ive

Latest Cases

(921) KARUPPANNA GOUNDER Vs. THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-09-2019
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 34, 149, 302 and 324 - Murder - Appeal against Conviction - Benefit of doubt - First injury is 10x2 cm bone deep on the middle of the head in the parietal area meaning from the centre of the skull towards the back - Second injury which is a bigger injury goes from the frontal to the parietal area - Injury was caused with such great force that the skull broke into many pieces and the brain matter had come out of the skull - The question is whether the death of th
(2020) 110 ACrC 271 : (2019) AIR(SCW) 4425 : (2019) AIRSC 4425 : (2020) AIRSCCri 16 : (2019) 4 CriCC 729 : (2020) CriLJ 111 : (2019) 9 JT 336 : (2019) 4 RCRCriminal 473 : (2019) 12 SCALE 480 : (2019) 8 SCC 673 : (2019) 3 SCCCri 644

(922) RAMBHAU GANPATI NAGPURE Vs. GANESH NATHUJI WARBE AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-09-2019
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Section 138 - Suit for ancestral land - Re-measuring of field as per the old record - The case of the plaintiffs was that the defendant erected wire-fencing, encroached upon the land of the plaintiffs and, therefore, the suit was filed for possession of the land encroached by the defendant - Section 138 clearly provides that a civil suit can be instituted against any order of ejectment - No provision has been pointed out where the jurisdiction of the civil c
(2020) 1 ALLMR 452 : (2019) 9 JT 334 : (2019) 12 SCALE 483 : (2019) 9 SCC 202

(923) D.A.V. COLLEGE TRUST AND MANAGEMENT SOCIETY AND OTHERS Vs. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-09-2019
Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 2(h) - 'public authority' - Whether non-governmental organisations substantially financed by the appropriate government fall within the ambit of 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the Act, 2005 - This Act was enacted with the purpose of bringing transparency in public dealings and probity in public life - If NGOs or other bodies get substantial finance from the Government, This Court find no reason why any citizen cannot ask for information to find
(2019) 6 AIRBomR 550 : (2019) AIRSC 4411 : (2019) 6 AndhLD 108 : (2019) 5 CTC 937 : (2019) 3 ESC 856 : (2019) 4 ILRKerala 655 : (2019) 4 JLJR 88 : (2019) 9 JT 501 : (2019) 4 KHC 840 : (2019) 4 PLJR 6 : (2019) 4 RCRCivil 470 : (2019) 12 SCALE 511 : (2019) 9 SCC 185

(924) IFCI LTD. Vs. SANJAY BEHARI AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-09-2019
The celebration of independence of our country also came with many challenges, including in the financial sector. The Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. (for short 'IFCI') was the first financial corporation set up soon thereafter, in 1948, with the object of providing for the industrial and infrastructural needs of the new born India and to enable the growth of the economy through medium and long term finance. Passage of time and financial & infrastructural changes resulted in the tra
(2019) 12 SCALE 522 : (2019) 4 SCT 609

(925) AMIRUDDIN Vs. STATE (DELHI ADMN.) [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-09-2019
This appeal by the convict is directed against the judgment dated 26.08.2009 delivered by the High Court of Delhi upholding the conviction of the Appellant Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code passed by the Trial Court vide its judgment dated 23.03.1996. The Appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
(2019) 4 RCRCriminal 678

(926) PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOW GLADA) Vs. VIDYA CHETAL AND RAM SINGH [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-09-2019
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d), 2(1)(e), 2(1)(f), 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(o) - Validity of imposition of “composition fee” and “extension fee” - This Court hold that the determination of the dispute concerning the validity of the imposition of a statutory due arising out of a “deficiency in service”, can be undertaken by the consumer fora as per the provisions of the Act - The decision of this Court in the case of HUDA vs. Sunita, (2005) 2 SCC 479, wherein it was held that NCDRC has no
(2019) AIRSC 4357 : (2019) 4 CPJ 7 : (2019) 4 ILRKerala 141 : (2019) 9 JT 343 : (2019) 4 KHC 823 : (2019) 4 KLT 71 : (2019) 3 LawHeraldSC 2465 : (2019) 196 PLR 656 : (2019) 4 RCRCivil 384 : (2019) 12 SCALE 372 : (2019) 9 SCC 83 : (2019) 156 SCL 598

