ive
Latest Cases

(1) RAHUL SHARMA AND ANOTHER Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-05-2021
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 140 - Compensation - Deceased was self­employed and was 37 years old - Annual income of the deceased was Rs. 2,55,349 - After deducting personal and living expenses and adding future prospects, the annual income is determined at Rs. 2,38,326 - Multiplier of 15 is appropriate, considering the age of the deceased - Accordingly, the total loss of dependency, is calculated to be Rs. 35,74,890/­ Not find any reason to interfere with any other heads as dete

(2) MANGALA WAMAN KARANDIKAR (D) THROUGH LRS.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-05-2021
Evidence Act, 1872 - Proviso 6 of Section 92 - Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement - When a document is a straightforward one and presents no difficulty in construing it, the proviso does not apply

(3) SANJAY KUMAR RAI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-05-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 239 and 397(2) - Discharge application - Orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are therefore not affected by the bar of Section 397 (2) of CrPC. - It is well settled that the trial court while considering the discharge application is not to act as a mere post office - The Court has to sift through the evidence in order to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to try the suspect - The

(4) ACHHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-05-2021
Criminal Law - Prosecution to examine witness - It is not necessary for the prosecution to multiply witnesses after witnesses on the same point; it is the quality rather than the quantity of the evidence that matters

(5) JAYAMMA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-05-2021
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 302 - Murder - Dying declaration - Victim with 80% burn injuries was apparently not in a situation to talk or give statement - Son of deceased himself has stated that his mother committed suicide - There is no other evidence led by the prosecution to connect the appellants with the crime - Appellants acquitted.

(6) MALLAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-05-2021
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 302 - Murder - Acquittal - Conviction on the basis of witness statements in respect to watching the accused running away - That would have been too thin piece of evidence to convict someone under Section 302 of the Code, applying the principle of res gestae.07-05-2021

(7) RAJKUMAR SABU Vs. M/S. SABU TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-05-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 406 - Transfer of Criminal Case - Salem Court to Patiala House Court, New Delhi - Petitioner complains about distance of over 2000 kilometres between Salem and petitioner's own place of residence at Indore and alleges that there is no direct connectivity between these two places - Jurisdiction of a court to conduct criminal prosecution is based on the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Often either the complainant or the accused have to

(8) GURU DUTT PATHAK Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-05-2021
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 302 and 34 - Murder - Absence of Motive - When there is a direct evidence in the form of eyewitnesses and the eyewitnesses are trustworthy and reliable, absence of motive is insignificant

(9) THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA Vs. M.R. VIJAYABHASKAR AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-05-2021
Freedom of Expression of the Media - Freedom of speech and expression extends to reporting the proceedings of judicial institutions as well - Courts are entrusted to perform crucial functions under the law - Their work has a direct impact, not only on the rights of citizens, but also the extent to which the citizens can exact accountability from the executive whose duty it is to enforce the law - Citizens are entitled to ensure that courts remain true to their remit to be a check on arbitrary ex

(10) OKRAM HENRY SINGH Vs. YUMKHAM ERABOT SINGH AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-05-2021
Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 116B(1) - Declaring the election of the Respondent as Member of 15- Wangkhei Assembly Constituency in the 11th Manipur Legislative Assembly as null and void - Where the election of a returned candidate is set-aside, by virtue of an interim order, certain protection is afforded to the appellant. However, since the appellant had resigned from the Assembly, by virtue of an interim order, the appellant cannot be representing the cause of the electorat

(11) THE KERALA STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY MEMBER SECRETARY Vs. MARADU MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-05-2021
Maradu Flats Case - Attachments of the lands in Chillavanoor, Ernakulam shall continue and the applicant is restrained from dealing with the same in any manner and grant liberty to the applicant to approach the RERA Authorities for registration of other projects, which naturally has to be considered by the RERA Authorities independently in accordance with law - This Court direct that the amount of Rs.6.12 crores + 1.50 crores lying in deposit to the account of M/s.Jain Housing & Constructions Lt

(12) DR. JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL Vs. THE CHIEF MINISTER AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-05-2021
Maratha Reservation case - 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 v. Union of India, (1992) Sup3

(13) FORUM FOR PEOPLE'S COLLECTIVE EFFORTS (FPCE) AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-05-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Constitutional validity of the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017 (WB-HIRA) - WB-HIRA is repugnant to the RERA - West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017 (WB-HIRA) is unconstitutional - From analysis of the provisions of RERA on the one hand and of WB-HIRA on the other, two fundamental features emerge from a comparison of the statutes - First, a significant and even overwhelmingly large part of WB-HIRA overlaps with the provisio

(14) INDIAN SCHOOL, JODHPUR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 03-05-2021
Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016 - Sections 3, 4, 6 to 11, 15 and 16 - Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Rules, 2017 - Rules 3, 4, 6 to 8 and 11 - COVID19 pandemic - Deduction in Annual School Fees - Private unaided schools in Rajasthan shall collect annual school fees from their students as fixed under the Act of 2016 for the academic year 201920, but by providing deduction of 15 per cent on that amount in lieu of unutilised facilities by the students during the relevant peri

(15) BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) Vs. E.S. SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 03-05-2021
Power Purchase Agreements - Article 12.2 - Reduction of tariff - Damages - Delay in commissioning of Solar Plants - Whether the Scheduled Commissioning Date of the Solar Power Project is 16.10.2017 or 17.10.2017 - Contention of the Appellant is that actual injection of power into the Grid was on 17.10.2017 and as the Scheduled is 16.10.2017, the reduction of the tariff in view of the delay of 1 day in commissioning is justified - Alternate submission that is made by the Respondents that even ass

(16) SACHIN YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 01-05-2021
Election Laws - Declaration of results - SLP is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL), whereby the request for deferring the panchayat elections in the State of Uttar Pradesh came to be rejected by recording the assurance given by the State and the State Election Commission that essential measures (protocol) for safety and security of all concerned during the campaign and until completion of elections would be adhered to in letter a

(17) JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS Vs. M/S RAMKRISHNA FORGING LIMITED [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-04-2021
Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2005 - Regulations 9.2, 9.2.1 and 9.2.6 - Contract load/sanctioned load - Reduction of - Fresh agreements may have been executed at the stage of enhancement of load of the same electricity connection, the same cannot be treated as anything but an extension/amendment or modification of the initial agreement granting the electricity connection - Application of the respondent for reduction of contract load/sanc

(18) SUKHBIR Vs. AJIT SINGH [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-04-2021
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 6 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 21 - Land Acquisition - Specific performance - Power to award compensation - Where the contract for no fault of the plaintiff becomes impossible, Section 21 enables award of compensation in lieu and substitution of the specific performance - Compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act may safely be taken to be the measure of damages subject, of course, to the deduction therefrom of money value of the services, t

(19) IN RE: DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-04-2021
COVID-19 pandemic - No patient shall be denied hospitalization or essential drugs in any State/UT for lack of local residential proof of that State/UT or even in the absence of identity proof.

(20) STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS Vs. KAMALINI KHILAR AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-04-2021
Service Law - Termination - Back wages - It is no doubt true that the Respondent No. 1 was offered appointment and was appointed - 16 vacancies alone earmarked for S.E.B.C (Women), and the Respondent No. 2 being the 16th and the last of the candidates entitled in the said Category, not joining in the circumstances resulting in the Respondent No. 1 being appointed and the order of the Tribunal being binding on the Appellants - In the present case, the failure to afford an opportunity to the Respo