ive
THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023
THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023
THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(81) STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. DR. SANAT KUMAR GHOSH AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-07-2024
West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012 — UGC’s Regulations, 2018 — — The Supreme Court has constituted Search-cum-Selection Committees for the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in 35 state-aided universities in West Bengal — The committees will consist of a Chairperson and four other members, including nominees from the Chancellor, Chief Minister, University Grants Commission, State Government, and intervenors — The committees will shortlist at least three suitable candidates for each u
India Law Library Docid # 1604228

(82) MAHESH CHAND BARETH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-07-2024
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 — Rule 13(v) — Selection of teachers and the validity of Rule 13(v), which allows age relaxation to certain project-employed applicants — The appellants argue that Rule 13(v) is discriminatory and that granting additional marks to these applicants is ultra vires the rules — The State argues that these provisions have a reasonable nexus with the objectives of educational projects — The court dismissed all appeals, finding no merit in the chal
India Law Library Docid # 1604229

(83) HAR NARAYAN TEWARI (D) THR. LRS. Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD, RAMGARH CANTONMENT AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-07-2024
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11 — Res judicata, Adverse possession and Settlement of land — The plaintiff-appellant had filed a title suit claiming ownership of 0.30 acres of land which was part of the Estate of Raja — The Cantonment Board, Ramgarh, was the main contesting defendant — The court found that the principle of res judicata did not apply to the case, as the issue of the plaintiff-appellant's ownership of the land was not directly or indirectly in issue in the previous su
India Law Library Docid # 1604230

(84) SURESH DATTU BHOJANE AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-07-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 and 149 — The case involves a group assault leading to the death and injuries to two others — Conviction and sentence — The main issue is whether the appellants, particularly A-5 and A-6, were part of an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder, despite not being assigned specific roles in the assault —The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the convictions of the appellants, including A-5 and A-6, as part of th
India Law Library Docid # 1604231

(85) NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF DELHI [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-07-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 313, 313(1)(a) and 313(1)(b) — The case involves an incident from 1995 where appellants were accused of murdering ‘A’ — The altercation began over water spilling from a parapet, leading to a fatal stabbing —The main issue is the alleged non-compliance with Section 313 of the Cr.PC regarding questioning the appellant, which is argued to have caused material prejudice and vitiated the trial —The Supreme Court ac
India Law Library Docid # 1604232

(86) R. RADHAKRISHNA PRASAD Vs. SWAMINATHAN AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-07-2024
Suit for specific performance — The case involves a dispute over a specific performance of an agreement for sale of property — The plaintiff paid an advance and sought execution of the sale deed, which the defendant no. 1 failed to do —The main issue is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the advance payment made for the property, as the sale deed was not executed by the defendant no. 1. —The Trial Court directed the defendant no. 1 to refund Rs. 18,00,000 with interest, which was m
India Law Library Docid # 1604233

(87) NIPUN MALHOTRA Vs. SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-07-2024
Cinematograph Act, 1952 — Sections 3 and 5 — Rights of persons with disabilities —Appellant, is aggrieved by the portrayal of persons with disabilities in the film 'Aankh Micholi' — The Rights of Persons with disabilities Act, 2016, has been a subject of controversy in a film case — The Appellant claims that the film violates the rights of persons with disabilities and relevant acts — The case revolves around the impact of the Act on film certification under the Cinematograph Act and whether the
India Law Library Docid # 1604234

(88) SHASHIDHAR AND OTHERS Vs. ASHWINI UMA MATHAD AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-07-2024
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Dispute over the partition of ancestral properties among family members — The court examined the concept of coparcenary and the rights of daughters in such properties under the Act, 1956 —The court held that the properties of the suit schedule were separate and self-acquired by Appellant No. 1 through succession or transfer from the mother or sister — Therefore, these properties were not part of the coparcenary and should be excluded from the partition — The court mo
India Law Library Docid # 1604236

(89) SURENDER SINGH Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 03-07-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 307 — The appellant, a police guard, was convicted for the murder of his cousin and neighbour, who allegedly had an affair with the appellant's wife — The murder occurred inside a police station in Delhi —The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence, claiming self-defence or, alternatively, grave and sudden provocation — The appellant argued for self-defence, stating the deceased attempted to snatch his weapon to kill him — The prosecution presen
India Law Library Docid # 1604212

