercise of the power conferred by Section 11(6) of the Act, we appoint Dr. Justice A.K. Sikri, former Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator to decide all the disputes arising out of the Agreement dated 22.05.2017, between the parties, subject to the mandatory declaration made under the amended Section 12 of the Act with respect to independence and impartiality and the ability to devote sufficient time to complete the arbitration within the period as per Section 29A of the Act.
Phulel Singh Vs. State of Haryana (27/09/2023) - The most glaring aspect that is required to be considered is that the High Court itself has disbelieved the dying declaration insofar as Jora Singh, father-in-law of the deceased is concerned. We fail to understand as to how the same dying declaration could have been made basis for conviction of the appellant when the same was disbelieved insofar as another accused is concerned.
Power Grid Corporation of India Vs. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Company Ltd – 09/05/19 - Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act 1998 - present dispute arises with respect to tariff charged between 01.04.2001 and 31.03.2004 on account of FERV calculation and apportionment. Any variation in the apportionment of FERV now, for the abovementioned period, will consequently be passed on to the consumers. This will be unfair to the consumers who were not consumers for the abovementioned period but will eventually bear the brunt of transactions which took place 15-18 years ago.
Prabhat Ranjan Singh & ANR. Vs. R.K. Kushwaha & Ors – 07/11/ 2018 - September 07, 2018 - Direct Recruitment-Supreme Court discussed the following issues for decision:
Prabhjot Singh Mand and Ors Versus Bhagwant Singh and Ors-29/07/2009 - Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976 Rules 18, 21 and 20-A Court while exercising its judicial function would ordinarily not pass an order which would make one of the parties to the lis violate a lawful order passed by another Court
Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & ANR-01/07/19 - Criminal-Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967-The special Judge in his order has neither referred to Section 309 nor Section 167 under which accused was remanded. When the Court has power to pass a particular order, non-mention of provision of law or wrong mention of provision of law is inconsequential.
Prakash Aggarwal Vs. Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. and Anr (28/04/2023 - Section 403, 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC-We find that the complaint, taken at its face value, does not disclose that any of the ingredients of the offence complained of have been made out. In the totality of the circumstances, we find that the present complaint is nothing else but an abuse of process of law.
Pramod Kumar & ANR. Vs. Zalak Singh & Ors- 10/5/2019 - ORDER II RULE 2 - CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA-It is undoubtedly true that the law does not compel a litigant to combine one or more causes of action in a suit. It is open to a plaintiff, if he so wishes, however to combine more than one cause of action against same parties in one suit.
PRANEETH K AND ORS. VS UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS-28/08/2020 - The Guidelines were issued with the object that a uniform academic calendar be followed by all the Universities and final /terminal examinations be held. The State Governments or State Disaster Management Authority in exercise of power under Disaster Management Act, 2005 has no jurisdiction to take a decision that the students of final year/terminal students should be promoted on the basis of earlier year assessment and internal assessment.
Prashant Bharti vs State Of NCT Of Delhi (23/01/2013) - No pleadings whatsoever have been filed by the complainant. Even during the course of hearing, the material relied upon by the accused was not refuted. As a matter of fact, the complainant/prosecutrix had herself approached the High Court, with the prayer that the first information lodged by her, be quashed. It would therefore be legitimate to conclude, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the complainant/prosecutrix.
Pratap Singh Vs State of Haryana and others / Pratap Singh Vs Bhajan lal and others -23/09/2002 - Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 226 and 227— Penal Code, 1860—Sections 420, 467, 471, 466, 161 and 120-B
Pratapsinhji N. Desai Versus Deputy Charity Commissioner, Gujarat and others-11/08/1987 - When property is dedicated for the workshop of a family idol, it is a private and not a public endowment, as the members who are entitled to worship at the shrine of the deity can only be the members of the family i.e. an ascertained group of individuals.
Preet Pal Singh vs The State of UP and Ars-14/08/2020 - SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE-In considering an application for suspension of sentence, the Appellate Court is only to examine if there is such patent infirmity in the order of conviction that renders the order of conviction prima facie erroneous. Where there is evidence that has been considered by the Trial Court, it is not open to a Court considering application under Section 389 to re-assess and/or re-analyze the same evidence and take a different view, to suspend the execution of the sentence and release the convict on bail.
Prem v Poonamma: Cheque bounced, Civil decree is binding on Criminal Court - The Supreme Court of India considered whether a person could be criminally charged for a debt when a civil court had already passed a decree for the same. The appellant had borrowed money and issued a cheque that bounced. Meanwhile, the appellant had also filed a civil suit regarding the cheque. The Supreme Court observed that the decisions of civil courts are binding on criminal courts but not vice versa. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the appellant were quashed, and the appeal was allowed. The judgment and order against the appellant were set aside, and any pending applications were disposed of.
Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Faridkot Vs Sh. Durga Ji Traders and Others – 28/11/2011 - inherent power of the High Court ought to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
Purshottam Vishandas Raheja and Another Vs Shrichand Vishandas Raheja (D) through L.Rs. and Others- 6/05/2011 - An interim mandatory injunction is not a remedy that is easily granted-The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining.
Pushpendra Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand (24/08/2022) - Criminal conspiracy-the ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available.
R. Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar General Of The High of Madras-28/01/2019 - There is a fine balance between the Bar and the Bench that has to be maintained as the independence of the Judges and judiciary is supreme. The independence of the Bar is on equal footing, it cannot be ignored and compromised and if lawyers have the fear of the judiciary or from elsewhere, that is not conducive to the effectiveness of judiciary itself, that would be selfdestructive.
R. P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab-1960 - Inherent powers-In dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question.
R. Rajagopal alias R. R. Gopal and another Versus State of TAMIL NADU and others-07/10/1994 - Penal Code, 1860—Sections 499 and 500-Freedom of press vis-a-vis the right to privacy of the citizens of this country-once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others.
R.V. Dev alias R. Vasudevan Nair Versus Chief Secretary, Govt. of Kerala and OTHERS – 15/05/2007 - order33 -For calculation of court-fee, there does not exist any distinction between a situation attracting Rule 10 on the one hand and Rule 11 on the other. The court-fee is to be calculated on the amount claimed and not on the amount decreed. For the said purpose, what is relevant is the final decision taken by the court in this behalf. Rule 11 directing the pauper plaintiff to pay the court-fee can be made in the four different situations: (i) When the plaintiff failed in the suit. (ii) Where the plaintiff is dispaupered. (iii) Where the suit is withdrawn. (iv) Where the suit is dismissed under the circumstances specified in clause (a) or clause (b).
Radhakanta Deb and another Vs The Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa -13/02/1981 - Hindu Law—Religious endowment—Distinction between Private Trust and Public Trust—Determination of—Tests for determining the nature of endowment indicated.
Radhey Shyam Garg Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta (05/05/2009) - Section 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and furthermore in view of the fact that a complainant is required to be present throughout and, thus, unless exempted, question of summoning him does not arise. Section 61 of the Code, however, in our opinion, has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case.
Rafiq Qureshi Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau Eastern Zonal Unit – 07/05/19 - NDPS-Section 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances ActNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act A substance used to treat moderate to severe pain. Narcotics are like opiates such as morphine and codeine, but are not made from opium. They bind to opioid receptors in the central nervous system. Narcotics are now called opioids. The Schedule of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 2021 Evidentiary value of statement under section 67 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 Controlled Narcotic Drugs, its salts and preparations NDPS Act How Does Marijuana(Ganja) Affect a Person’s Brain and Life? List of Indian Acts, 1985-where Court imposes a punishment higher than minimum relying on an irrelevant factor and no other factor as enumerated in Section 32B(a to f) are present award of sentence higher than minimum can be interfered with.
Rahim Khan Versus Khurshid Ahmed and others-08/08/1974 - An election once held is not to be treated in a lighthearted manner and defeated candidates or disgruntled electors should not get away with it by filing election petitions on unsubstantial grounds and irresponsible evidence, thereby introducing a serious element of uncertainty in the verdict already rendered by the elecorate.
Rahimal Bathu & Ors. Vs Ashiyal Beevi (27/9/2023) - A revisional court not to entertain a revision against an order rejecting on merits an application for review of an appealable decree, which is, if the revisional court sets aside or modifies or alters a trial court's decree, the decree of the trial court would merge in the one passed by the revisional court. In consequence, the right of the party aggrieved by the trial court's decree to file an appeal would get affected.
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and others Vs The State of Punjab-12/04/1955 - There is no fundamental right in the publishers that any of the books printed and published by them should be prescribed text books by the school authorities or if they are once accepted as text books they cannot be stopped or discontinued in future.
RAJA @ AYYAPPAN VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU-01/04/2020 - Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates that to make the confession of a coaccused admissible in evidence, there has to be a joint trial. If there is no joint trial, the confession of a co accused is not at all admissible in evidence and, therefore, the same cannot be taken as evidence against the other coaccused.
Raja Khan Vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board & ANR (26/11/2010) - The faith of the common man in the country is shaken to the core by such shocking and outrageous orders such as the kind which have been passed by the Single Judge. We are sorry to say but a lot of complaints are coming against certain Judges of the Allahabad High Court relating to their integrity. Some Judges have their kith and in practicing in the same Court, and within a few years of starting practice the sons or relations of the Judge become multi-millionaires, have huge bank balances, luxurious cars, huge houses and are enjoying a luxurious life. This is a far cry from the days when the sons and other relatives of Judges could derive no benefit from their relationship and had to struggle at the bar like any other lawyer.
Raja Vs. State by the Inspector of Police-10/12/2019 - TEST IDENTIFICATION-there is no hard and fast rule about the period within which the TIP must be held from the arrest of the accused. In certain cases, this Court considered delay of 10 days to be fatal while in other cases even delay of 40 days or more was not considered to be fatal at all.
Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & ANR (04/07/2013) - A conspicuous reading of Section 311 Cr.P.C. would show that widest of the powers have been invested with the Courts when it comes to the question of summoning a witness or to recall or re-examine any witness already examined. A reading of the provision shows that the expression "any" has been used as a pre-fix to "court", "inquiry", "trial", "other proceeding", "person as a witness", "person in attendance though not summoned as a witness", and "person already examined".
RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR VS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(ASSESSMENT) & ANR-19/03/2020 - INCOME TAX-while interpreting a Tax Legislature the consequences and hardship are not looked into but the purpose and object by which taxing statutes have been enacted cannot be lost sight.
Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation Vs. Paramjeet Singh – 03/05/19 - LABOUR LAW- The nature of the appointment was purely contractual for a period of one year or until the shortage of drivers was met, whichever was earlier. Moreover, the contract stipulates that the services of the respondent could be dispensed with without any notice. The terms of the appointment indicate that the respondent was on a purely contractual appointment and that the services could be dispensed with without notice at any stage.
Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation Vs. Star Agriwarehousing and Collateral Management Ltd. & Ors-24/06/2020 - In the matters of contract, the grant of interim order to restrain the successful bidders from executing the contract is not in public interest, more so, when the tender is for storage of food articles in the warehouses of the State Government undertaking.
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.
Rajbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (22/08/2022) - It is more than evident that chain of evidence has many missing and weak links. None of essential ingredients to record conviction in a case of circumstantial evidence and that of poisoning case are made out. Prosecution has thus failed to bring home the guilt.
Rajendra Diwan Vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Anr-10/12/2019 - Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011-State Legislature lacked legislative competence to enact Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act. We, therefore, declare Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act ultra vires the Constitution of India, null and void and of no effect.
Rajes Kanta Roy Vs Smt. Shanti Debi and another-19/11/1956 - Transfer Of Property Act, 1882—Sections 21 and 19—Transfer of interest—Contingent interest—Determination of—Considerations for—It must be determined by gathering intention from all the terms of document.
Rajesh Dhiman Vs State of Himachal Pradesh-26/10/2020 - Whether bias was caused by complainant also being the investigating officer? Whether alternate version has been established and what is the effect of lack of independent witnesses? Whether High Court erred in reversing acquittal in appeal?
Rajesh Monga v. Housing Development (SC-04/03/2024) - The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal in the Rajesh Monga v. Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited & Ors. case, where the appellant claimed to be misled by the respondent bank's employee regarding the adjustable interest rate on a home loan. The appellant alleged that the bank altered the interest rate despite no change by RBI, and demanded a refund. The Court found that the appellant, being knowledgeable, was bound by the terms of the agreement and cannot object after signing and repaying the loan. The Court also noted the lack of evidence of approaching other institutions for a better deal, and upheld the NCDRC's decision.
Rajeshwar Singh Versus Subrata Roy Sahara and Others-06/05/2011 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002—Sections 50(2) and 50(3)
Rajinder Goel Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Anr-02/08/2021 - Petition REJECTED under Article 32 of the Constitution and since a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution was available to him for getting remedy
Rajiv Bhatia Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others-09/09/1999 - Habeas corpus—Child custody—Scope of proceedings—Custody of child claimed by the mother—Father of child claiming to have given away the child in adoption—The adoption deed cannot be challenged in such proceedings—Custody of child entrusted to the natural mother till adjudication over the validity of adoption deed by the Civil Court.
Rajiv Sarin and Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others-09/08/2011 - As and when there is a challenge to the legislative competence, the courts will try to ascertain the pith and substance of such enactment on a scrutiny of the Act in question. In this process, it would also be necessary for the courts to examine the true nature and character of the enactment, its object, its scope and effect to find out whether the enactment in question is genuinely referable to a field of the legislation allotted to the respective legislature under the constitutional scheme.
Ram Gopal Versus Nand Lal and others -14/11/1950 - In construing a document whether in English or in vernacular the fundamental rule is to ascertain the intention from the words used; the surrounding circumstances are to be considered but that is only for the purpose of finding out the intended meaning of the words which have actually been employed
Ram Gopal S/o Mansharam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (17/02/2023) - Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides that the burden of proof for any fact that is especially within the knowledge of a person lies upon such person. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company with the deceased.
Ram Jankijee Deities and others Vs State of Bihar and others-11/05/1999 - Practice and procedure—judicial efficacy and propriety—Single Judge deciding issue ought to look into matter for which it was placed before court—Single Judge should follow binding precedent of earlier Division Bench of same High Court.
Ram Naresh Vs UP: Formation of Common Intention Explained - Where participation of the accused in a crime is proved and the common intention is also established, Section 34 IPC would come into play. To attract Section 34 IPC, it is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or premeditated mind. The common intention can be formed even in the course of the incident i.e. during the occurrence of the crime.
RAM SARAN PAL @ LALLU Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH- 21/04/2017 - Grant of bail - The Appellant is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 404 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been in custody for more than six years. He had moved the High Court for grant of bail on an earlier occasion. However, by order the High Court rejected the bail application with the direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of six months - The Court cannot permit the appellant to continue incarceration for a further period without the adjudication being finalized
Ram Singh and Ors Vs The State of Delhi and Anr-06/04/1951 - Freedom of speech and expression—Indirect infringement—Order of preventive detention restricting certain persons from making speeches prejudicial to maintenance of public order is valid even though it has the effect of abridging the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.
Rama Murthy Vs State of Karnataka-23/12/1996 - Prisons Act, 1894—Section 28—Prison—Conditions—Direction for its reform given by Supreme Court.
Rama Rao And Anr. vs Narayan And Anr – 20/12/1968 - "Originally the term "court" meant, among other meanings, the sovereign's place; it has acquired the meaning of the place where justice is administered and, further, has come to mean the persons who exercise judicial functions under authority derived either directly or indirectly from the sovereign. All tribunals, however, are not courts in the sense in which the term is here employed, namely to denote such tribunals as exercise jurisdiction over persons by reason of the sanction of the law, and not merely by reason of voluntary submission to their jurisdiction. Thus, arbitrators, committees of clubs, and the like, although they may be tribunals exercising judicial functions, are not "courts" in this sense of that term. On the other hand, a tribunal may be a court in the strict sense of the term although the chief part of its duties is not judicial. Parliament is a court. Its duties are mainly deliberative and legislative; the judicial duties are only part of its function."
RAMBABU SINGH THAKUR Vs SUNIL ARORA & ORS-13/02/2020 - It shall be mandatory for political parties [at the Central and State election level] to upload on their website detailed information regarding individuals with pending criminal cases (including the nature of the offences, and relevant particulars such as whether charges have been framed, the concerned Court, the case number etc.) who have been selected as candidates, along with the reasons for such selection, as also as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected as candidates.
Rambir Vs. State of NCT, Delhi – 06/05/19 - CRIMINAL-The case of the appellant falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Further, the judgment in the case of Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh1 also supports the case of the appellant. In the aforesaid case, the knife blows were inflicted in the heat of the moment, one of which caused death of the deceased, this Court has held that accused is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4.
Ramesh Chand Daga Versus Rameshwari Bai-16/03/2005 - It is well known and recognized legal position that customary Hindu Law like Mohammedan Law permitted bigamous marriages which were prevalent in all Hindu families and more so in royal Hindu families. It is only after the Hindu Law was codified by enactments including the present Act that bar against bigamous marriages was created by Section 5(i) of the Act. Keeping into consideration the present state of the statutory Hindu Law, a bigamous marriage may be declared illegal being in contravention of the provisions of the Act but it cannot be said to be immoral so as to deny even the right of alimony or maintenance to a spouse financially weak and economically dependant.