(927) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR (ADMIN, AND HR) Vs. SRI C. NAGARAJU AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-09-2019
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 5(1)(e), 5(2), 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) - Dismissal from service - Gravity of misconduct in demanding and accepting illegal gratification - It is settled law that the acquittal by a Criminal Court does not preclude a Departmental Inquiry against the delinquent officer - Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the judgment of the Criminal Court if the evidence that is produced in the Departmental Inquiry is different from that produced duri
(2019) 4 AirKarR 455 : (2019) AIRSC 4308 : (2020) 164 FLR 275 : (2019) 6 KantLJ 209 : (2019) LabLR 1181 : (2019) LIC 4201 : (2020) 1 LLN 545 : (2019) 12 SCALE 381 : (2019) 4 SCT 277 : (2019) 3 SLJ 269

(928) STATE OF ODISHA AND ANOTHER Vs. ANUP KUMAR SENAPATI AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-09-2019
Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant­in­aid Order, 1994 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Whether the employees are entitled to claim grant­in­aid as admissible under the Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant­in­aid Order, 1994, after its repeal in the year 2004 by virtue of provisions contained in Orissa (Non­Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant­in­aid Or
(2019) 3 ESC 835 : (2019) 12 SCALE 386 : (2019) 3 SLJ 324

(929) SHRIRANG YADAVRAO WAGHMARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-09-2019
The appellant was a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as a Judicial Magistrate on 01.03.1985. On 08.02.2001, he was put under suspension and dismissed from service on 15.01.2004. The appellant challenged his writ petition filed before the High Court. The same was dismissed. Notice was issued in the special leave petition on 14.12.2015 limited to the question of quantum of punishment. The only issue to be decided is whether the punishment imposed upon him is justified or a lenient view can be ta
(2020) 1 ALLMR 953 : (2019) 4 ESC 957 : (2019) 2 OriLawRev 753 : (2019) 2 OriLR 753 : (2019) 196 PLR 653 : (2019) 9 SCC 144 : (2019) 4 SCT 451 : (2019) 3 SLJ 361 : (2019) 5 WBLR 588

(930) PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. VERSUS VIDYA CHETAL [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-09-2019
The reference before us arises out of the order dated 13.07.2018, passed by a two-Judge Bench of this Court, wherein they expressed doubt as to the correctness of the judgment rendered in the case of HUDA vs. Sunita, (2005) 2 SCC 479. This Court therein held that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "NCDRC") had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality behind the demand of " composition fee" and "extension fee" made by HUDA, as the same being statutor
(2019) 4 CivCC 521 : (2020) 154 CLA 163

(931) KUSUM BHATIA Vs. SAGAR SETHI [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-09-2019
Having heard learned counsel for both the sides on merits, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. In our considered opinion, the interest of justice would be met if the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA Date: 2019.09.19 child, Kumari Preksha (aged about 16 years as of now) is awarded maintenance. Since, the petitioner is a working lady with sufficient salary, we decline to award any maintenance in her favour. 2. Learned counsel for the responde
(2019) 4 CivCC 503 : (2019) 4 CriCC 510

(932) K S MUHAMMED Vs. THE ASST. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-09-2019
The appellant was tried for offence punishable under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 ("The Act", for short). Upon being convicted he was sentenced by the Addl. CJM (Economic Offences), Ernakulam in CC No.183 of 1990 to suffer imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-
(2019) 368 ELT 193

(933) PRATIMA DEVI & ANOTHER Vs. ANAND PRAKASH [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-09-2019
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 125 - A husband/father is duty bound to maintain his wife and child.
(2020) 1 AllCrlRulings 533

(934) S. BHASKARAN Vs. SEBASTIAN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 13-09-2019
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Sections 47 and 115 - Trusteeship of temple - In the present case, the Trial Court had already considered the evidence on record and given a finding that the Appellant and his uncle were the trustees of the temple. Notably, "U" was a party to this suit and had contested it by filing a written statement, claiming to be the eldest son of "S". However, at that time, he did not put forth any objections to the heir certificate of "S", which was considered by the Tri
(2019) AIRSC 4306 : (2019) 5 ALT 379 : (2019) 4 JLJR 83 : (2019) 3 LawHeraldSC 2594 : (2020) 2 LW 506 : (2019) 2 OriLawRev 681 : (2019) 4 PLJR 1 : (2019) 4 RCRCivil 406 : (2019) 12 SCALE 334 : (2019) 9 SCC 161