(90) ANISH M RAWTHER @ ANEES MOHAMMED RAWTHER Vs. HAFEEZ UR RAHMAN AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 14-06-2024
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 37 Rule 3(6)(b) — Suit for Recovery — The case involves a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,04,16,576/- — The Trial Court directed the appellants/defendants to deposit 50% of the claim — The main issue was whether the suit could proceed in light of the operational moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC — The appellants/defendants argued that due to the moratorium under the IBC, the suit could not proceed —The respondents/plaintiffs requested the Trial Court to
India Law Library Docid # 1604207

(91) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 13-06-2024
Water sharing Dispute — Sharing of Yamuna water between the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the States of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh — The court found that the issue is complex and sensitive, and that it lacks the expertise to decide on the matter — Instead, the court directed the Upper Yamuna River Board (UYRB), a body constituted with the agreement of the parties in a 1994 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), to consider the issue — The UYRB has already directed the State of Delhi to s
India Law Library Docid # 1604208

(92) EKTA SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-06-2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 41A — Notice of appearance before police officer — Petitioner Singh filed a Special Leave Petition against the State of Karnataka & others, challenging an order dated 23-05-2024 from the High Court of Karnataka —The main issue revolves around respondent No. 2's non-compliance with a medical examination required by the Investigating Officer for the case's investigation — Respondent No. 2, argued against the necessity of the medical examination, citi
India Law Library Docid # 1604206

(93) SUPRIYA NAIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-06-2024
Visitation Rights — Appellant-mother is appealing against an order allowing the repatriation of her minor daughter to the United States of America, where her father resides — The Supreme Court granted the father's request for visitation rights during his visit to India from 14.06.2024 to 30.06.2024 — The visitation rights will take place at Kohinoor Continental Hotel, Mumbai, on weekends falling on 15.06.2024 and 16.06.2024; 22.06.2024 and 23.06.2024; and 29.06.2024 and 30.06.2024 — During the v
India Law Library Docid # 1604209

(94) MANISH SISODIA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-06-2024
Bail — The Supreme Court has disposed of two petitions filed by Manish Sisodia, challenging an order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application Nos. 1557 and 1559 of 2024 — The court has granted liberty to Sisodia to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances or if the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail's pace in the next three months — The court has clarified that the observations made in the judgment are only for the disposal of the present appeals
India Law Library Docid # 1604210

(95) ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYA Vs. SIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 27-05-2024
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Enhancement of compensation - Indigent person - Appellant, an indigent person, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) for Rs. 10 lakhs - The MACT awarded her Rs. 2,41,745 with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition till realization - The appellant then filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat seeking enhanced compensation - The High Court dismissed the appeal and denied th
India Law Library Docid # 1604203

(96) UNION OF INDIA Vs. BARAKATHULLAH ETC. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-05-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 - The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu - The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail - The Uni
India Law Library Docid # 1604202

(97) PRITI AGARWALLA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-05-2024
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 4(2) - The Olympic Riding and Equestrian Academy (OREA) is facing disputes over allegations of caste-based discrimination and other complaints filed against trainees and administrators - The main issue is whether the complaints filed under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were substantiated and whether FIRs should be registered - The appellants argued that the complaint
India Law Library Docid # 1604189

(98) RAVIKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL MAHETA AND ANOTHER Vs. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-05-2024
Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 - Rule 5(1) - Two judicial officers challenged the promotion process for Civil Judges (Senior Division) to the post of Additional District Judge, arguing that the High Court of Gujarat incorrectly applied the principle of 'Merit-cum-Seniority' instead of 'Seniority-cum-Merit' as stipulated by the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 - The main issue was whether the promotion process adhered to the principle and if the final Select List was in cont
India Law Library Docid # 1604190

(99) SUNITA DEVI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-05-2024
Rule for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 - Rule 6 - The case involves appeals against the order of the Patna High Court which directed a de novo trial and made observations against the Special Judge's approach in conducting the trial - The appeals raise questions regarding the legality of the High Court's order, the conduct of the trial by the Special Judge, and the application of video conferencing rules in court proceedings - The appellant challenges the High Court's order of remittal and
India Law Library Docid # 1604191

(100) NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY NEW DELHI Vs. OWAIS AMIN @ CHERRY AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-05-2024
Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code SVT., 1989 - Sections 306 and 411 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 39 – The case involves charges against respondents for attempting to ambush a CRPF convoy with explosives - The Special Judge, NIA, took cognizance for some offences but not others due to procedural issues - The appeal challenges the High Court's judgment on the cognizance of charges under various sections of the RPC, 1989, and UAPA, 1967, particularly focusing on th
India Law Library Docid # 1604192