Ramesh Dasu Chauhan and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra-04/07/19 - Evidence Act-There is no gainsaying that confession made to a police officer cannot be proved as against a person accused of any offence and no confession made by a person while in police custody except made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, can be proved against him in view of embargo created by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Section 27 of the Act nevertheless carves out an exception as it provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence while he is in police custody, "so much of such information", regardless of it being a confession or not, may be proved, if it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.
Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors – 08/07/19 - Army Act 1950-The requirement of recording reasons for convening a Summary Court Martial shall apply from 5 July 2016. However, the fundamental principle of law which has been enunciated is that the power to order an SCM is a drastic power which must be exercised in a situation where it is absolutely imperative that immediate action is necessary.
Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan-07/05/2010 - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act-
Rashid Ahmed Vs The Municipal Board, Kairana-19/05/2020 - 1950-Fundamental rights to carry Business and Trade.19-05-1950-The proper order in such circumstance would be to direct the respondent Board not to prohibit the petitioner from carrying on the trade of wholesale dealer and commission agentAgent An agent is a person employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealings with third persons. The person for whom such act is done, or who is so represented, is called the principal. Indian Contract Act of vagetables and fruits within the limits the Municipal Board of Kairana, except in accordance with the bye-laws as and when framed in future according to law, and further to direct the respondent Municipal Board to withdraw the pending prosecution of the petitioner
Rathnavarmaraja vs Vimla-27/02/1961 - Court Fees Act, 1870—Section 12—Deficiency in court-fees—It is the matter between the Court and the State—The defendant who may believe even honestly that proper court-fee has not been paid by the plaintiff, he has no right to move the superior court by appeal or revision against the order adjudging the court-fee.
Raveen Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh -26/10/2020 - (A) What is the scope and essence of the High Court’s appellate jurisdiction against a judgment of acquittal? (B) What is the extent of reliance upon a document with which the other side was not confronted with during cross-examination? C) Whether non-examination of independent witnesses vitiates the prosecution case?
Ravi Dhingra Vs. State of Haryana (01/03/2023) - The first essential condition as incorporated in Section 364-A is "whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction". The second condition begins with conjunction "and". The second condition has also two parts i.e. (a) threatens to cause death or hurt to such person or (b) by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt. Either part of above condition, if fulfilled, shall fulfil the second condition for offence.
Ravi S/o. Ashok Ghumare Vs. State of Maharashtra – 03/10/2019 - MURDER- DEATH SENTENCE CONFIRMED-the victim was barely a two-year old baby whom the appellant kidnapped and apparently kept on assaulting over 4-5 hours till she breathed her last. The appellant who had no control over his carnal desires surpassed all natural, social and legal limits just to satiate his sexual hunger. He ruthlessly finished a life which was yet to bloom. The appellant instead of showing fatherly love, affection and protection to the child against the evils of the society, rather made her the victim of lust.
Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Reynders Label Printing India Pvt. Ltd. and ANR-01/07/19 - Sections 11(5), 11(9) and 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-Domestic commercial arbitration-That agreement is only between the applicant and respondent No.1 and as a result thereof, it would give rise to a domestic commercial arbitration and not an international commercial arbitration. Respondent No.1 has also made it amply clear through its counsel that it will have no objection, whatsoever, if the Court were to appoint a sole arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the applicant and respondent No.1, who would conduct the arbitration proceedings in accordance with the Act, in Delhi, as a domestic commercial arbitration between the applicant and respondent No.1 alone.
Reepak Kansal Vs. Secretary-General, Supreme Court of India & Ors 06/07/2020 - Advocates are treated with respect in society. People repose immense faith in the judiciary and judicial system and the first person who deals with them is a lawyer. Litigants repose faith in a lawyer and share with them privileged information. They put their signatures wherever asked by a Lawyer. An advocate is supposed to protect their rights and to ensure that untainted justice delivered to his cause
Reeta Nag Vs State of West Benga-13/08/2009 - In the instant case, the investigating authorities did not apply for further investigation and it was only upon the application filed by the de facto complainant under Section 173(8), was a direction given by the learned Magistrate to re-investigate the matter. As we have already indicated above, such a course of action was beyond the jurisdictional competence of the Magistrate. Not only was the Magistrate wrong in directing a re-investigation on the application made by the de facto complainant, but he also exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining the said application filed by the de facto complainant.
Rekha Jain Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr-10/05/2022 - SECTION 420 IPC-In the absence of any allegation of inducement by the accused Rekha Jain, she cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.
Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai And Others vs State Of Bombay And Another- 30/08/1962 - The right established by Art. 30(1) is a fundamental right declared in terms absolute. Unlike the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Art. 19, it is not subject to reasonable restrictions.
Rhea Chakraborty vs The State of Bihar & Ors-19/08/2020 - CBI INVESTIGATION-At the stage of investigation, they were not required to transfer the FIR to Mumbai police. For the same reason, the Bihar government was competent to give consent for entrustment of investigation to the CBI and as such the ongoing investigation by the CBI is held to be lawful.
Ripudaman Singh Vs. Balkrishna- 13/03/ 2019 - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 – Section 138 – Agreement for sale – Cheques issued by the purchaser pursuant to the agreement for sale was not honoured due to insufficient fund – Complaint filed for dishonour of cheques – Accused moved High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C – Proceeding quashed by High Court holding that the cheques have not been issued for creating any liability or debt but for the payment of balance consideration – The question arose as to whether High Court was correct in quashing the proceeding – Held, No.
Ritu Saxena Vs. J.S. Grover & ANR-17/09/2019 - Any self-serving statements without any proof of financial resources cannot be relied upon to return...
Riya Bawri Etc. Vs. Mark Alexander Davidson & Ors (23/08/2023) - It is well settled that the final judgment of the trial Court will depend on the evidence adduced before it. As there are specific allegations against the respondent no.1 in the complaint and he was admittedly a partner in the partnership firm when the rent deed was executed, he is liable to face prosecution.
Rohit Tandon Vs. The Enforcement Directorate [SC 2017 NOV] - KEYWORDS: BAIL DENIED-MONEY LAUNDERING The fact that the investigationInvestigation Purpose of all investigation is to...
Rojer Mathew VS South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors:13-11-2019 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the name of this...
Rojer Mathew Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. and Ors-07/11/2018 - Learned amicus suggests setting up of all India Tribunal service on the pattern of U.K. The members can be drawn either from the serving officers in Higher Judicial Service or directly recruited with appropriate qualifications by national competition.
RUDUL SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER - It is true that Article 32 cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations which can be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary processes of Courts, Civil and Criminal. A money claim has therefore to be agitated in and adjudicated upon in a suit instituted in a court of lowest grade competent to try it. But the important question for our consideration is whether in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, this Court can pass an order for the payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental right. The instant cave is illustrative of such cases.
Rupa Ashok Hurra Versus Ashok Hurra and another-10/04/2002 - Whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against a final judgmentJudgment The statement...
S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and ors -27/10/1993 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 2(2)—Decree—Nullity—Decree obtained by fraud—Duty of litigant to come to the Court with true case and to prove it with true evidence—Withholding of vital documents in order to gain advantage over the other parties—The decree obtained by fraud is a nullity.
S. P. Gupta Vs President of India and others-30/12/82 - KEYWORDS:- independence of the judiciary DATE:-30.12.1982 AIR 1982 SC 149 : (1982) 2 SCR 365 :...
S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar Vs S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar -28/11/1957 - The computation of court-fees in suits falling under Section 7(iv) of the Act depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff makes in respect of his claim. Once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court-fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction.
S.K. Raju @ Abdul Haque @ Jagga Vs. State of West Bengal-05/09/2018 - September 05, 2018: Section 42 OF NDPS ACT-An empowered officer under Section 42(1) is obligated to reduce to writing the information received by him, only when an offence punishable under the Act has been committed in any building, conveyance or an enclosed place, or when a document or an article is concealed in a building, conveyance or an enclosed place. Compliance with Section 42, including recording of information received by the empowered officer, is not mandatory, when an offence punishable under the Act was not committed in a building, conveyance or an enclosed place. Section 43 is attracted in situations where the seizure and arrest are conducted in a public place, which includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public-CONVICTION UPHELD.
S.M. Shoba Vs. The Inspector of Police and Ors-15/06/2022 - TRANSFER PETITION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE-it won't be appropriate at this stage to deal with respective arguments and record findings, as it may ultimately affect the parties and their pending litigations.
Sabarimala review petitions referred to Seven Judges bench by SC Read full judgment – 14/09/2019 - Kantaru Rajeevaru Vs Indian Young Lawyers Association Thr. its General Secretary And Ors-The decision of the Seven Judges bench of this Court in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Shri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (Shirur Mutt) (1954) SCR 1005 holding that what are essential religious practices of a particular religious denomination should be left to be determined by the denomination itself and the subsequent view of a Five Judges bench in Durgah Committee, Ajmer vs. Syed Hussain Ali & Ors. (1962) 1 SCR 383 carving out a role for the court in this regard to exclude what the courts determine to be secular practices or superstitious beliefs seem to be in apparent conflict requiring consideration by a larger Bench.
Sachin Kashyap & Ors. Vs. Sushil Chandra Srivastava & Ors-15/07/2021 - Writ Petition having been filed for a particular cause and with a particular prayer cannot be expanded to cover within its ambit all the issues which may be of general or public importance without there being any pleadings or prayer with regard to a particular issue.
Sadhan Chaudhury Vs The State of Rajasthan and Anr- 12/07/2022 - Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC-t is not essential that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest.
Saeeda Khatoon Arshi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr-10/12/2019 - A protest petition had not been filed by the appellant when the report was submitted under Section 173 did not render the court powerless to exercise its powers under Section 319 on the basis of the evidence which had emerged during the course of the trial.
Sahu Madho Das and others Vs Mukand Ram and another-22/03/1955 - Family arrangement—Implied arrangements—Conduct of members of family can be considered to ascertain that family arrangement in fact existed—Circumstances in which registration of family arrangement necessary, indicated.
SAJJAN KUMAR Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION -20/09/2010 - A criminal offence is considered as a wrong against the State and the society even though it has been committed against an individual. Normally, in serious offences, prosecution is launched by the State and a court of law has no power to throw away prosecution solely on the ground of delay.
Sajjan Singh and Others vs The State of Rajasthan -30/10/1964 - As long as the words ‘sovereign democratic republicRepublic Res publica. Having a head of the state. Pope is the head of the Vatican City state. The people execute their power through an Elected (direct/indirect) President. Political parties sponsored their presidential candidates. Indian president is a constitutional puppet under the ruling Cabinet. In the case of the appointment of Indian judges, presidential power is a vanishing point.’ 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?
Sakiri Vasu Vs State of U.P. and OTHERS-07/12/2007 - Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties...
Sakiri Vasu Vs State of U.P. and ORS-17/12/2007 - Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.
Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Versus Union of India-02/08/2005 - Multiple directions have been issued in connection with CPC
Samarendra Das Versus The State of West Bengal and others-16/01/2004 - Assistant Public Prosecutors (Qualifications, Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974-We hold that the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor was Civil Post under the State in terms of Section 15 of the said Act 1985.
Samsher Singh Vs State of Punjab and another-23/08/1974 - Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 77(3), 166(3) and 234—Executive functions—Appointment, dismissal or removal of persons belonging to judicial service, is an executive function of the Government.
Sanghamitra Ghosh Vs Kajal Kumar Ghosh-20/11/2006 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 9—Restitution of conjugal rights—Matter adjourned from time to time—Despite persuasion of Court parties not able to sort out their differences and decided to live separately—Marriage totally dead and ceased to exist, irretrievably broken, and wrecked beyond hope of salvage—Petition disposed of.
Sanjay Chandra Vs CBI – 23/11/2011 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 439—Constitution of India—Article 21—BAIL—Provisions of Cr.P.C. confer discretionary jurisdiction on Criminal Courts to grant BAIL to accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions—Since jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing valuable right of liberty of an individual and interest of the society in general—BAIL is rule and committal to jail an exception.
Sanjay Gandhi Vs Union of India and others-14/02/1978 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 209—committal—Scope of—proceedings—Discharge—Offence triable exclusively by Court of sessions—The Magistrate has no power to go into the merits or to discharge the accused.
Santosh Kumari Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others -13/09/2011 - Code of Criminal Procedure is devised to sub serve the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by mere technicalities. It regards some of its provisions as vital but others not, and a breach of the latter is a curable irregularity unless the accused is prejudiced thereby.
SANTOSH PRASAD @ SANTOSH KUMAR VS THE STATE OF BIHAR-14/2/2020 - Sections 376 and 450 of the IPC-It cannot be disputed that there can be a conviction solely based on the evidence of the prosecutrix. However, the evidence must be reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, now let us examine the evidence of the prosecutrix and consider whether in the facts and circumstances of the case is it safe to convict the accused solely based on the deposition of the prosecutrix, more particularly when neither the medical report/evidence supports nor other witnesses support and it has come on record that there was an enmity between both the parties.
Saradamani Kandappan Vs S. Rajalakshmi and Others-04/07/2011 - In a contractContract An agreement enforceable by law is a contract. All agreements are contracts...
SARASWATHY Vs BABU-25/11/2013 - The Appellant-wife having being harassed since 2000 is entitled for protection orders and residence orders u/s 18 and 19 of the PWD, Act, 2005 along with the maintenance as allowed by the Trial Court u/s 20(d) of the PWD, Act, 2005. Apart from these reliefs, she is also entitled for compensation and damages for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the Respondent-husband.
Sarbati Devi and anr Vs Smt. Usha Devi-06/12/1983 - Insurance Act, 1938—Section 39—Whether a nominee of a life insurance policy under Section 39 on the assured dying intestate would become entitled to the beneficial interest in the amount received under the policy to the exclusion of the heirs of the assured.
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.
Sarita Sharma Vs Sushil Sharma -16/02/2000 - It will not be proper to be guided entirely by the fact that the appellant Sarita had removed the children from U.S.A. despite the order of the Court of that country. So also, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the decree passed by the American Court though a relevant factor, cannot override the consideration of welfare of the minor children.
SARUP SINGH GUPTA Vs. S. JAGDISH SINGH AND OTHERS-29/03/2006 - In our view, mere acceptance of rent did not by itself constituted an act of the nature envisaged by Section 113, Transfer of Property Act showing an Intention to treat the lease as subsisting. The fact remains that even after accepting the rent tendered, the landlord did file a suit for eviction, and even while prosecuting the suit accepted rent which was being paid to him by the tenant It cannot, therefore, be said that by accepting rent, he intended to waive the notice to quit and to treat the lease as subsisting.
Sasikala Pushpa and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu – 07/05/19 - Forging Vakalatnama-A Vakalatnama is only a document which authorizes an advocate to appear on behalf of the party and by and large, it has no bearing on the merits of the case. Before proceeding to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the court must satisfy itself that "it is expedient in the interest of justice". The language in Section 340 Cr.P.C. shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case.
Satheedevi Versus Prasanna and Another-07/05/2010 - Cancellation of document: If the expression ‘value of the subject matter of the suit’ was not followed by the deeming clause, it could possibly be argued that the word ‘value’ means the market value, but by employing the deeming clause, the legislature has made it clear that if the document is sought to be cancelled, the amount of court fee shall be computed on the value of the property for which the document was executed and not the market value of the property.
Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah Versus State of Gujarat & Ors-02/03/2020 - Criminal-Whether the appellant-one of the co-accused against whom the charge-sheet is already filed and against whom the trial is in progress, is required to be heard and/or has any locus in the proceedings under Section 173(8) CrPC – further investigation qua one another accused namely Shri Bhaumik against whom no charge-sheet has been filed till date?
Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Vs. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh (D) through LRS. & Ors-24/09/2018 - A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another
Satpal Singh Vs Chunni Lal (deceased by L.Rs.) – 13/02/2009 - Appellant was justified in moving application for restoration of appeal and setting aside of ex parte order particularly when his brother had died and his wife had met with an accident during relevant period
Satpal Vs. State of Haryana – 1/5/2018 - LAST SEEN THEORY EXPLAINED: There is no eye witness to the occurrence but only circumstances coupled with the fact of the deceased having been last seen with the appellant. Criminal jurisprudence and the plethora of judicial precedents leave little room for reconsideration of the basic principles for invocation of the last seen theory as a facet of circumstantial evidence. Succinctly stated, it may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to found conviction upon the same singularly.
Satyabrata Biswas and others Vs Kalyan Kumar Kisku and others-27/01/1994. - It is complained that there is a violation of these three orders by the six respondents, Satyabrata Biswas, Rev. Bilash Chandra Das, Salil Biswas, Sushil Sharma, Rt. Rev. Dinesh Chandra Gorai and Rt. Rev. John E. Ghosh. The contempt was for:(1) putting a padlock to the main entrance of the premises on 3-7-93; (2) disconnecting water supply, (3) obstructing sewerage line; and (4) preventing the appellants from getting the rooms repaired.