(935) THE BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS Vs. RADHA BALLABH HEALTH CARE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (P) LTD [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 13-09-2019
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 136 and 142 - Allotment of plot - Respondent does not get any right of allotment of a plot merely because it has applied for allotment earlier - Response to an advertisement does not lead to any obligation on the appellant to allot any plot - There was no allotment in pursuance of the offer submitted by the respondent - Mere fact that the respondent had applied for allotment of a plot does not confer any legal or equitable right to seek allotment of any
(2019) 4 JLJR 156 : (2019) 4 PLJR 99 : (2019) 4 RCRCivil 378 : (2019) 12 SCALE 501

(936) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. SANDEEP KUMAR ETC [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 13-09-2019
Army Act, 1950 - Section 52(a) - Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 1, 25, 26, 27 and 65 - Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 - Sections 15, 30 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 313 - District Court Martial - Theft of two pistols - Armed Forces Tribunal setting aside the order of conviction & sentence and of dismissal consequent to District Court Martial - Tribunal passed an order for reinstatement of both the accused but it was also ordered that the accused shall not be entitled to any b
(2019) 4 Crimes 121 : (2019) 4 MLJCriminal 70 : (2019) 12 SCALE 486 : (2019) 4 SCT 422

(937) JOSE PAULO COUTINHO Vs. MARIA LUIZA VALENTINA PEREIRA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 13-09-2019
Succession Act, 1925 Section 5 - Grant of probate - Whether succession to the property of a Goan situate outside Goa in India will be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 as applicable in the State of Goa or the Indian succession Act, 1925 - Held, The Portuguese Civil Code being a special Act, applicable only to the domiciles of Goa, will be applicable to the Goan domiciles in respect to all the properties wherever they be situated in India whether within Goa or outside Goa and Section 5
(2019) 5 ALLMR 928 : (2020) 5 BLJud 396 : (2020) 1 HLT 101 : (2019) 5 JBCJ 206 : (2019) 12 SCALE 338

(938) PRITI KUMARI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 13-09-2019
In this case, the main dispute is whether the appellant - wife could have filed a complaint under Section 498A, IPC at the place where she was residing. The High Court held that no cause of action has arisen where she was residing. This matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Rupali Devi v. State of U.P. and Ors. [(2019) 5 SCC 384]; wherein this Court held as follows: "10. The question that has posed for an answer has nothing to do with the provisions of Section 178 (b) or (c
(2019) 4 CriCC 9 : (2019) 3 LawHeraldSC 2561 : (2019) 4 RCRCriminal 521

(939) THE BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD & ORS. Vs. RADHA BALLABH HEALTH CARE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (P) LTD. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 13-09-2019
The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna on November 21, 2017, whereby, the Letters Patent Appeal against an order passed by the learned Single Bench on September 19, 2016 was dismissed. The appellant published an advertisement on May 10, 2008 inviting applications for allotment of plot for health center in Lohia Nagar Housing Colony, Patna measuring 43000 sq. feet at the price of Rs.1,71,89,057/-. Rs.1,00,000/- was
(2019) 4 JLJR 156 : (2019) 9 JT 407 : (2019) 4 RCRCivil 378 : (2019) 12 Scale 501

(940) GANPATI BABJI ALAMWAR (D) BY LRS. RAMLU AND OTHERS Vs. DIGAMBARRAO VENKATRAO BHADKE AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 12-09-2019
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 58(c) - Mortgage by conditional sale- Suit for redemption of mortgage - Outstanding Amount - Whether an agreement is a mortgage by conditional sale or sale with an option for repurchase is a vexed question to be considered in the facts of each case - The essentials of an agreement, to qualify as a mortgage by conditional sale, can succinctly be summarised - An ostensible sale with transfer of possession and ownership
(2019) 6 AIRBomR 252 : (2019) AIRSC 4292 : (2019) 5 ALLMR 948 : (2019) 6 AndhLD 96 : (2020) 1 CivCC 506 : (2019) 9 JT 289 : (2019) 5 RCRCivil 893 : (2019) 12 SCALE 224 : (2019) 8 SCC 651 : (2019) 5 WBLR 553