ive
India Law Library (Website) is free for India Law Library Offline customers only, Please Don't Pay for this website.

User not Logged..
IP Address :44.201.96.43
Latest Cases

(221) DR. (MRS.) CHANDA RANI AKHOURI AND OTHERS Vs. DR. M.A. METHUSETHUPATHI AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-04-2022
Medical Negligence - Merely because doctors could not save the patient, that could not be considered to be a case of post operative medical negligence - A medical practitioner is not to be held liable simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another - In the practice of medicine, there could be varying approaches of treatment - There could be a genuine difference of opinion - Ho

(222) SHANKAR LAL Vs. HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-04-2022
Constitution of India , 1950 - Article 300A - Right of a person under Article 300A of the Constitution of India to have the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) benefit to be given on accurate assessment thereof, the employer here being a public sector unit.

(223) RAMVEER UPADHYAY AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-04-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 482 - Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 365 read with Section 511 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 - Section 3(1)(Dha) - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Complaint may have been initiated by reason of political vendetta is not in itself ground for quashing the criminal proceedings - It is a well established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified and based upon adequate evid

(224) HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED Vs. SHAILENDRA BHATNAGAR [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-04-2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14(1) - Sale of Goods Act, 1930 - Section 2(7) - Manufacturer defect - Failure to provide an airbag system which would meet the safety standards as perceived by a car­buyer of reasonable prudence, should be subject to punitive damages which can have deterrent effect. And in computing such punitive damages, the capacity of the manufacturing enterprise should also be a factor - Ordinarily a consumer while purchasing a vehicle with airbags would assume that t

(225) NAGENDRA Vs. ASHOK AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-04-2022
Review petition - Grounds raised in the review petition which do not make out any error apparent on record to justify interference - Petition dismissed.

(226) SH. RAM CHANDER (DEAD) THR LRS Vs. UNION OF INDIA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-04-2022
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 - Acquisition of Land - When review applications/petitions were allowed on 12.05.2017 on the ground that pursuant to the decision of this Court in the case of DDA vs. Bhola Nath Sharma; (2011) 2 SCC 54, the first appeals are remanded and pending, in fact there was already a decision on remand vide judgment and order dated 23.03.2016 and even the SLP was dismissed - Therefore, the ground on which the High Court had allowed the review applications was therea

(227) STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. Vs. SULEKH CHANDRA PRADHAN ETC. ETC. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-04-2022
Service Law - Appointment of teachers have been made directly by the respective Management without following the procedure as prescribed under the Rules/Statute - Appointments made in contravention of the statutory provisions are void ab initio.

(228) U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD THROUGH HOUSING COMMISSIONER Vs. RAM SINGH (D) TH. LRS. AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-04-2022
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 9 - A notice under section 9 is to be followed by enquiry under Section 10 and award under Section 11 certainly cannot be confused with notice which merely notifies the owner about the date fixed for passing the award.

(229) THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS Vs. GITASHREE DUTTA (DEY) [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-04-2022
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.03.2019 in M.A.T No.1341 of 2018 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 661(W) of 2017. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the State of West Bengal was justified in cancelling the declaration of FPS (Fair Price Shop) vacancies in view of the implementation of National Food Security Act, 2013 (for short ‘2013

(230) JAGDISH MAVJI TANK (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS Vs. HARRESH NAVNITRAI MEHTA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-04-2022
Contempt Petition - Non-compliance of directions - Builder is guilty of delaying the construction by not taking suitable steps in complete disobedience of the orders passed by this Court based on its undertaking - Contempt Petition is closed with liberty to the tenants/occupants to approach this Court in case of non-compliance of the directions.

(231) ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-04-2022
Judicial Service - Promotion - Eligibility criteria for Civil Judges - 25% by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) of Civil Judges having 7 years qualifying service [(5 years as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) or 10 years qualifying service as Civil Judge (Junior Division) - Only 10% of the cadre strength of District Judges be filled up by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination with t

(232) V.G. JAGDISHAN Vs. M/S. INDOFOS INDUSTRIES LIMITED [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-04-2022
Territorial jurisdiction - Preliminary issue - When the issue touches the question of territorial jurisdiction, as far as possible the same shall have to be decided first as preliminary issue - Labour Court did not commit any error in deciding the issue with respect to the territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue in the first instance.

(233) MANISHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-04-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 439 - Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 376 - Rape - Habitual offender - Cancellation of Bail - Judges are duty­bound to explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion - 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 wei

(234) STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER Vs. MAYAN PAL SINGH VERMA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-04-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 and 227 - When a number of issues/grounds were raised in the writ petition, there was the duty cast upon the High Court to deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order - High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was required to have independently considered the legality and validity of the order passed by the Tribunal which was under challenge before it - Neither any submission on merits is recorded no

(235) MS. Y Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-04-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 439 - Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 376 - Rape - Habitual offender - Cancellation of Bail - Judges are duty­bound to explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion - 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 wei

(236) INDRAJEET YADAV Vs. SANTOSH SINGH AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-04-2022
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 302 read with Section 34 - Murder - Appeal against acquittal - Practice of pronouncing only the operative portion of the judgment without a reasoned judgment and to pass a reasoned judgment subsequently has been continued - Such a practice of pronouncing the final orders without a reasoned judgment has to be stopped and discouraged - Reasoned judgment was pronounced and uploaded after a period of almost five months - Order of acquittal is set aside - Appeal allow

(237) M/S TIRUPATI STEELS Vs. M/S SHUBH INDUSTRIAL COMPONENT AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-04-2022
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006 - Section 19 - While challenge to award under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 - Pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 is a mandatory requirement.

(238) RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE Vs. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-04-2022
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18 - Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 - Sections 32(2) and 34 - Acquisition of land - Enhancement of compensation - Future use of the acquired land cannot be the main criteria to determine the compensation for the lands acquired - There was a delay of 613 and 438 days respectively in preferring the appeals - Claimants shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the delayed period.

(239) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. M. DURAISAMY [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-04-2022
Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) - Service Law - Public servant - Removal to compulsory retirement - Corrupt charges - - Fraud by way of fraudulent withdrawal in 85 RD accounts and by way of non-credit of deposits in 71 RD accounts and defrauded a sum of Rs.16,59,065 - Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show

(240) LATE SHRI GYAN CHAND JAIN THROUGH LR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-04-2022
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 271(1)(c) - Penalty - Submission on behalf of the appellant-assessee that as the penalty amount was substantially reduced to Rs.6 lakhs and even the subsequent demand notice was for an amount of Rs.6 lakhs (approximately) only and therefore in view of the CBDT Circular the tax effect being lower than the permissible limit to prefer the appeal before the High Court and therefore the appeal before the High Court was not maintainable is concerned, at the outset it is

IP Address :44.201.96.43