Satyavir Singh Rathi Versus State thr. C.B.I- 02/05/2011 - A statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 313) cannot be regarded as evidence. The observations in the latter case are equally pertinent wherein it has been held that a defence taken by one accused cannot, in law, be treated as evidence against his co-accused. As already observed, Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure now makes an accused a competent witness in his defence.
Satye Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand-15/02/2022 - EVIDENCE-It is settled position of law that circumstances howsoever strong cannot take place of proof and that the guilt of the accused have to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Satyendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. Raj Nath Dubey & Ors-06/05/2016 - No equitable principle or estoppel can impede powers of the Court to determine an issue of law correctly in a subsequent suit which relates to another property founded upon a different cause of action though parties may be same.
Saumya Chaurasia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (14/12/23) - The courts also should not be oblivious to the fact that nowadays the educated and well-placed women in the society engage themselves in the commercial ventures and enterprises, and advertently or inadvertently engage themselves in the illegal activities.
SC dismisses Rafale review petitions said perception of individuals cannot be basis of a fishing and roving enquiry- 14/11/2019 - Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs Central Bureau Of Investigation through its Director & Anr-We find no reason for any intervention by this Court on the sensitive issue of purchase of 36 defence aircrafts by the Indian Government. Perception of individuals cannot be the basis of a fishing and roving enquiry by this Court, especially in such matters. We, thus, dismiss all the writ petitions.
Sebastian M. Hongray Vs Union of India-23/04/1984 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Section 2(b)—Civil contempt—Disobedience of order—Directions for production of a person in writ of Habeas corpus—Failure to comply with directions—Exemplary cost of Rupees 1 Lac each awarded in favour of wives of missing persons.
Secretary, Deptt. of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Another Vs Raghu Raj-17/10/2008 - Dismissal for Default-when a party engages an advocate who is expected to appear at the time of hearing but fails to so appear, normally, a party should not suffer on account of default or non-appearance of the advocate.
Selvakumar Vs. Manjula & Anr (19/09/2022) - The only question for consideration is whether there was any involvement of the Appellant in the commission of the offences under Sections 16 and 17 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Shakuntala Devi Jain Versus Kuntal Kumari and others – Civil Appeal against the judgment of Executing Court-05/09/1968 - it frequently happens that in cases of execution proceedings, though there is a judgment, an order, that is, the formal expression of the decision is not drawn up. In such cases the concluding portion of the judgment which embodies the order may be treated as the order against which the appeal is preferred
Sham Singh Vs The State of Haryana-21/08/2018 - Rape Case acquittal -Trial Court and the High Court have convicted the accused merely on conjectures and surmises. The Courts have come to the conclusion based on assumptions and not on legally acceptable evidence, but such assumptions were not well founded, inasmuch as such assumptions are not corroborated by any reliable evidence. Medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution relating to offence of rape.
Shamsher Singh Vs Rajinder Prashad and others-03/08/1973 - COURT FEES-The plaintiff had sued for a twofold declaration: (i) that the property described in the plaint was a waqf, and (ii) that certain alienations thereof by the mutwali and his brother were null and void and were ineffectual against the waqf property. It was held that the second part of the declaration was tantamount to the setting aside or cancellation of the alienations and therefore the relief claimed could not be treated as a purely declaratory one and inasmuch as it could not be said to follow directly from the declaration sought for in the first part of the relief, the relief claimed in the case could be treated as a declaration with a “consequential relief.
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo and others Vs Union of India and others (05/10/1951) - &# 8220;A law which contravenes the constitution constitutionally valid is a matter of constitutional amendment,...
Shantha alias Ushadevi and another Versus B. G. Shivananjappa-06/05/2005 - It is true that the amount of maintenance became due by virtue of the Magistrate's order passed on 20th January, 1993 and in order to seek recovery of the amount due by issuance of warrant, application shall be made within a period of one year from the date the amount became due.
Shanti Bhushan & Anr vs U.O.I. & Anr -17/12/2008 - A person who is not found suitable for being appointed as a permanent Judge, should not be given extension as an Additional Judge unless the same is occasioned because of non availability of the vacancy.
SHANTI PRASAD DEVI AND ANOTHER Vs. SHANKAR MAHTO AND OTHERS-11/07/2005 - mere acceptance of rent for the subsequent months in which the lessee continued to occupy the lease premises cannot be said to be a conduct signifying 'assent' to the continuance of the lessee even after expiry of lease period.
Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh and Anr-24/04/2002 - When a statute is passed for the purpose of enabling something to be done, and prescribes the way in which it is to be done, it may be either an absolute enactment or a directory enactment. The difference being that an absolute enactment must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, but it is sufficient if a directory enactment be obeyed or fulfilled substantially.
Shehnaz Mudbhatkal Vs Arvind Ramakrishna and another-15/05/98 - Family matters being sensitive in character Judges of Family Courts have to pay greater participatory role—Objective of Act can only be achieved if rapport between Judges and parties is established—Supreme Court left option to transfer case with concerned Judge of Family Court.
Shelly Oberoi & Anr. Vs Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors (17/02/23) - Article 243R of the Constitution itself. Part IXA of the Constitution - Regulation 7 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations 1958 stipulates that as soon as the Mayor is elected, "he shall preside over the meeting for the transaction of the rest of the business thereof". Regulation 8 provides for the election of the Deputy Mayor and stipulates that the provisions of Regulation 6 shall apply, as far as may be, to the election of the Deputy Mayor, subject to the modification that any reference to the presiding authority shall be construed as a reference to the Mayor.
Sheodhari Rai and others Versus Suraj Prasad Singh and others-01/12/1950. - A suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession of, certain lands and other ancillary reliefs.The plaintiffs claimed to have derived title to the lands in suit by purchase from the defendant by a registered deed
Shia Central Board of Waqf, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sunni Central Board of Wakf-09/11/2019 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIAIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the name of this land mass....
Shiv Cotex Vs Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. and Others-30/08/2011 - SECOND APPEAL-It is, open to the High Court to reframe substantial question of law or frame substantial question of law afresh or hold that No. substantial question of law is involved at the time of hearing the second appeal but reversal of the judgment and decree passed in appeal by a court subordinate to it in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code is impermissible without formulating substantial question of law and a decision on such question.
Shiv Kumar & Ors. Vs. Gainda Lal & Ors (21/10/2022) - COMPENSATION-settled position of law while considering the loss of dependency 40% of the income is required to be added towards future prospects-the claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh each instead of Rs.50,000/as awarded by the High Court for loss of foetus.- husband and the minor son shall also be entitled to Rs.40,000/each towards loss of consortium or loss of love and affection.
Shiv Shankar Singh Vs State of Bihar and Another-22/11/2011 - Second FIR - filing another FIR in respect of the same incident having a different version of events is permissible. (Vide: Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 SC 1791; Sudhir and Ors., v. State of M.P. AIR 2001 SC 826; T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 2637; Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4320; and Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 254).
Shivaji Jaising Babar Vs State of Maharashtra-11/09/1991 - Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Sentence—Death sentence—Delay in disposal of mercy petition which was rejected after over four years—Sentence of death commuted to imprisonment for life.
Shraddha Gupta Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors – 26/04/2022 - Whether, a person against whom a single FIR/charge sheet is filed for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, 1986 can be prosecuted under the Gangsters Act. In other words, whether a single crime committed by a 'Gangster' is sufficient to apply the Gangsters Act on such members of a 'Gang'
Shreya Singhal vs U.O.I-24/05/2015 - Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2).
Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam Vs Miss Subhra Chakraborty-15/12/1995 - There is a serious allegation that Bodhisattwa Gautam had married Subhra Chakraborty before the God he worshipped by putting Vermilion on her forehead and accepting her as his wife and also impregnated her twice resulting in abortion on both the occasions, we, on being prima facie satisfied, dispose of this matter by providing that Bodhisattwa Gautam shall pay to Subhra Chakraborty a sum of 1,000/ every month as interim compensation during the pendency of Criminal Case No. 1/95 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kohima, Nagaland, He shall also be liable to pay arrears of compensation at the same rate from the date on which the complaint was filed till this date.
Shri Hanumant Dinkar Arjun Vs. Shri Suresh R. Andhare & ANR – 03/05/19 - Criminal Appeal - In our opinion, the order dated 26.02.2003, which is the basis of the complaint in question, is sub judice in the criminal appeal. In other words, when the order, which is the foundation for filing the complaint in question itself is sub judice, the appellant is required to await the final outcome of the criminal appeal filed by the accused persons.
Shri Subir Bose Vs. Inspector of Factories, represented by S.M. Paranjpe & ANR-24/09/2019 - As this order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it...
SHRIPAL BHATI & ANR. VS STATE OF U.P. & ORS- 29/1/2020 - Locus standi to maintain writ petition-Unless injury is suffered personally a person can not be said to be aggrieved and has no locus standi.
Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bub Vs Sita Saran Bubna AND OTHERS-21/8/2009 - No limitation for executing Preliminary Decree- 12 years period under Limitation Act not Applicable
Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan vs Sita Saran Bubna & Ors (21/08/2009) - In a suit is for partition or separation of a share, the court at the first stage decides whether the plaintiff has a share in the suit property and whether he is entitled to division and separate possession. The decision on these two issues is exercise of a judicial function and results in first stage decision termed as `decree' under Order 20 Rule 18(1) and termed as `preliminary decree' under Order 20 Rule 18(2) of the Code.
Shyamlal Devda and Others Vs. Parimala-22/1/2020 - Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act relates to protection order. In terms of Section 18 of the Act, intention of the legislature is to provide more protection to woman. Section 20 of the Act empowers the court to order for monetary relief to the "aggrieved party". When acts of domestic violence is alleged, before issuing notice, the court has to be prima facie satisfied that there have been instances of domestic violence.
Sirajudheen Vs. Zeenath & Ors (27/02/2023) - Rule 23 of Order XLI CPC-In regard to the want of any particular evidence, we may observe in the passing that if the Court finds any particular evidence directly within the control and possession of a party having not been produced, the necessary consequences like those specified in illustration (g) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act (3) may follow but, merely because a particular evidence which ought to have been adduced but had not been adduced, the Appellate Court cannot adopt the soft course of remanding the matter.
Sita Ram Vs. State of NCT of Delhi – 09/07/19 - Sections 302 and 323 read with 34 of the I.P.C.- the occurrence was without premeditation and sudden fight between the parties started in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. The occurrence happened when deceased as his way back home questioned the accused as to his conduct of tapping electricity from the pole. He was not pre-armed and other accused were also not pre-armed. Though, deceased has sustained as many as nine injuries, except injury no(s).1 to 3 which are the injuries caused on the head and all other injuries are on the hand, shoulder, arms etc. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by deceased, it cannot be said that the accused and other accused have taken undue advantage of deceased in attacking him. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. deserves to be modified under Section 304 Part II I.P.C.
SJ Ajay Kumar Kuhar dismissed a plea by P Chidambaram seeking surrender in ED case - New Delhi: A Delhi Special court Friday dismissed a plea by former finance minister P...
Smruti Pahariya Vs Sanjay Pahariya-11/05/2009 - In many cases, marriages simply fail for no fault of the parties but as a result of discord and disharmony between them. In such situations, putting an end to this relationship is the only way out of this social bondage.
Smt. Asha Devi Vs Dukhi Sao and another-08/08/1974 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 100 and 101—Appeal—Letters Patent Appeal—Scope of—A Division Bench hearing appeal against the Judgment of single Judge is not limited to question of law as in case of Second Appeal but whole matter is open in respect of both questions of law as well as fact.
Smt. Chand Dhawan Vs Jawaharlal Dhawan- 11/06/1993. - Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 18(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956- The court is not at liberty to grant relief of maintenance simpliciter obtainable under one Act in proceedings under the other. As is evident, both the statutes are codified as such and are clear on their subjects and by liberality of interpretation interchangeability cannot be permitted so as to destroy the distinction on the subject of maintenance.
Smt. Kasturibai Sukharam Khandelwal Trust Vs. Indore Development Authority & Ors-03/10/2019 - In the ordinary course of business, there was no justification for the authority to consider the application of the 2nd respondent which was not in due compliance and in terms of the advertisement in reference to which the applications were invited.
Smt. Roopa Soni Vs. Kamalnarayan Soni (06/09/2023) - That the marriage has irretrievably broken down is to be factually determined and firmly established. For this, several factors are to be considered such as the period of time the parties had cohabited after marriage; when the parties had last cohabited; the nature of allegations made by the parties against each other and their family members; the orders passed in the legal proceedings from time to time, cumulative impact on the personal relationship; whether, and how many attempts were made to settle the disputes by intervention of the court or through mediationMediation It includes a process (ICC Mediation Rule), whether referred to by the expression mediation, pre-litigation mediation, online mediation, community mediation, conciliation or an expression of similar import, whereby parties attempt to reach an amicable settlement of their dispute with the assistance of a third person referred to as mediator (Indian Law), who does not have the authority to impose a settlement upon the parties to the dispute. The process is private and confidential. The process ends when a settlement has, or has not, been reached. Read more, and when the last attempt was made, etc.
Smt. Rukhamanbai Versus Shivram and others-03/09/1981. - Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Sections 19 and 21—Contingent interest—Distinction with Vested interest—Settlement of property by deed in favour of a person and in the event of her death to her unborn children—The interest of beneficiary is not Contingent interest—Only the interest of unborn children is Contingent interest.
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 the opportunities and there are no other impediments, might be enforced by attachment of property.
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 appropriate manner. So long as that decision stands, despite its being erroneous, it must be regarding as one authorised by law and where, under such a decision a person is held liable to pay a tax that person cannot treat the decision as a nullity and contend that what is demanded of him is something which is not authorised by law. The position would be the same even though upon a proper construction, the law under which the decision was given did not authorise such a levy.
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 that attention must be focused as well as the 'higher' 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 lost. In a suit filed for possession based on title the plaintiff is bound to prove his title and pray for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit land because his suit on the basis of title cannot succeed unless he is held to have some title over the land.
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, 2005 - No restrictive meaning has been given to expression "relative", nor has said expression been specifically defined in Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to make it specific to males only
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 interest of the child who is the victim in the custody battle.
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 that an agreement can be entered into between the Union and the States in terms of Art. 278 abrogating or modifying the power preserved to the States under Art. 277
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 are to be found in four Vedas.
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. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has decided and disposed of the writ petition as if the High Court was considering the final decision of the DRAT.
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 at large. Such a change would ensure that only those who had established attachments to the land through honest means would be entitled to legal relief.
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 public interest was compromised.
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 the CrPC, to adjudicate upon evidentiary issues and examine the admissibility or sufficiency of evidence.
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 decree does not direct reinstatement or payment of arrears of salary the executing court could not issue any process for the purpose as that would be going outside or beyond the decree.
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 provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution-VIRES TESTE PASSED
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 months 26 days. Thus, he has undergone total custody of 14 years 6 months 7 days.
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. head which proved to be fatal and again the evidence on record, more particularly, the medical evidence and the manner in which the incident took place, the accused should have been held guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part I and not 304 Part II of the IPC.
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...
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 contrary to Section 302 IPC. By the impugned judgment and order though the High Court has specifically maintained the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the IPC, but the High Court has reduced the sentence to sentence already undergone which is less than imprisonment for life, which shall be contrary to Section 302 IPC and is unsustainable.
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 and appellate Court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of accused.
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, this issue has been considered in the case of Saurabh Kumar through his father Vs. Jailor, Koneila Jail and Anr., 1 and Manubhai Ratilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.2 It is no more res integra. The Respondent ought to have filed a Revision against the Order of remand than to file a Habeas Corpus to challenge the Arrest-APPEAL ALLOWED-RESPONDENT REARRESTED
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 INDIAIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the name of this land mass....
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 trial has got truncated. The trial with respect to three accused i.e. Sachin Bansal, Narendra Mann, and the alleged contract killer – Joginder Singh Sodhi has proceeded in the absence of the other three accused viz. Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann and Shailendra Singh.
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 only a positive aspect.
STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. VS MANJU NAIK- 04/12/2019 - Statutory Interpretation:a particular provision of the statute should be construed with reference to other provisions of the same statute so as to construe the enactment as a whole. It would also be necessary to avoid an interpretation which will involve conflict with two provisions of the same statute and effort should be made for harmonious construction. In other words, the provision of a Rule cannot be used to defeat another Rule unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation between them.
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...
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 Act and Rule, the authorized officer of the Collector-cum-District Appropriate Authority, Dhenkanal, seized the ultrasound machine and other equipments from the said clinic. For such violation, the registration of ultrasound clinic of the respondents has been suspended vide order of the Collector dated 18.06.2014. A complaint was filed against the accused-respondent under Section 28(2) of the PC and PNDT Act. The Trial Court took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 3(2), 5, 29, 23 and 25 of the PC and PNDT Act and issued summons to the respondents.
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 officer-in-charge of the nearest camp can be regarded as arrest and detention within the meaning of Art. 22(1) and (2). If they are not, then there can be no complaint that the Act infringes the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 22 (1) and (2).
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 Court keeps in view the position that PRESUMPTION of innocence in favour of accused has been fortified by his acquittal—Golden rule is that Court is obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice, where interference is imperative and ends of justice so require and it is essential to appease judicial conscience.
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- Any Govt circular favouring acquitted accused for job has to be read in the context of the judicial pronouncements that giving benefit of doubt would not entitle candidate for appointment.
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...
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 him back to jail. Taking overall view of the matter, we are not impressed by this submission. Even in case of offence under Section 326, IPC, which commended to the High Court, the same was punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten years and also liable to fine. Had it been a conviction under Section 326, as aforesaid, the sentence of only about five months in the facts of the present case, by no stretch of imagination, was adequate.
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 of the accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a complete chain of evidence as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused and none else.
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.
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 Judge is supposed to know the merit, competence and capability of the concerned lawyers for discharging their duties, the District Magistrate is supposed to know their conduct outside the Court vis-a-vis the victims of offences, public officers, witnesses etc. The District Magistrate is also supposed to know about the conduct of the Government counsel as also their integrity.
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 interests of the public and the modes of the appointment and removal.
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 on a question of fact, a writ court ordinarily refrains from deciding it. More so, when writ petitioner has an alternative remedy where such disputed questions of fact can be decided authoritatively.
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 has been passed by the officer, it does not warrant the personal presence of the officer in the Court and summoning of officers to the Court and eventually affect the public at large
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 see that these enquiries do not become empty formalities.
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 when a case of the present nature arises, it may issue appropriate directions so that criminal trial is conducted in accordance with law. It is the obligation and duty of this Court to ensure free and fair trial.
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Subhash @ Pappu-01/04/2022 - Whether respondent -accused can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 149 IPC when the deceased died due to septicemia after a period of thirty days
State of West Bengal and Ors Vs Madan Mohan Ghosh and Ors-30/04/2002 - Interpretation of Statutes—Non obstante clause—Has overriding effect only on rules which were in existence at time when said rule came into force—Cannot be construed so as to mean that all future rules and notifications will be subject to such a non obstante clause.
State of West Bengal and others Versus Swapan Kumar Guha and others [2/2/1982] - Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In considering whether an offence into which an investigation is made or to be made, is disclosed or not, the Court has mainly to take into consideration the complaint or the F.I.R. and the Court may in appropriate cases take into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. On a consideration of all the relevant materials, the Court has to come to the conclusion whether an offence is disclosed or not. If on a consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the Court will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation into the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving the offence. If, on the other hand, the Court on a consideration of the relevant materials is satisfied that no offence is disclosed, it will be the duty of the Court to interfere with any investigation and to stop the same to prevent any kind of uncalled for and unnecessary harassment to an individual.
State of West Bengal and others Vs Sampat Lal and others-04/12/1984 - It is certainly not for this Court at the present stage to examine and come to a conclusion as to whether this was a case of suicide or murder. If as a result of investigation, evidence is gathered and a trial takes place the Sessions Judge will decide that controversy and it may be that in due course such controversy may be canvassed before this Court in some form or the other. It would, therefore, be wholly inappropriate at this stage to enter into such a question.…………In our considered opinion, Section 6 of the Act does not apply when the Court gives a direction to the CBI to conduct an investigation and counsel for the parties rightly did not dispute this position
State of West Bengal Vs Subodh Gopal Bose and others-17/12/1953 - Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 19-Article 31(1), though part of an Article is in essence an independent provision to some extent overlapping with the requirements of the law of the Eminent Domain. It is on a par with Art. 21.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. THE DALHOUSIE INSTITUTE SOCIETY - Adverse Possession- “the position of the respondent CorporationCorporation A legally established entity that can enter...
State represented by Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. M. Subrahmanyam – 07/05/19 - Section 173(2)(5)(a), Cr.P.C- The failure to bring the authorisation on record, as observed, was more a matter of procedure, which is but a handmaid of justice. Substantive justice must always prevail over procedural or technical justice. To hold that failure to explain delay in a procedural matter would operate as res judicata will be a travesty of justice considering that the present is a matter relating to corruption in public life by holder of a public post. The rights of an accused are undoubtedly important, but so is the rule of law and societal interest in ensuring that an alleged offender be subjected to the laws of the land in the larger public interest. To put the rights of an accused at a higher pedestal and to make the rule of law and societal interest in prevention of crime, subservient to the same cannot be considered as dispensation of justice. A balance therefore has to be struck. A procedural lapse cannot be placed at par with what is or may be substantive violation of the law.
Station House Officer CBI/ACB/Bangalore vs. B.A. Srinivasan – 05/12/2019 - Sanction u/s Section 197 CrPC when not required- From a perusal of the case law referred to supra, it becomes clear that for the purpose of obtaining previous sanction from the appropriate Government under Section 197 CrPC, it is imperative that the alleged offence is committed in discharge of official duty by the accused.
Sudam @ Rahul Kaniram Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra-01/10/2019 - The review petitions are allowed to the extent that the sentence of death awarded to the Petitioner is commuted to imprisonment for the remainder of his life sans any right to remission.
Sudhamayee Pattnaik and Ors. Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Ors (16/09/2022) - Suit is for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession-The plaintiffs are the domius litis. Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs. Not impleading any other person as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs.
Suhelkhan Khudyarkhan and Another Versus State of Maharashtra and others-15/04/2009 - To bring in application of Section 133 of the Code, there must be imminent danger to the property and consequential nuisance to the public. The nuisance is the concomitant act resulting in danger to the life or property due to likely collapse etc.
Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs Randhir Singh and Others- 29/03/2010 - Cancellation of the deed: If ‘A’, the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If ‘B’, who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of ` 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if ‘B’, a non- executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act.
Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Haryana [Mandatory Compliance u/s 42 NDPS Act SC Directions]-13/12/2012 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIAIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the name of this land mass....
Sunil Batra Versus Delhi Administration- 20/12/1979 - Right of prisoners to know their rights and responsibilities—Direction given for display of rights and responsibilities inside the prison
Sunil Kumar Rai & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors-21/02/2022 - Court has power of grant of compensation in the case of violation of Fundamental Rights.
Sunil Poddar and ORS Vs Union Bank of India-08/01/2008 - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993—Section 22(2)(g)—Transfer of suit—Ex parte decree—Notice sent to the old address though new address was available—Advertisement also published in a Hindi daily—Defendants aware of the proceedings before the Civil Court—It was not necessary for the Bank to get summonses published in a newspaper after the matter was transferred in accordance with law to the DRT—Actual service of summons is not required if (i) he had notice of the date of hearing of the suit; and (ii) if he had sufficient time to appear and answer the claim of the plaintiff—Impugned order affirmed.
Sunitha Vs State of Telengana (05/12/2017) - Referring to the lawyers' fee as barrier to access to justice, it was observed that it was the duty of the Parliament to prescribe fee for services rendered by members of the legal profession. First step should be taken to prescribe floor and ceiling in fees.
Superintendent (Tech. I) Central Excise, I.D.D. Jabalpur and others Versus Pratap Rai-26/04/1978 - The rule is that nothing written or said “without prejudice” can be considered at the trial without the consent of both parties—not even by a judge in determining whether or not there is good cause for depriving a successful litigant of costs ... ... ... The word is also frequently used without the foregoing implications in statutes and inter partes to exclude or save transactions, acts and rights from the consequences of a stated proposition and so as to mean “not affecting”, “saving” or “excepting
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another Vs Union of India-6/11/1993 - The role of Chief Justice in Appointment of Judges in High Courts and Supreme Court
Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union Of India & Anr-17/04/1998 - The Bar Councils therefore entertain cases of misconduct against advocates. The Bar Councils are to safeguard the rights, privilege and interests of advocates. The Bar Councils is a body corporate. The disciplinary committees are constituted by the Bar Council. The Bar Council is not the same body as its disciplinary committee.
Supreme Court granted Bail to Teesta Setalvad without considering merits of the case (02/09/2022) - We hasten to add that the relief of interim bail is granted to the appellant in the peculiar facts including the fact that the appellant happens to be a lady. This shall not be taken to be a reflection on merits and shall not be used by the other accused.
Supreme Court Judgments [SC 1950] INDEX - A.K. Gopalan Vs. The State of Madras [1950] INSC 14 (19 May 1950) A.M. Mair...
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 amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property.
Suraz India Trust Vs. Union of India-29/09/2021 - CONTEMPT OF COURT- Court has held that an apology cannot be a defence, a justification can be accepted if it can be ignored without compromising the dignity of the Court
Surendra Singh and others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh-23/11/1953 - Judges may, and often do, discuss the matter among themselves and reach a tentative conclusion. That is not their judgment. They may write and exchange drafts. Those are not the judgments either, however heavily and often they may have been signed. The final operative act is that which is formally declared in open Court with the intention of making it the operative decision of the Court. That is what constitutes the ‘’judgment.”
Suresh Chand and Anr. Vs. Suresh Chander (D) through LRS. and Ors- 19/02/2020 - Second appeal- Pre-emption-whether a right of pre-emption was available to Beni Prasad who is alleged to be a joint owner in possession of the disputed courtyard. This has arisen in the context of the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act 1961.
Suresh Kumar through GPA Vs. Anil Kakaria & Ors (06/11/2017) - The findings recorded by the three Courts on facts, which are based on appreciation of evidence undertaken by the three Courts, are essentially in the nature of concurrent findings of fact and, therefore, such findings are binding on Supreme Court.
Suresh Shah Vs. Hipad Technology India Private Ltd-18/12/2020 - If the special statutes do not apply to the premises/property and the lease/tenancy created thereunder as on the date when the cause of action arises to seek for eviction or such other relief and in such transaction if the parties are governed by an Arbitration Clause; the dispute between the parties is arbitrable and there shall be no impediment whatsoever to invoke the Arbitration Clause. This view is fortified by the opinion expressed by the Coordinate Bench while answering the reference made in the case of Vidya Drolia wherein the view taken in Himangni Enterprises is overruled.
Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and Others Vs. Virender Gandhi-29/05/19 - Section 138 /148 Read with section 143A of the N.I. Act-Whether the first appellate court is justified in directing the appellants - original accused who have been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation/fine imposed by the learned trial Court, pending appeals challenging the order of conviction and sentence and while suspending the sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., considering Section 148 of the N.I. Act as amended? Held yes.
Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & Ors (30/09/2022) - SLP-NDPS Act-Preventive detention-the appellant detenu had been released on bail by the Special Court, Tripura despite the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, had not been brought to the notice and on the other hand, this fact was withheld and the detaining authority was given to understand that the trial of those criminal cases was pending.
Sushil Vs. Jharkhand High Court: Cut-off marks rule challenged (01/02/2024) - The petitioners challenge the High Court of Jharkhand's selection process for District Judge Cadre, citing deviations from recruitment rules and introduction of new cut-off marks. The Supreme Court allows the petitions, quashing the 50% aggregate marks requirement and directing the High Court to recommend candidates based on the original merit list for current vacancies.
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
Swarajya Lakshmi Vs Dr. G. G. Padma Rao-19/10/1973 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 13(i)(4)—Virulent and incurable leprosy—Disease found to be malignant and contagious—Known treatment not providing complete treatment nor could correct deformity and mutilations produced by disease—Petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce.
Syed Qasim Razvi and others Vs State of Hyderabad and others-19/01/1953 - Hyderabad Criminal Procedure Code-the accused was examined under S. 273, Hyderabad Criminal P.C. which corresponds to S. 342, Indian Criminal P.C., and on 5th of December following charges were framed against him under Ss. 123, 124, 330 and 177 read with S. 66, Hyderabad Penal Code. The cross-examination of 18 prosecution witnesses was finished before 26-1-1959, and the rest of the witnesses were cross-examined after that date.
Tarlok Singh and others Vs State of Punjab-30/07/1973 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1898—Section 288 and Evidence Act, 1872— Section 33—Evidence of a witness given in the committal Court—Cannot be treated as evidence after his death in session trial under Section 288 though it may be considered relevant under Section 33 Evidence Act.
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors-26/03/2021 - In an appeal under Section 423 of the Companies Act, 2013, this Court is concerned with questions of law arising out of the order of NCLAT. Therefore, we will not decide this prayer. It should be pointed out at this stage that Article 75 of the Articles of Association is nothing but a provision for an exit option (though one may think of it as an expulsion option). After attacking Article 75 before NCLT, the S.P. Group cannot ask this Court to go into the question of fixation of fair value compensation for exercising an exit option.
Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs. Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd – 02/05/19 - As a matter of fact, what was agreed in the Principles of Agreement more amount than that has been ordered to be paid on the basis of principles of business equilibrium and other factors
Tejaswini Gaud and Others Vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and Others – 06/05/19 - Custody of the Child given to the father - Writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative process for securing the liberty of the subject by affording an effective means of immediate release from an illegal or improper detention. The writ also extends its influence to restore the custody of a minor to his guardian when wrongfully deprived of it. The detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody is treated as equivalent to illegal detention for the purpose of granting writ, directing custody of the minor child.
Thakur Manmohan Deo Vs State of Bihar and others-19/09/1960 - The pith and substance of the legislation, however, in my opinion is the transference of ownership of estates to the State Government and falls within the ambit of legislative head entry 36 of List II. There is no scheme of land reform within the framework of the statute except that a pious hope in expressed that the commission may produce one. The Bihar Legislature was certainly competent to make the law on the subject of transference of estates and the Act as regards such transfers it constitutional.
THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS VS PRANJAL KUMAR SARMA & ORS 28/11/2019 - Selection process-the norms existing on the date when the process of selection begins, will control the selection and the alteration to the norms would not affect the ongoing process unless the new Rules are to be given retrospective effect.
The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, (Patna) Vs Mahanth Sri Biseshwar Das- 09/02/1971 - Hindu Law—Religious endowment—Nature of grant—Property given to Head of Mutt—Nature of grant—Determination of.
The Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Ispat Khandan Janta Mazdoor Union-05/07/19 - where the contract was to supply of labour and necessary labour was supplied by the contractor who worked under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer, that in itself will not in any manner construe the contract entered between the contractor and contract labour to be sham and bogus per se.
The Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade – 03/05/19 - The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.
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...
The Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs Babita Puniya & Ors-17/7/2010 - Courts are indeed conscious of the limitations which issues of national security and policy impose on the judicial evolution of doctrine in matters relating to the Armed forces. For this reason, we have noticed that the engagement of women in the Combat Arms has been specifically held to be a matter of policy by the judgment of the Delhi High Court and which is not in question in the present appeals.
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Vs PHULPARI KUMARI- 06/12/2019 - Departmental Inquiry : It is settled law that interference with the orders passed pursuant to a departmental inquiry can be only in case of ‘no evidence’. Sufficiency of evidence is not within the realm of judicial review.
The State of Bombay Versus Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya-25/01/1951. - Subjective satisfaction—Scope of Judicial review—The grounds of detention cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides—The Court cannot sit in appeal over the grounds of detention to assess the sufficiency of the grounds or to come to a different conclusion.
The State of West Bengal Versus The Administrator, Howrah Municipality and others- 14/12/1971. - AIR 1972 SC 749 : (1972) 2 SCR 874 : (1972) 1 SCC 366 (SUPREME...
The Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd Madras Vs M/s. Fraser and Ross and another- 04/05/1960 - all DEFINITIONS in statutes generally begin with the qualifying words similar to the words used in the present case, namely, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.
Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj AND OTHERS Versus State of Rajasthan-21/01/1963 - The participation of the members of the public in the Darshan in the temple and in the daily acts of worship or in the celebrations of festival occasions may be a very important factor to consider in determining the character of the temple.
TRIAL OF MAHATMA GANDHI-1922 - The account of this trial is in substance taken from an admirable summary of it...
Triloki Nath Singh vs Anirudh Singh (d) Thr. Lrs & Ors-06/05/2020 - Whether the decree passed on a compromise can be challenged by the stranger to the proceedings in a separate suit? The appellant could file a suit for protection of his right, title or interest devolved on the basis of the stated sale deed dated 6th January, 1984, allegedly executed by one of the party (Sampatiya) to the proceedings in the partition suit, which could be examined independently by the Court on its own merits in accordance with law.
Tularam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh-2/5/2018 - MURDER-DISTINCTION BETWEEN MURDER AND CULPABLE HOMICIDE EXPLAINED-Section 300 of the IPC explains what is murder and it provides that culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or the act complained of is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or "such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
TULSA DEVI NIROLA AND OTHERS VS RADHA NIROLA AND OTHERS-04/03/2020 - Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925-The family pension did not constitute a part of the estate of the deceased.The right to family pension in more than one wife being conditional in nature and not absolute, in view of nomination in favour of respondent no.1 alone, appellant no 1 in the facts of the case can also be said to have waived her statutory right to pension in lieu of benefits received by her under the settlement deed.
U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors vs Anis Ahmad (01/07/2013) - The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider"; or “if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service”; or “hazardous service”; or “the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law”.
Uggarsain vs State of Haryana & Ors (03/07/2023) - In the present case, the High Court noted the respective ages of the accused-i.e., Krishan (61 years); Raju (40 years); Parveen (32 years); Sundar (39 years); Sandeep (25 years); Nar Singh (41 years) and Sunder s/o Rajpal (36 years). The court noted that Bramhajit had served in the army. Apart from these, the court noted the relative family circumstances: the number of children each accused had. It then adopted a uniform rule, i.e., the period of sentence undergone by the accused, as the appropriate sentence.
Uma Priyadarshini S. Vs. Suchith K. Nair (06/01/2022) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — S. 24 — Interim maintenance-The issue of maintenance has to be decided afresh by the concerned court/family court in accordance with the law, taking into account all relevant factors including the income of the respective spouses, the number of persons actually dependent on the spouses etc.
Umer khan Vs Bismillabi @ Babulal Shaikh and others-28/07/2011 - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a second appeal is confined only to such appeals which involve a substantial question of law
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2013 - These Rules shall govern the arbitration except that where any of these Rules is in conflict with a provision of the law applicable to the arbitration from which the parties cannot derogate, that provision shall prevail.
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dafadar Kartar Singh & Anr- 9/12/2019 - Summary Court Martial-The judgments of acquittal may be reversed or otherwise disturbed only for very substantial and compelling reasons. Very substantial and compelling reasons exist when the trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/ report of the ballistic expert, etc.
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Lt. Col. Kuldeep Yadav -25/09/2019 - COURT MARSHAL-Once, the respondent chose not to controvert the allegations made against him in the show cause notice and pursued the matter with the competent authority only for taking a lenient view, he cannot be permitted to resile from that position.
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma-02/07/2018 - When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done.
Union of India and Ors Vs Subrata Nath(23/11/2022) - being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct.
Union of India and Others Vs. Maj. Gen. Manomoy Ganguly, VSM-10/11/2017 - Service Law-Provision for assessment for promotion to Lt. General is same whether it is Army per se or Armed Medical Corps.
Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & ANR-17/07/2012 - DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION-Rule 15 Order XI provides for inspection of documents referred to in pleadings or affidavits. Rule 18 thereof, empowers the court to issue order for inspection. Rule 21 thereof provides for very stringent consequences for non-compliance with the order of discovery, as in view of the said provisions in case the party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatoriesInterrogatories Written questions are asked to one party by an opposing party, who must answer them in writing under oath. Interrogatories are a part of discovery in a lawsuit. or for discovery or inspection of documents, he shall, if he is a plaintiff, be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution and if he is a defendant, to have his defence, if any,
Union of India Vs. Rajendra N. Shah & Anr-20/07/21 - These appeals raise an important question as to the vires of the Constitution (Ninety Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011 [the "Constitution 97th Amendment Act"] which inter alia introduced Part IXB under the chapter heading 'The Co-operative Societies'.
Union of India Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors-01/10/2019 - Atrocities Act -There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. Arrest of a public servant can only be after approval of the appointing authority and of a nonpublic servant after approval by the S.S.P. To avoid false implication of an innocent, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted by the DSP.
Union of India Vs Hassan Ali Khan and Another-30/09/2011 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002—Section 4—Money Laundering—Bail granted by High Court—No attempt on part of Respondent to disclose source of large sums of Money handled by him—Having a foreign bank account and also having sizeable amounts of Money deposited therein does not ipso facto indicate commission of offence under PML Act, 2002—However, when there are other surrounding circumstances which reveal that there were doubts about origin of accounts and monies deposited therein, same principles would not apply—Respondent had not been able to establish that same were neither proceeds of crime nor untainted property—Bail cancelled.
Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others Vs State of ANDHRA PRADESH and others – 04/02/1993 - whether a citizen has a Fundamental Right to education for a medical, engineering or other professional degree.
UP Govt extend the tenure of Special Judge SK Yadav, hearing the Babri Masjid demolition case - The Uttar Pradesh government on Friday informed the Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Rohinton...
UP Vs. Retd SC/HC Judges (03/01/2023) - UP Vs. Retd SC/HC Judges: The High Court, acting on the judicial side, could not compel the State Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice in the purported exercise of his administrative powers. Policymaking by the government envisages various steps and the consideration of various factors, including local conditions, financial considerations, and approval from various departments. The High Court cannot use its judicial powers to browbeat the State Government to notify the Rules proposed by the Chief Justice.
Usha Chakraborty & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr (30/01/2023) - In order to cause registration of an F.I.R. and consequential investigation based on the same the petition filed under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., must satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences.
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
Varimadugu Obi Reddy Vs. B. Sreenivasulu & Ors (16/11/2022) - SARFAESI Act, 2002-Although the respondent borrowers initially approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, but the order of the Tribunal indeed was appealable under Section 18 of the Act subject to the compliance of condition of predeposit and without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal, the respondent borrowers approached the High Court by filing the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution. We deprecate such practice of entertaining the writ application by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available under the law
Vasant Ganpat Padave (D) by LRS. & Ors. Vs. Anant Mahadev Sawant (D) through LRS. & Ors-18/09/2019 - Statutory Interpretation: Where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly unjust...
Vasudev Vs State of Madhya Pradesh-01/02/2022 - As the use of the gun itself is not established by the FSL report, therefore, the conviction under Section 27 Arms Act also is not justified. Considering all these aspects, in our considered opinion, the ingredients of Section 307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act have not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, proving the guilt of the accused/appellant.
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Appellant Versus Union of India and ORS - KEYWORDS:-POLLUTION CONTROL-PIL DATE:-28-08-1996 Precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of the environmental...
Vemireddy Satyanarayan Reddy and other Vs State of Hyderabad-14/03/1956 - Spectator—Distinction with accomplice—A person witnessing crime but not passing on the information to Police cannot be termed as accomplice even though testimony of such person should be treated with caution.
Venture Global Engineering LLC Vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd. & ANR Etc-01/11/2017 - KEYWORDS:-Issue estoppel-public policy and fraud-doctrine of “alter ego of the Company SUPREME COURT OF INDIAIndia...
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.
Vijay Mallya vs.State Bank of India & Ors-31/08/2020 - Though the scope of review was thus limited, we have carefully considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Munim. Those submissions were dealt with and rejected in the judgment under review. In our considered view, the attempt on part of the respondent No.3 to have re-hearing in the matter cannot be permitted nor do the submissions make out any “error apparent on record” to justify interference in review jurisdiction.
Vikas Rathi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (01/03/2023) - The Constitution Bench has given a caution that power under Section 319 of the Code is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant and the crucial test as notice above has to be applied is one which is more that prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.
VINAY SHARMA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS-14/2/2020 - Nirbhaya’s case-Vinay Sharma – a death-row convict-we do not find any ground for exercise of judicial review of the order of the President of India rejecting the petitioner’s mercy petition and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Vinayak Vs Jayashree: Dispute on Development Agreement (01/03/2024) - This case involves a dispute between legal representatives of a deceased sole proprietor and complainants over a development agreement. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) upheld its earlier findings, stating that the legal representatives are accountableAccountable The legal and political obligation of an independent institution to properly explain and justify its decisions to the citizens and their elected representatives, thereby making it responsible for fulfilling its objectives. The Supreme Court of India is not accountable to the Indian citizens and, more formally, to the Parliament. for the deceased developer's liabilities under the agreement. However, the Supreme Court held that personal obligations of the deceased do not transfer to legal representatives.
Vinod Katara Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (12/09/2022) - Concept of personal liberty has received a far more expansive interpretation. The notion that is accepted today is that liberty encompasses these rights and privileges which have long been recognized as being essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free man and not merely freedom from bodily restraint. There can be no cavil in saying that lodging juveniles in adult prisons amounts to deprivation of their personal liberty on multiple aspects.
Vinod Kumar vs State Of Punjab (23/09/2014) - The law requires special reasons to be recorded for grant of time but the same is not taken note of. As has been noticed earlier, in the instant case the cross-examination has taken place after a year and 8 months allowing ample time to pressurize the witness and to gain over him by adopting all kinds of tactics. There is no cavil over the proposition that there has to be a fair and proper trial but the duty of the court while conducting the trial to be guided by the mandate of the law, the conceptual fairness and above all bearing in mind its sacrosanct duty to arrive at the truth on the basis of the material brought on record.
Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs The State Of Gujarat 16/10/2019 - To ensure that a “proper investigation” takes place in the sense of a fair and just investigation by the police - which such Magistrate is to supervise - Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates that all powers necessary, which may also be incidental or implied, are available to the Magistrate to ensure a proper investigation which, without doubt, would include the ordering of further investigation after a report is received by him under Section 173(2); and which power would continue to enure in such Magistrate at all stages of the criminal proceedings until the trial itself commences.
VISHAL N. KALSARIA Vs. BANK OF INDIA & ORS -20/01/2016 - If we accept the legal submissions made on behalf of the Banks to hold that the provisions of SARFAESI Act override the provisions of the various Rent Control Acts to allow a Bank to evict a tenant from the tenanted premise, which has become a secured asset of the Bank after the default on loan by the landlord and dispense with the procedure laid down under the provisions of the various Rent Control Acts and the law laid down by this Court in catena of cases, then the legislative powers of the state legislatures are denuded which would amount to subverting the law enacted by the State Legislature. Surely, such a situation was not contemplated by the Parliament while enacting the SARFAESI Act
Vishin N. Khanchandani and Anr Vs Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani and Anr-16/08/2000. - Whether the nominee specified in the National Savings Certificate, on the death of its holder, becomes entitled to the sum due under the certificate to the exclusion of all other persons?, or whether the amount of the certificate can be retained by him for the benefit of the legal heirs of the deceased?
Vishwabandhu Vs. Sri Krishna and Anr-29/09/2021 - MONEY SUIT-Ex Party Decree-Execution-Notice- when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement "refused" or "not available in the house" or "house locked" or "shop closed" or "addressee not in station", due service has to be presumed.
Vivek Narayan Sharma Vs. Union of India (02/01/2023) - Important questions fall for consideration: "(i) Whether the notification dated 8th November 2016 is ultra vires Section 26(2) and Sections 7, 17, 23, 24, 29 and 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; (ii) Does the notification contravene the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution; (iii) Assuming that the notification has been validly issued under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 whether it is ultra vires Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution; (iv) Whether the limit on withdrawal of cash from the funds deposited in bank accounts has no basis in law and violates Articles 14, 19 and 21; (v) Whether the implementation of the impugned notification(s) suffers from procedural and/or substantive unreasonableness and thereby violates Articles 14 and 19 and, if so, to what effect? (vi) In the event that Section 26(2) is held to permit demonetization, does it suffer from excessive delegation of legislative power thereby rendering it ultra vires the Constitution; (vii) What is the scope of judicial review in matters relating to fiscal and economic policy of the Government; (viii) Whether a petition by a political party on the issues raised is maintainable under Article 32; and (ix) Whether District Co-operative Banks have been discriminated against by excluding them from accepting deposits and exchanging demonetized notes."
Waqf Board, Rajasthan Vs. Jindal Saw Ltd. & Ors-29/04/2022 - The report of the experts is relevant only to the extent that the structure has no archaeological or historical importance. In the absence of any proof of dedication or user, a dilapidated wall or a platform cannot be conferred a status of a religious place for the purpose of offering prayers/Namaaz.
WAZIR CHAND Vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – 22/04/1954 - A person in possession of the goods even if not belonging to him cannot be dispossessed without authority of law. Goods in the possession of a person who is not lawfully in possession of them cannot be seized except under authority of law, and in absence of such authority, one could not be deprived of them.
While applying Article 227 Constitution, HC cannot act as Court of Appeal-MD. INAM VS SANJAY KR SINGHAL -26/06/2020 - Art 227 of Constitution of India - It is a well settled principle of law, that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law.
XX vs MP: Not a Rape case, the lady agreed for sexual relationship - The Supreme Court of India, in the case of XXXX v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another, Criminal Appeal No. 3431 of 2023, quashed the FIR filed against the appellant. The appellant was accused of rape on the false promise of marriage, but the court found discrepancies in the complainant's statements and ruled in favor of the appellant. The court noted that the complainant's actions and statements did not align with her allegations, and hence, the FIR was quashed. This decision was based on similar precedents where consent was deemed to be given knowingly. The High Court's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Yadaiah and Anr. Vs. State of Telangana and Ors (01/08/2023) - The effective test to distinguish between a fundamental or collateral determination is hinged on the inquiry of whether the concerned determination was so vital to the decision that without which the decision itself cannot stand independently. Any determination, despite being deliberate or formal, cannot give rise to application of the doctrine of res judicata if they are not fundamental in nature.
Yashoda (alias Sodhan) Vs. Sukhwinder Singh and Ors-12/09/2022 - The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax evaders, bank loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
Yashpal Vs Sushila: SC Issued 12 Directions for Speedy Trial - The Supreme Court, in the case of Yashpal Jain Vs. Sushila Devi & Ors., noted the dire need for reforms to address the pervasive issue of delay and pendency in the Indian judicial system. The case itself, which concerns a dispute dating back to 1982, highlighted the acute problem of protracted legal proceedings. The Court emphasized the indispensable role of a swift and efficient judiciary in upholding the rights and liberties of the citizens. It underscored the urgency for streamlining procedures, bolstering infrastructure, and investing in technology to ensure timely justice. The Court issued a series of comprehensive directives to trial courts, aiming to expedite the trial process, monitor pending cases, and curb unwarranted adjournments. The judgment not only urged stakeholders, including the legal fraternity, legislature, and executive, but also emphasized the fundamental duty of every citizen to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity. The judgment emphasized the critical role of the judiciary in leading the charge for legal reform to address the issue of delay and pendency, highlighting the need for urgent action to restore the faith of all citizens in the promise of a just and equitable society.
Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director & ANR – 10/04/2019 - Under the common lawCommon law The legal system that originated in England and is now...
Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director & ANR-14/11/2019 - REVIEW: The common judgment in four Writ Petitions has generated three Review Petitions, a Contempt Petition and a Petition under Section 340 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and an application seeking correction.
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 muslimMuslim A community gathered around Muhammad (d. 632 CE) and confessed that Muhammad was the last of Prophets and he received Quran through Zibreel Farista from Allah. Hadith of Sahih Bukhari faithfully recorded the commands of Muhammad. He acknowledged the contribution of Jesus to the Abrahamic Religion. community.

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh Etc (10/04/2023) - The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution / investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution / investigating agency.
Chaitu Lal Vs. State of Uttarakhand-20/11/2019 - RAPE-The attempt to commit an offence begins when the accused commences to do an act with the necessary intention. In the present case, the accused appellant pounced upon the complainant victim, sat upon her and lifted her petticoat while the complainant victim protested against his advancements and wept.
Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Versus Ashalata S. Guram-25/09/1986 - Statutory tenant is in the same position as a contractual tenant until the decree for eviction was passed against him and the rights of a contractual tenant included the right to create licence even if he was the transferor of an interest which was not in fact the transfer of interest.
Chandi Puliya Vs. State of West Bengal (12/12/2022) - DISCHARGE-the stage of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is a stage prior to framing of the charge (under Section 228 Cr.P.C.) and it is at that stage alone that the court can consider the application under Section 300 Cr.P.C. Once the court rejects the discharge application, it would proceed to framing of charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C.
Chandigarh Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Punjab & Anr-14/2/2020 - Arbitration Award-an Award can neither be remitted nor set aside merely on the ground that it does not contain reasons in support of the conclusion or decision reached in it except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission requires it to give reasons. In that light the learned advocate would point out that in the instant case the agreement between the parties would require that the learned Arbitrator has to assign reasons for the Award and when such requirement is stipulated the Award passed without reasons would not be sustainable being contrary to the explicit requirement in the contract between the parties.
CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN – 09/05/2014 - The basic ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreementContract An agreement...
Chandrabhan (D) LRS. & Ors. Vs. Saraswati & Ors (22/09/2022) - Substantial Question of Law-The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be, whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court.
Chanmuniya Vs Chanmuniya Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Another – 07/10/2010 - Keywords:- Live in a relationship:- wife- Women in live-in relationships are also entitled to all...
Charanjit Lal Chowdhury Vs The Union of India and others – 04/12/1950. - Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 14, 19, 31, 32—Deprivation of property
Charansingh Vs State of Maharashtra and others-24/03/2021 - A GD entry recording the information by the informant disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence can be treated as FIR in a given case and the police has the power and jurisdiction to investigate the same. The appellant has been summoned for a preliminary enquiry only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. If the preliminary enquiry discloses the cognizable offence, then a first information report will be registered against the appellant.
Chaturbhuj Versus Sita Bai-27/11/2007 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 125—Phrase “unable to maintain herself”—Meaning of—It would mean that means available to deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself efforts made by wife after desertion to survive somehow.
Chherturam @ Chainu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (13/09/2022) - Son Murdered Father-The only redeeming feature is that the appellant has already undergone 12 years of sentence and on completion of the sentence, as per remission policy, he would be liable to be considered for release. The only aspect which we are inclined to consider is to issue a direction to the State to consider the case of the appellant for remission, the moment he completes the mandatory sentence as per the policy for such consideration.
Chhote Lal Vs. Rohtash & Ors (14/12/2023) - The appellant/complainant, a sole eyewitness, happens to be the most interested witness being the father of the deceased and having long enmity with the group to which the accused persons belong, therefore, his testimony was to be examined with great caution and the High Court was justified in doing so and in doubting it so as to uphold the conviction on his solitary evidence.
Chief Election Commissioner of India Vs. M.R Vijayabhaskar & Ors-06/05/2021 - we must emphasize the need for judges to exercise caution in off-the-cuff remarks in open court, which may be susceptible to misinterpretation. Language, both on the Bench and in judgments, must comport with judicial propriety. Language is an important instrument of a judicial process which is sensitive to constitutional values. Judicial language is a window to a conscience sensitive to constitutional ethos. Bereft of its understated balance, language risks losing its symbolism as a protector of human dignity.
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER VS HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND-04/03/2020 - If The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating a third party to have access to the information/obtaining the certified copies of the documents or orders requires to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information, is not inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act;
Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act: SC - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VS SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL 13/11/2019-Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act: SC
Chirag M. Pathak & Ors. Etc. Vs. Dollyben Kantilal & Ors (15/11/2017) - The condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under S.157 of the Code is that the F.I.R. must disclose, prima facie, that a cognizable offence has been committed. It is wrong to suppose that the police have an unfettered discretion to commence investigation under S.157 of the Code. Their right of inquiry is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably, have reason so to suspect unless the F.I.R., prima facie, discloses the commission of such offence.
Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)-10/08/2009 - Instigation—A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation—Presence of mens rea is necessary concomitant of instigation.
Church of North India Vs Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai and others-03/05/2005 - AIR 2005 SC 2544 : (2005) 3 SCR 1037 : (2005) 10 SCC 760 :...
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi-iii vs M/S. Uni Products India Ltd-01/05/2020 - The common parlance test”, “marketability test”, “popular meaning test” are all tools for interpretation to arrive at a decision on proper classification of a tariff entry. These tests, however, would be required to be applied if a particular tariff entry is capable of being classified in more than one heads.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Vs. M/s. Krishna Wax Pvt. Ltd-14/11/2019 - Writ in Excise Matter-It has been laid down by this Court that the excise law is a complete code in itself and it would normally not be appropriate for a Writ Court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the concerned person must first raise all the objections before the authority who had issued a show cause notice and the redressal in terms of the existing provisions of the law could be taken resort to if an adverse order was passed against such person.
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal – 13/08/2019 - Income Tax Act - According to Section 292BB of the Act, if the assessee had participated in the proceedings, by way of legal fiction, notice would be deemed to be valid even if there be infractions as detailed in said Section.
COMMON CAUSE, A REGISTERED SOCIETY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS- 03/08/1999 - Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or reconstruction. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility Yet in the realm of law the Courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality ot decision legally and properly made Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage ot justice Even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest Court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the Courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice,
Competition Commission of India Versus Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Another-9/9/2010 - Competition act, 2002—Sections 16(1), 4, 6, 3, 26, 29 and 19—competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009—Regulations 30(2), 18(2), 35 and 17(2)—U.P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings act, 1960—Section 9(2)—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 14.
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.
Cotton Corporation of India Limited VS United Industrial Bank Limited and others-19/09/1983 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 39, Rules 1 and 2—Restraint on legal proceedings—Permissibility—The Court cannot grant injunction restraining a person from initiating legal proceedings.
D. Sasi Kumar Vs. Soundararajan-23/09/2019 - If as on the date of filing the petition the requirement subsists and it is proved, the same would be sufficient irrespective of the time-lapse in the judicial process coming to an end.
D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal- 21/10/2010 - Key Words:– Maintenance-Delay-a relationship in the nature of marriage-Polimony-common lawCommon law The legal system that...
D.S. NAKARA AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) – 17/12/1982 - Do pensioners entitled to receive superannuation or retiring pension under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,...
Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRS. & Ors- 09/07/2020 - The words "right to sue" means the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Order VII Rule 11(d) provides that where a suit appears from the averments in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected.
Dalbir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors-02/07/19 - Summary General Court Martial-In service matters the past conduct, both positive and negative will be relevant not only while referring to the misconduct but also in deciding the proportionality of the punishment, the Court should be cautious while considering the case of an officer/soldier/employee of a disciplined force and the same yardstick or sympathetic consideration as in other cases cannot be applied. The resources of the country are spent on training a soldier to retaliate and fight when the integrity of the nation is threatened and there is aggression. In such grave situation if a soldier turns his back to the challenge, it will certainly amount to cowardice.
Dalip Singh and others Versus State of Punjab-12/01/1979 - Although a dying declaration recorded by a Police Officer during the course of the investigation is admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act is view of the exception provided in sub section (2) of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is better to leave such dying declarations out of consideration until and unless the prosecution satisfies the court as to why it was not recorded by a Magistrate or by a Doctor.
Dalip Singh Versus State of U.P. and ORS -03/12/2009 - False statement on oath-it is clear that in this case efforts to mislead the authorities and the courts have transmitted through three generations and the conduct of the appellant and his son to mislead the High Court and this Court cannot, but be treated as reprehensible. They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting the course of justice.
Dammu Sreenu Vs State of ANDHRA PRADESH-28/05/2009 - Penal Code, 1860—Section 306—abetment of suicide—Wife of deceased having illicit relationship with accused-appellant—Fact that appellant...
Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ANR-06/02/2018 - If an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to...
Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors-29 /07/2022 - SEC-482 Cr.P.C-Inherent power to recall a judgment and/or order which was without jurisdiction or a judgment and/or order passed without hearing a person prejudicially affected by the judgment and/or order.
Dayal Saran Sanan Vs Union of India and others-16/01/1980 - Constitution of India, 1950—Article 311(2)—Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965—Rule 19(1)—Natural justice—Petitioner dismissed from service because of conviction by Criminal Court—In appeal dismissal was modified to one of compulsory retirement—No notice was issued before passing order of dismissal—No summary inquiry was held and no opportunity was given before passing order of dismissal or of compulsory retirement—Order liable to be set aside.
Dayanandi Vs Rukma D. Suvarna and Others-31/10/2011 - Hindu Law—Partition—Partition suit decreed by High Court in favour of defendant-respondent reversing decree of Trial Court—Some manipulative alterations were made in Will giving an impression that before putting his left thumb mark, testator had consciously disinherited respondent—Execution of second Will was highly suspicious and not a voluntary act of testator—Appeal dismissed.
Deb Narayan Shyam and others Vs State of WEST BENGAL and others-01/12/2004 - whether the qualifications, the duties discharged by the surveyors and Amins are same and identical so as to treat the Amins at par with that of the surveyors may be taken up for consideration.
Deenadayal Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Munjaji and Ors-16/02/2022 - That the borrower defaulted in payment of the appellant-bank and Vaidanath Bank in the year 2010. Both the banks initiated separate recovery proceedings against respondent no.1 and the borrower. A Recovery Certificate dated 6.2.2010 was issued in favour of the appellant-bank under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MCS Act, 1960').
Deepak Gaba and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr (02/01/2023) - In case of a private complaint, the Magistrate can issue summons when the evidence produced at the pre-summoning stage shows that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The material on record should indicate that the ingredients for taking cognizance of an offence and issuing summons to the accused is made out.
Deepak Vs. Chhattisgarh (19/02/2024) - Police machinery is not for recovering money: The case involves allegations of financial impropriety and broken promises, leading to an investigation by the police. The appeal contests the correctness of the judgment dismissing the petition to quash the criminal proceedings. It emphasizes the need for judicious allocation of law enforcement resources and concludes that the criminal prosecution should be quashed due to the dubious nature of the claims.
Delhi International Airport Ltd Vs Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (04/12/2023) - SUPREME COURT OF INDIAIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the name of this land mass....
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress and others – 4/09/1990 - whether the employer, Statutory Corporation or instrumentality or other authority under Art. 12 of the Constitution has unbridled power to terminate the services of a permanent employee by issue of notice or pay in lieu thereof without inquiry or opportunity, in exercise of the power in terms of contract which include statutory Rules or Regulations or instructions having force of law.
Deoki Nandan Versus Murlidhar and others – 04/10/1956 - Under the Hindu law, an idol is a juristic person capable of holding property and the properties endowed for the institution vest in it.
DEOKINANDAN PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS - SUPREME COURT OF INDIAIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the name of this land mass....
DEV KARAN @ LAMBU VS STATE OF HARYANA- 06/08/2019 - "We may also notice that there are concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, which have appreciated the evidence, and we do not think that this Court should convert itself into a third court of appeal for appreciation of evidence."
Devendra and OTHERS Vs State of U.P. and ANOTHER – 06/05/2009 - When the allegations made in the First Information Report or the evidences collected during investigation do not satisfy the ingredients of an offence, the superior courts would not encourage harassment of a person in a criminal court for nothing.
Devi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan-8/01/2019 - the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved"
Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai Vs. State of Bihar (14/07/2022) - CRIMINAL APPEAL- the plain language of Sections 385-386 does not contemplate dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter. On the contrary, the Code envisages disposal of the appeal on merits after perusal and scrutiny of the record.
Dhananjay Sharma Vs State of Haryana and others-02/05/1995 - Contempt of CourtContempt of Court Failure to obey a court order. A disregard of, or...
DHANPAT VERSUS SHEO RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS-19/03/2020 - WILL-it is the overall assessment of the Court on the basis of the unusual features appearing in the Will or the unnatural circumstances surrounding its execution, that justifies a close scrutiny of the same before it can be accepted.
Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors-29/01/2016 - The power to order fresh, de-novo or re-investigation being vested with the Constitutional Courts, the commencement of a trial and examination of some witnesses cannot be an absolute impediment for exercising the said constitutional power which is meant to ensure a fair and just investigation. It can never be forgotten that as the great ocean has only one test, the test of salt, so does justice has one flavour, the flavour of answering to the distress of the people without any discrimination.
Dharmarajan and Ors Vs Valliammal and Ors- 11/12/2007 - Adverse possession—possession has to be open and adverse to the owner of the property—Evidence did not show this openness and adverse nature because it is not even certain as to against whom the adverse possession was pleaded—Held that plea of adverse possession is not maintainable.
Dharmendra Kumar Vs Usha Kumar-19/08/1977 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 13(1A)(i) & (ii) and 23—Scope and applicability of—Mere non-compliance with the decree for Restitution does not constitute a wrong within the meaning of Section 23(1)(a)—In order to be a wrong under the section, the conduct alleged must be more than a mere disinclination to agree to an offer of reunion—It must be serious misconduct
Digambar Vs State of Maharashtra (28/04/2023) - we find that the present case cannot be considered to be 'rarest of rare' case. In any case, the report of the Probation Officer, Nanded as well as the Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison would show that the appellant-Digambar has been found to be well-behaved, helping and a person with leadership qualities. He is not a person with criminal mindset and criminal records.
Dilawar Singh Vs State of Delhi-05/09/2007 - Penal Code, 1860—Sections 392, 395, 397 and 452—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 154(3), 210 and 465
DILIP SHAW @ SANATAN & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS-02/03/2020 - Common object-The fact that there was short time gap and little deviation in describing the exact place of occurrence by themselves cannot detach the involvement of the persons who had hurled the bombs from rest of the accused persons altogether, who were part of the same group. They were harbouring common object, which fact emerges from various factors including having assembled therewith weapons of assault and their participation in the acts of assault. These weapons were capable of causing death. The act of hurling bombs was in very close proximity in time to the act of assault on Sarban.
Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Padmanabhan Kishore (31/10/2022) - Prevention of Money Laundering Act-Proceeds of crime-By handing over money with the intent of giving bribe, such person will be assisting or will knowingly be a party to an activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Without such active participation on part of the person concerned, the money would not assume the character of being proceeds of crime
Dr. Abraham Patani of Mumbai & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (02/09/2022) - we deem the present case to be an appropriate instance where public interest must have paramountcy over private interest. We emphasize once again before parting that the rights of the individual must only be watered down when the necessary circumstances demanding such a drastic measure exist.
Dr. Ashwani Kumar Vs. Union of India and Another – 5/09/2019 - The right to life with dignity under Article 21, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Central Government to enact a suitable stand-alone, comprehensive legislation against custodial torture as it has directed in the case of mob violence/lynching vide its judgment 17th July 2018.
Dr. Jagdish Saran and others Vs Union of India and others-28/01/1980 - In the adversary system, advocacy in the superior courts, which by their decisions, declare the law for all, must broaden beyond the particular lis into a conspectus of sociological facts, economic factors and educational conditions so that other persons aggrieved, who will potentially be bound by the decision, do not suffer by not being eo nomine parties. Surely, on the available material, counsel have done their best.
Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minister & Ors-05/06/2021 - The Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in the public services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 as amended in 2019 granting 12% and 13% reservation for Maratha community in addition to 50% social reservation is not covered by exceptional circumstances as contemplated by Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney's case.
Dr. Manik Bhattacharya Vs. Ramesh Malik and Ors (18/10/2022) - PROTECTION FROM ARREST GRAMTED-The case on hand is a case where the criminal law is directed to be set in motion on the basis of the allegations made in anonymous petition filed in the High Court. No judicial order can ever be passed by any court without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person likely to be affected by such order and particularly when such order results in drastic consequences of affecting one's own reputation.
Dr. Manik Bhattacharya Vs. Ramesh Malik and Ors (20/10/2022) - The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("2002 Act"), money laundering is an independent offence and in the event there is any allegation of the Enforcement Directorate having acted beyond jurisdiction or their act of arrest is not authorized by law, the petitioner would be entitled to apply before the appropriate Court of law independently. But that question could not be examined in a Special Leave Petition arising from the proceedings in which the question of Money Laundering were not involved.
Dr. Monica Kumar and ANR Vs State of U.P and ORS-27/05/2008 - Under Article 142 of the Constitution this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter' pending before it. The expression “cause” or “matter” would include any proceeding pending in court and it would cover almost every kind of proceeding in court including civil or criminal.
Dr. S. Kumar & Ors. Vs. S. Ramalingam-16/07/19 - Section 41 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882-Easement of necessity-The argument that right of easement stands extinguished once the easement of necessity comes to an end is not applicable if the rights of the parties arise out of a sale deed and the rights of the parties have to be adjudicated upon as they exist on the date of filing of the suit. The subsequent events of inheritance vesting the property in the same person will not take away the easement right. The appellants have been granted right to use passage in the sale deed.
DR. SHAH FAESAL AND ORS. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR- 02/03/2020 - Supreme Court is of the opinion that there is no conflict between the judgments in the Prem Nath Kaul case (supra) and the Sampat Prakash case (supra). The plea of the counsel to refer the present matter to a larger Bench on this ground is therefore rejected
EIH Ltd. Vs. Nadia A Virji (01/08/2022) - West Bengal Tenancy Law-Under the tenancy agreement, the rent payable would be Rs. 10,000/- per month which does not include the municipal taxes payable. The liability to pay the taxes under the agreement would be over and above the amount of rent, i.e., Rs. 10,000/- per month.
Essemm Logistics Vs Darcl Logistics Ltd. & Anr (01/05/2023) - No notice under Section 16 of the new Act was necessary for instituting any suit or legal proceedings much less counter-claim against the common carrier for recovering the loss other than the loss of or damage to the consignment and, therefore, the courts below manifestly erred in rejecting the counter-claim under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as barred by Section 16 of the new Act.
Farhana Vs. UP (19/02/2024) - Continuing prosecution under Gangsters Act stands struck off and in consequence, prosecution of appellants is abusing the process of Court. The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, stating that as the appellants were exonerated in the predicate offences, the prosecution under the Gangsters Act was unjustified.
Federation of Bank of India Staff Unions & ANR. Vs. Union of India & ANR- 1/3/2019 - Indeed, the qualifications and disqualifications are bound to vary from category to category and would depend on the post, experience and the stream from where a person is being nominated as a Director.
Firdous Omer (D) by LRs and OTHERS Versus Bankim Chandra Daw (D) by LRs and OTHERS-28/07/2006 - Dismissal of a suit-whether an application for restoration of the suit dismissed under Rule 35 of Chapter X of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court is maintainable and if it is maintainable whether an application could be entertained only if it is filed before the order dismissing the suit is drawn up, completed and filed.
Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade P. Ltd. Versus AMCI (I) Ltd. AND ANOTHER-27/07/2009 - In an adversarial process, each party to a dispute presents its case to the natural...
Fr. Issac Mattammel Cor-Episcopa Vs. St. Mary’s Orthodox Syrian Church & Ors.- 6/09/2019 - Malankara Church is episcopal in character to the extent it is so declared in the 1934 Constitution. The 1934 Constitution fully governs the affairs of the parish churches and shall prevail.
Franklin Templeton Trustee Services Private Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Amruta Garg and Ors. Etc-14/07/2021 - Since the Regulations are in the nature of economic regulations, while exercising the power of judicial review, we would exercise restraint unless clear grounds justify interference. We would not supplant our views for that of the experts as this can put the marketplace into serious jeopardy and cause unintended complications.
Full text of the Supreme Court Judgment on Ram Janmabhumi Title appeal - M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs Vs Mahant Suresh Das & Ors Date: SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 9TH,...
Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC & Ors-15/02/2022 - Before we deal with the issue at hand, it may be necessary to recount brief facts. Aggrieved by the sale transaction between Future Retail Limited (FRL)Reliance Group, Amazon initiated an arbitration proceeding before the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC), in terms of Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. (FCPL)Amazon agreements.
G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. and another Vs Govt. of Karnataka and another-29/04/1991 - REJECTION OF LEAVE GRANTED BY SC-It is well settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for ‘such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the Special Leave Petitions.
G.J. Raja Vs. Tejraj Surana(30/07/2019) - NI ACT-The applicability of Section 143A of the Act must, therefore, be held to be prospective in nature and confined to cases where offences were committed after the introduction of Section 143A, in order to force an accused to pay such interim compensation.
Ganpati Babji Alamwar (D) by LRS. Ramlu and Others Vs. Digambarrao Venkatrao Bhadke and Others- 12/09/2019 - Mortgage by conditional sale-There must exist a debtor and creditor relationship. The valuation of the property, and the transaction value, along with the duration of time for reconveyance, are important considerations to decide the nature of the agreement.
Gautam Sarup Versus Leela Jetly and OTHERS- 07/03/2008 - An admission made in a pleading is not to be treated in the same manner as an admission in a document.
Gayatri Devi Pansari Versus State of Orissa and others – 11/04/2000 - The Policy of the State Government, indisputably being to provide 30% of the 24 hours Medical Stores within a District in favour of ladies by virtue of specific orders passed, therefore, that would itself provide sufficient and valid as well as legal basis for extending preference in favour of a lady applicant as long as the ceiling limit is not violated.
Gazi Khan alias Chotia Vs State of Rajasthan and anr- 02/05/1990 - Constitution of India, 1950—Article 22(5)—Habeas corpus—Return—Affidavit of Police Officer having no personal knowledge of the matter—Practice deprecated.
Gelus Ram Sahu and others Vs. Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh and others-18/02/2020 - It is the well-settled legal position that an amendment can be considered to be declaratory and clarificatory only if the statute itself expressly and unequivocally states that it is a declaratory and clarificatory provision. If there is no such clear statement in the statute itself, the amendment will not be considered to be merely declaratory or clarificatory.
Ghanshyam Vs Yogendra Rathi (02/06/2023) - The suit is for eviction of the defendant-appellant from the suit premises and for recovery of mesne profits on the ground that after the defendant-appellant has parted with the possession of the property in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in part performance of the agreement, he has no right to disturb his possession. He is simply a licencee and the licence having been terminated, he has no right to remain in possession but to restore possession to the person having rightful possessory title over it.
Google India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Visakha Industries and Another-10/12/2019 - DEFAMATION: Google hosts the Google Groups. The only question of fact is whether the appellant is in control of the said Group or it is, as claimed, controlled by its Parent Company. Hence, the issue is limited as to the role of appellant and its participation in the business of providing Google Groups platform and raising revenues for the same through advertisements, etc. apart from marketing it. The appellant, it is contended, cannot be allowed to disown its role in Google Groups. The appellant has withheld the actual nature of the activities it is carrying on in India. A party must come to court with clean hands.
Gopal Jha Vs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India – 25/10/2018 - In accordance with these rules, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of IndiaIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa)...
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
Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji Vs Shah Ranchhoddas Kalidas (Dead) and others-09/09/1969 - Though most of the present day Hindu public temples have been founded as public temples, there are instances of private temples becoming public temples in course of time.
Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Subhash Jain and Ors(02/12/2022) - The expression "paid" in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act.
Govind Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and another-18/03/1975 - M.P. Police Regulations—Regulation—855-The right to privacy in any event will necessarily have to go through a process of case-by-case development. Therefore, even assuming that the right to personal liberty, the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the freedom of speech create an independent right of privacy as an emanation from which one can characterize as a fundamental right, we do not think that the right is absolute.
Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel & Ors. Vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai-23/09/2019 - In the absence of any evidence of any forgery or fabrication and in the absence of specific denial of the execution of the gift deed, the Donee was under no obligation to examine one of the attesting witnesses of the gift deed.
GR Green Life Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Leitwind Shriram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd- 21/02/2021 - APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR-The appointment of the Sole Arbitrator is subject to the Declarations to be made under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with respect to independence and impartiality, and the ability to devote sufficient time to complete the arbitration. The Sole Arbitrator will be paid fees as per the Schedule of the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators' Fees) Rules, 2017.
Guda Vijayalakshmi Vs Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry-13/03/1981 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 21 and 21A—Sections 24 and 25 C. P. C. not excluded—Husband’s Divorce Suit can be transferred to the place where the wife’s maintenance suit is tried.
Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Solar Semiconductor Power Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others (25/10/2017) - The inherent power is not a provision of law to grant any substantive relief. But it is only a procedural provision to make orders to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court. It cannot be used to create or recognize substantive rights of the parties.
Guman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan – 24/5/2019 - A witness can be graded as reliable, unreliable, neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and consequences shall be followed accordingly
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Versus The State of Punjab-9/04/1980 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 437 and 438—Anticipatory bail—Considerations for—Anticipation of foul play—The provision for grant of bail can be invoked to meet such contingency in addition to other grounds.
Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Anr- 28/09/2007 - On a careful reading of Sec. 319 of the Code as well as the aforesaid...
Guru @ Gurubaran & Ors. Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police 27/09/2019 - Section 302, Indian Penal Code -the accused can only be held guilty of having committed the offence under Section 324 IPC. He has already undergone imprisonment for around 11 years and, therefore, his conviction under Section 302 IPC is altered to Section 324 IPC and the sentence is reduced to the period of incarceration already undergone.

H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs B.N. Thimmajamma and others-13/11/1958 - Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 67, 68, 45 and 47—Execution of Will—Proof of—The burden of proof is on the person propounding the Will.
H.V.P.N.L. Vs Mahavir-21/07/2000 - The Appellate Forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons.
Harendra Nath Bhattacharya and others Vs Kaliram Das (dead) by his legal representatives and others -22/11/1971 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 92—Leave to sue—Necessity of—No allegation of breach of trust or necessity of scheme of administration—Provision has no application.
Hari Narain Vs Badri Das-04/03/1963 - It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue and misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading.
Hari Sankaran Vs. Union of India & Others – 04/06/19 - Section 130(1) & (2) read with sections 211/212 and Sections 241/242 of the Companies Act, 2013- Report of the RBI Report can be taken note of, while upholding the order passed by the learned Tribunal under Section 130 of the Companies Act. As a larger public interest has been involved and reopening of the books of accounts and recasting of financial statements of the aforesaid companies is required to be carried out in the larger public interest, to find out the real truth, and the conditions precedent while invoking power under Section 130 of the Companies Act are satisfied/complied with, therefore order passed by the learned Tribunal passed under Section 130 of the Companies Act, confirmed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, is not required to be interfered with.
Harinarayan G. Bajaj Versus State of Maharashtra and Others-06/01/2010 - Under Section 244, Cr. P.C. the accused has a right to cross-examine the witnesses and in the matter of Section 319, Cr.P.C. when a new accused is summoned, he would have similar right to cross-examine the witness examined during the inquiry afresh.
Haripada Dey Versus The State of West Bengal and another- 05/09/1956 - No High Court can arrogate that function to itself and pass on to us a matter which in its view is purely one involving questions of fact, because it finds itself helpless to redress the grievance. In such a case, the High Court should refuse to give a certificate under Art. 134 (1) (c) and ask the parties to approach us invoking our special jurisdiction under Art. 136 (1) of the Constitution.
Harjit Singh Vs. Inderpreet Singh @ Inder and Anr – 24/08/2021 - Apex Court does not interfere with Bail order of HC. But, where the discretion of HC to grant bail has been exercised without due application of mind or in contravention of directions of apex Court, granting bail is liable to be set aside.
Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu(16/12/2022) - While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint.
Hemaji Waghaji Jat Vs Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and others-23/09/2008 - The law of adverse possession which ousts an owner on the basis of inaction within limitation is irrational, illogical and wholly disproportionate. The law as it exists is extremely harsh for the true owner and a windfall for a dishonest person who had illegally, taken possession of the property of the true owner. The law ought not to benefit a person who in a clandestine manner takes possession of the property of the owner in contravention of law. This in substance would mean that the law gives seal of approval to the illegal action or activities of a rank trespasser or who had wrongfully taken possession of the property of the true owner.
Hemareddi (D) through LRS. Vs. Ramachandra Yallappa Hosmani and Ors – 07/05/19 - ABATEMENT OF SUIT- Death of a party during the currency of a litigation -The impact of death of the late brother of the appellant qua the proceeding is one arising out of the incompatibility of a decree which has become final with the decree which the appellant invites the appellate court to pass.
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr-29/09/2021 - GRANTING BAIL-The issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitised judicial process
High Court, Calcutta and another vs Amal Kumar Roy and others-09/04/1962 - 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.
Himani Alloys Ltd. Vs Tata Steel Ltd-05/07/2011 - JUDGMENT ON ADMISSION-It is true that a judgment can be given on an “admission” contained in the minutes of a meeting. But the admission should be categorical. It should be a conscious and deliberate act of the party making it, showing an intention to be bound by it. Order 12 Rule 6 being an enabling provision, it is neither mandatory nor peremptory but discretionary. The court, on examination of the facts and circumstances, has to exercise its judicial discretion, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the Defendant, by way of an appeal on merits.
Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar Versus Sunanda-20/03/2001 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 13(1A) and 23—Divorce—Non-cohabitation for more than one year after judicial separation—Divorce not granted—Husband obliged to pay maintenance to wife—Refusal to pay maintenance is ‘wrong’ within the meaning of Section 23.
HIRAL P. HARSORA AND ORS. VERSUS KUSUM NAROTTAMDAS HARSORA AND ORS – 6/10/2016 - The words “adult male” in Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act will stand deleted since...
Hotel Priya, A Proprietorship Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors-18/02/2022 - DANCE BAR-whenever challenges arise, particularly based on gender, it is the task of the judges to scrutinize closely, whether, if and the extent to which the impugned practices or rules or norms are rooted in historical prejudice, gender stereotypes and paternalism.
How to compute compensation payable to the dependants of the deceased under MV Act-United India Insurance Vs. Satinder Kaur-30/06/2020 - United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors-U/S. 166/168 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988-The Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors[ (2017) 16 SCC 680]affirmed the view taken in Sarla Verma (supra) and Reshma Kumari (supra), and held that the age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. Another three-judge bench in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud & Ors.[(2019) 5 SCC 554] traced out the law on this issue, and held that the compensation is to be computed based on what the deceased would have contributed to support the dependants.
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...
Hussainara Khatoon and others Vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna- - Hussainara Khatoon- 2nd JudgmentJudgment The statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a...
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...
I. R. Coelho (dead) by L.Rs Vs State of Tamil Nadu -11/01/2007 - 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.
Icchu Devi Choraria Vs Union of India and others- 09/09/1980 - Habeas corpus-Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 32 and 22(5)—Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974—Section 3(3)— It is also necessary to point out that in case of an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the practice evolved by this Court is not to follow strict rules of pleading nor place undue emphasis on the question as to on whom the burden of proof lies. Even a postcard written by a detenu from jail has been sufficient to activise this Court into examining the legality of detention—Once the rule is issued it is the bounden duty of the Court to satisfy itself that all the safeguards provided by the law have been scrupulously observed and the citizen is not deprived of his personal liberty otherwise than in accordance with law.
IN RE- PRASHANT BHUSHAN & ANR. …. ALLEGED CONTEMNOR(S)-14/08/2020 - The scurrilous/malicious attacks by the alleged contemnor No.1 are not only against one or two judges but the entire Supreme Court in its functioning of the last six years. Such an attack which tends to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of this Court cannot be ignored. Recently, the Supreme Court in the cases of National Lawyers Campaign for Judical Transparency and Reforms and others vs. Union of India and others15 and Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors (supra) has suo motu taken action against Advocates who had made scandalous allegations against the individual judge/judges. Here the alleged contemnor has attempted to scandalise the entire institution of the Supreme Court.
In re: Arundhati Roy – 06/03/2002 - As the respondent has not shown any repentance or regret or remorse, no leinent view should be taken in the matter. However, showing the magnanimity of law by keeping in mind that the respondent is a woman, and hoping that better sense and wisdom shall dawn upon the respondent in the future to serve the cause of art and literature by her creative skill and imagination, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if she is sentenced to symbolic imprisonment besides paying a fine of ` 2000/-.
In Re: Expeditious trial of cases U/S 138 of NI Act 1881- Creation of Special Courts – 19/05/2022 - This court by its subsequent order dated 31.03.2021 had required High Courts to file status reports indicating compliance with the directions contained in the judgment and as to whether rules were framed appropriately in line with the judgment. Similarly, the necessary amendments to the Police Manuals etc. had to be carried out. As on date, all High Courts except the Patna High Court have complied with the directions and proposed the amended Rules. In many states, amended rules have even been notified.
In Re: Framing Guidelines Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances to be Considered While Imposing Death Sentences (19/09/2022) - In light of the above, there exists a clear conflict of opinions by two sets of three judge bench decisions on the subject. Consequently, this court is of the view that a reference to a larger bench of five Hon'ble Judges is necessary for this purpose. Let this matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders in this regard.
IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR-31/08/2020 - The Court, from the very beginning, was desirous of giving quietus to this matter. Directly or indirectly, the contemnor was persuaded to end this matter by tendering an apology and save the grace of the institution as well as the individual, who is an officer of the Court. However, for the reasons best known to him he has neither shown regret in spite of our persuasion or the advice of the learned Attorney General. Thus, we have to consider imposing an appropriate sentence upon him.
IN RE: THE DELHI LAWS ACT, 1912, THE AJMER-MERWARA (EXTENSION OF LAWS) ACT, 1947 AND THE PART C STATES (LAWS) ACT, 1950 - ( 1951) 2 SCR 747 SUPREME COURT OF INDIAIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the...
In Re: To Issue certain guidelines regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors- 20/04/2021 - This suo motu proceeding under Article 32 was initiated during the course of hearing of a criminal appeal (Crl.A.400/2006 & connected matters). The Court noticed common deficiencies which occur in the course of criminal trials and certain practices adopted by trial courts in criminal proceedings as well as in the disposal of criminal cases and causes.
In Re: To Issue certain Guidelines regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials-30/03/2017 - In the course of discussions at the Bar while considering this case, this Court had generally adverted to certain common inadequacies and imperfections that occur in the criminal trials in our country. I venture to suggest that in the interests of better administration of criminal justice and to usher in a certain amount of uniformity, and acceptance of best practices prevailing over various parts of India, this Court may consider issue of certain general guidelines to be followed across the board by all Criminal Courts in the country.
In West Bengal Panjabi speaking Sikhs are linguistic minority against Bengali: SC - Chandana Das (Malakar) Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors-25/09/2019- In the State of West Bengal, Sikhs are a linguistic minority vis-à-vis their language, namely, Punjabi, as against the majority language of the State, which is Bengali.
Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr Vs State of Uttaranchal and Ors -09/10/2007 - In complaint cases, at the first instance, the court should direct serving of the summons along with the copy of the complaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the summons, the court, in the second instance should issue bailable warrant. In the third instance, when the court is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the courts proceeding intentionally, the process of issuance of the non-bailable warrant should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount, therefore, we caution courts at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants.
Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State of Punjab and Another- 23/08/11 - Fraud-Equity-Void Ab initio-Domestic Violence-false statement-Conjugal Right For setting aside such an order, even if void,...
India does not have structured sentencing guidelines : Supreme Court Observed - State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Lal & Another
INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vs V.P. SHANTHA AND OTHERS-13/11/1995 - whether and, if so, in what circumstances, a medical practitioner can be regarded as rendering 'service' u/s 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Connected with this question is the question whether the service rendered at a hospital/nursing home can be regarded as 'service' u/s 2(1)(o) of the Act.
Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain- 07/11/1975 - When the constituent power exercises powers the constituent power comprises legislative, executive and judicial powers. All powers flow from the constituent power through the Constitution to the various departments or heads.
Indra Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr-23/07/21 - Section 197 of the CrPC seeks to protect an officer from unnecessary harassment, who is accused of an offence committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties and, thus, prohibits the court from taking cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the competent authority.
Indra Sawnhey v. Union of India – 16/11/1992 - KEYWORDS:- RESERVATION- AIR 1993 SC 477 : (1992) 2 Suppl. SCR 454 : (1992) 3...
Indusind Media & Communications Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi-27/09/2019 - CUSTOM-The basic principle of levy of customs duty, in view of the aforementioned provisions, is that the value of the imported goods has to be determined at the time and place of importation. The value to be determined for the imported goods would be the payment required to be made as a condition of sale. Assessment of customs duty must have a direct nexus with the value of goods which was payable at the time of importation.
International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd. Vs. The Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Others (24/10/2017) - The appeal is to be preferred before the Tribunal, as distinct from the appellate tribunal, within 30 days. Section 24 of the RDB Act, therefore, manifestly makes the provisions of the Limitation Act applicable only to such an original "application" made under Section 19 only. The definition of an "application" under Rule 2(c) cannot be extended to read it in conjunction with Section 2(b) of the Act extending the meaning thereof beyond what the Act provides for and then make Section 24 of the RDB Act applicable to an appeal under Section 30(1) of the Act. Any such interpretation shall be completely contrary to the legislative intent, extending the Rules beyond what the Act provides for and limits. Had the intention been otherwise, nothing prevented the Legislature from providing so specifically.
INTERNET AND MOBILE ASSOCIATION OF INDIA Vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA-04/03/2020 - Crypto Currency-The petitioner in the first writ petition is a specialized industry body known as ‘Internet and Mobile Association of India’ which represents the interests of online and digital services industry. The petitioners in the second writ petition comprise of a few companies which run online crypto assets exchange platforms, the shareholders/founders of these companies and a few individual crypto assets traders.
Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs Meenakshi Marwah and another-11/03/2005 - Civil vs Criminal Proceeding-effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal Courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein.
Iqbal Singh Narang and Others Vs Veeran Narang-30/11/2011 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 195 and 340—Perjury—Making of false statement in court of Rent Controller—Though Rent Controller discharges quasi-judicial functions, he is not a Court, as understood in conventional sense and he cannot make complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C.—Complaint could be made by a private party in the proceedings—Rent Controller, being a creature of Statute, has to act within four corners of Statute and could exercise only such powers as had been vested in him by Statute—No reason to quash proceedings.
Jacob Puliyel Vs Union of India-02/05/2022 - Imposing restrictions on the rights of persons who are unvaccinated is totally unwarranted as there is no basis for discriminating against unvaccinated persons. Vaccinated people are also prone to infection
Jagjeet Singh & Ors VS Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr-18/04/2022 - The victim’s right to participate in criminal trial and his/her right to know the status of investigation, and take necessary steps, or to be heard at every crucial stage of the criminal proceedings, including at the time of grant or cancellation of bail, were also duly recognised by the Committee.
Jagraj Singh Vs Birpal Kaur-13/02/2007 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 23(2)—Matrimonial Dispute—Court is expected, not bound, to make all efforts to bring about reconciliation between the partners—Personal presence of parties—Issuance of non-bailable warrants—Court has jurisdiction to pass such order which is in consonance with Section 23(2) of the Act.
JAI PRAKASH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS-28/11/2019 - Murder Conviction-Sections 302 IPC and 120-B IPC-The duty of the appellate court is to consider and appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution and arrive at an independent conclusion. Like the trial court, the appellate court also must be satisfied of its conclusion.
Jaiveer Singh Vs Uttarakhand (28/11/2023) - Prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority-Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine.
Janardhan Reddy and others Versus The State OF Hyderabad-14-12-1950 - Special Leave Petition—Scope of jurisdiction—Judgement passed by High Court of Hyderabad under the rule of H.E.H. Nizam of Hyderabad which was not part of territory of India before adoption of the Constitution of India—Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain Special Leave Petition against the order of High Court of Hyderabad.
Jasmeet Kaur Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr-12/12/ 2019 - It was evident from the conduct of the parties that they had abandoned their domicile of origin i.e. India, had set up their matrimonial home in the U.S. and raised their daughter in that environment. When the Petitioner - wife decided not to return to the U.S. in January, 2016 she acted in her self-interest, and not in the best interest of her children.
Jignesh Shah & ANR. Vs. Union of India & ANR-25/09/2019 - A winding up proceeding is a proceeding 'in rem' and not a recovery proceeding
Jiten K. Ajmera & ANR. Vs. M/s. Tejas Cooperative Housing Society – 06/05/19 - Consumer Complaint - Additional evidence before State Consumer Commission - Section 107(1) (d) r.w. Rule 27 of Order XLI, CPC - Under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC a party can produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, if it establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within its knowledge, or could not even after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed.
Jitendra Panchal Vs Intelligence Officer, NCB and Another 03/02/2009: The concept of double jeopardy - This appeal raises an interesting legal conundrum involving the laws of the United States of...
Jogi Ram Vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors -01/02/2022 - where a widow gets a share in the property under a preliminary decree before or at the time when the 1956 Act had been passed but had not been given actual possession under a final decree, the property would be deemed to be possessed by her and by force of s. 14(1) she would get absolute interest. in the property.
John White vs Kathleen White: Proof of Adultery by wife - In a suit based on a matrimonial offence it is not necessary and it is indeed rarely possible to prove the issue by any direct evidence for in very few cases can such proof be obtainable. The question to be decided in the present case therefore, is whether on the evidence which has been led, the court can be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that adultery was committed by the wife with respondent No. 2 at Patna between July 25, 1950, and July 28, 1950.
Jose Paulo Coutinho Vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira & ANR- 13/09/2019 - Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 as applicable in the State of Goa, which shall govern the rights of succession and inheritance even in respect of properties of a Goan domicile situated outside Goa, anywhere in India
Joseph Salvaraj A. Versus State of Gujarat and Others – 04/07/2011 - ( 2011) 6 SCALE 731 : (2011) 7 SCC 59 : AIR 2011 SC 2258...
Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh Samra & Ors. Vs. National Investigation Agency (01/05/2023) - Whether an accused is entitled to seek default bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the CrPC') on the ground that although the chargesheet might have been filed within the statutory time period as prescribed in law yet the chargesheet sans a valid order of sanction passed by a competent authority is no chargesheet in the eye of law and therefore, it is as good as saying that no chargesheet was filed by the investigating agency within the statutory time period as prescribed in law?
Justice V.S. Dave President vs Kusumjit Sidhu 18/04/2018 - the medical reimbursement of a retired Chief Justice and/or a retired judge of a High Court should be reimbursement of all medical expenses including hospital charges which a retired Chief Justice and/or a retired Judge of a High Court may have had to incur in connection with the medical treatment of himself and/or his/her dependent family members. Except for certain inadmissible items of expenditure, on which there can be no dispute, such reimbursement should extend to all items of expenditure including hospital charges.
K. Arjun Das Vs. Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa & Ors-17/9/2019 - The deity cannot be divested of any title or rights of immovable property in violation of the statutory provisions and this fact cannot be ruled out that the property belonging to the deity must fetch the best possible price..
K. Balakrishna Rao and others Versus Haji Abdulla Sait and others-10/10/1979 - Parties could not either by consent or acquiescence confer jurisdiction on court when law had taken it away.
K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr - Notice unclaimed and notice refused has the same meaning and to be understood as valid...
K. C. Gajapati Narayan Deo and others Vs State of Orissa-29/05/1953 - The legislature cannot violate the constitutional prohibitions by employing an indirect method.
K. Hasim Versus State of Tamil Nadu-17/11/2004 - Necessity and meaning of—Rule requiring corroboration for acting upon testimony of an accomplice is a rule of prudence
K. Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka-19/03/21 - SENTENCING POLICY-Many factors which may not be relevant to determine the guilt, must be seen with a human approach, at the stage of sentencing. While imposing the sentence, all relevant factors are to be considered, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of each case.
K. Shanthamma Vs. State of Telangana-21/02/2022 - The offence under Section 7 of the PC Act relating to public servants taking bribe requires a demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof. The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act
K. Subramani Vs. K. Damodara Naidu-13/11/2014 - Section 139 of the N.I. Act-Capacity to lend money-the complainant had no source of income to lend a sum of Rs.14 lakhs to the accused and he failed to prove that there is legally recoverable debt payable by the accused to him.
K. Virupaksha & Anr. Vs The State of Karnataka & Anr-03/02/2020 - Criminal Complaint in connection with SARFAESI- DRT Act-Complainant filed the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The said complaint being taken on record, the learned Magistrate has referred the same for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and to submit a report. Based on such direction an FIR was registered.
K.H. Nazar Vs. Mathew K. Jacob & Ors -30/09/2019 - Statutory Interpretation- Beneficial Legislation-Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of ‘bread and butter’ statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions
K.K. Velusamy Versus N. Palanisamy -30/03/2011 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 18, Rule 17 read with Section 151—Recall of witness—Ideally, recording of evidence should be continuous, followed by arguments, without any gap—Courts should constantly endeavour to follow such time schedule—Amended Code expects them to do so—If that is done, applications for adjournments, re-opening, recalling, or interim measures could be avoided.
K.P. Natarajan & Anr. Vs. Muthalammal & Ors-16/07/2021 - In a Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”), challenging an order of the trial Court refusing to condone the delay of 862 days
Kailash Gour and Others Vs State of Assam -15-12-2011 - This Court in State of H.P. v. Gian Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71 dealt with the effect of failure of prosecution to satisfactorily explain the delay in the lodging of the FIR and declared that if the delay is not satisfactorily explained the same is fatal to the prosecution.
Kale and others VS Deputy Director of Consolidation and others- 21/01/1976 - FAMILY SETTLEMENT-the family settlement arrived at by the parties was oral, and the petition filed by them on August 7, 1956 before the Assistant Commissioner was merely an information of an already completed oral transaction. In other words, the petition was only an intimation to the Revenue court or authority that the matters in dispute between the parties had been settled amicably between the members of the family, and no longer required determination and that the mutation be effected in accordance with that antecedent family settlement. Since the petition did not itself create or declare any rights in immovable property of the value of Rupees 100 or upwards, it was not hit by Sec. 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act, and as such was not compulsorily registrable.
Kamalapati Trivedi Versus The State of West Bengal-13/12/1978 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 195—Court—Meaning of—Order of discharge passed by the Magistrate—Taking of cognizance by the Magistrate is not necessary to regard him as a Court.
Kamatchi Vs. Lakshmi Narayanan-13/04/2022 - The provisions of the Act contemplate filing of an application under Section 12 to initiate the proceedings before the concerned Magistrate. After hearing both sides and after taking into account the material on record, the Magistrate may pass an appropriate order under Section 12 of the Act. It is only the breach of such order which constitutes an offence as is clear from Section 31 of the Act.
Kamlakar Vs. State of Maharashtra-31/05/19 - Section 302 & Section 147, 148 of Indian Penal Code- Supreme Court not interfered when having reappreciated the evidence to the extent it is required and a detailed perusal of the judgment passed by the Sessions Court as also the High Court would indicate that both the Courts have adverted to the evidence in detail and have ultimately arrived at the conclusion and when the concurrent judgment based upon the evidence have found the appellant to be guilty of the charge alleged against him in committing the murder and had convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Kanaklata Das & Ors. Vs. Naba Kumar Das & Ors-25/01/2018 - EVICTION SUIT-a necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively, a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding.
Kanchan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (14/09/2022) - DISCHARGE APPLICATION WAS ALLOWED BY SC-Allegation relating to Appellant's disproportionate income in the period between 1974 and 1988 was levelled in an FIR filed twelve years after the said period concluded. The charge-sheet came to be filed seven years after the registration of the FIR. The application for discharge came to be dismissed on 28.03.2016, almost after a decade of filing of the charge sheet. The dismissal was affirmed by the High Court seven months thereafter, i.e., on 05.10.2016. Finally, and most unfortunately, the present SLP has been pending before this Court for the last six years. In the meanwhile, the Appellant superannuated from service in 2010, but had no option except to contest the case. He is now 72 years. Continuation of the prosecution, apart from the illegality as indicated hereinabove, would also be unjust.
Kapila Hingorani Vs State of Bihar-09/05/2003 - Thus, the right equality of all human beings has been declared in the Vedas, which are regarded as inviolable. In order emphasize the dignity of the individual, it was said that all are brothers as all are the children of God. No one is inferior or superior. Similarly the Atharvanaveda stressed that all have equal right over natural resources and all were equally important like spokes in a wheel. Both the Rigveda and Atharvanaveda declared that co-operation between individuals in necessary for happiness and progress. It is also of utmost importance note that right equality and made a part of “Dharma” long before the State came be established.
KAPILDEO SINGH Vs THE KING - The essential question in a case under s. 147 is whether there was an unlawful...
Karam Kapahi and Ors Vs Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Another: 07/04/2010 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 12, Rule 6—Judgment on admission—Termination of lease—Non-payment of rent—Prayer for judgment on admission under Order 12, Rule 6 of CPC-Where controversy is between parties on an admission of non-payment of rent, judgment can be rendered on admission by Court—Club seeks to approbate and reprobate—Club was very negligent in pursuing its case—Doctrine of election squarely applies as Club has advanced inconsistent pleas—Club not entitled to any discretionary remedy—
Kari Choudhary Vs Most. Sita Devi and others-11/12/2001 - Legal position is that there cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same case. But when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency. Even that apart, the report submitted by the Court styling it is as FIR No. 208 of 1998 need be considered as an information submitted to the Court regarding the new discovery made by the police during investigation that persons not named in FIR No. 135 are the real culprits. To quash the said proceeding merely on the ground that final report had been laid in FIR No. 135 is, to say the least, too technical. The ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been committed and, if so who have committed it.
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VS B. HEERA NAIK & ORS. ETC- 26/11/2019 - Criminal-Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974- whether Commissioner of City Municipal Council and Chief Officers of City Municipal Council can be prosecuted under Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1974”).
Karuppanna Gounder Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police – 17/09/2019 - Accused acquitted : The question is whether the death of the deceased could be attributed...
Kashi Math Samsthan and Another Vs Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy and Another-02/12/2009 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Order 41, Rule 5 and Section 151—Injunction—By impugned judgment, High Court rejected interim applications filed by appellants seeking status quo and stay of execution of decree in a suit for declaration and injunction.
Kedar Nath Singh and ORS Vs State of Bihar AND ORS-24/01/1962 - SEDITION-The gist of the offence of ‘sedition’ is incitement to create public disorder by words spoken or written which have the tendency or the effect of bringing the Government established by law into hatred or contempt or creating disaffection in the sense of disloyalty to the State, in other words bringing the law into line with the law of sedition in England, as was the intention of the legislators when they introduced Section 124A into the Indian Penal Code in 1870 as aforesaid, the law will be within the permissible limits laid down in clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution.
Kesar Bai Vs. Genda Lal & Anr (14/10/2022) - ADVERSE POSSESSION-Suit seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction-In that view of the matter and once the substantial question of law on adverse possession was held in favour of the appellant - original defendant No.1 and the title/ownership claimed on the basis of the Sale Deed dated 31.08.1967 (Ex.P.1) was negated by all the Courts below, thereafter the possession/alleged possession of the plaintiffs could not have been protected by passing a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadgalvaru and others Versus State of Kerala and another 24/04/1973 - The view that Art. 368 is a complete code in itself in respect of the procedure provided by it and does not contemplate any amendment of a Bill for amendment of the Constitution after it has been introduced, and that if the Bill is amended during its passage through the House, the Amendment Act cannot be said to have been passed in conformity with the procedure prescribed by Art. 368 and would be invalid, is erroneous.
Keshavan Madhava Menon Vs The State of Bombay-22/01/1951 - What Art. 13(1) provides is that all existing laws which clash with the exercise of the fundamental rights (which are for the first time created by the Constitution) shall to that extent be void. As the fundamental rights became operative only on and from the date of the Constitution the question of the inconsistency of the existing laws which those rights must necessarily arise on and from the date those rights came into being.
Kewal Krishan Puri and another Vs State of Punjab and others- 04/05/1979 - Court pointing out the difference between “tax” and “fee” with reference to the constitutional provisions and otherwise also, the problem before us has presented some new angles and facets.
Kharak Singh Versus State of U.P. and others -18/12/1962 - An unauthorised intrusion into a person’s home and the disturbance caused to him thereby, is as it were the violation of a common law right of a man—an ultimate essential of ordered liberty, if not of the very concept of civilisation.
Khushal Rao Versus State of Bombay-25/09/1957 - Though under Section 133 of the Evidence Act, it is not illegal to convict a person on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Act, lays down as a rule of prudence based on experience, that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless his evidence is corroborated in material particulars and this has now been accepted as a rule of law.
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.
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)...
KRISHNA PRASAD VERMA (D) THR. LRS. VS STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 26/09/2019 - We are in no manner indicating that if a judicial officer passes a wrong order, then no action is to be taken. In case a judicial officer passes orders which are against settled legal norms but there is no allegation of any extraneous influences leading to the passing of such orders then the appropriate action which the High Court should take is to record such material on the administrative side and place it on the service record of the judicial officer concerned.
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)
Kumar Ghimirey Vs. State of Sikkim-22/04/2019 - Protection of children from sexual offences act-The failure on the part of the State Government to prefer an appeal does not, however, preclude the High Court from exercising suo motu power of revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code since the High Court itself is empowered to call for the record of the proceeding of any court subordinate to it. Subsection 4 of Section 401 operates as a bar to the party which has a right to prefer an appeal but has failed to do so but that subsection cannot stand in the way of the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction suo motu.
Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors – 19/08/2021 - It is made clear that person is entitled to claim benefit of reservation in either of the successor State of Bihar or State of Jharkhand, but will not be entitled to claim benefit simultaneously
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others-20/09/1990 - This was done in spite of the clear provisions in the L. R. Manual laying down detailed procedure for appointment, termination and renewal of tenure and the requirement to first consider the existing incumbent for renewal of his tenure and to take steps for a fresh appointment in his place only if the existing incumbent is not found suitable in comparison to more suitable persons available for appointment at the time of renewal