ive

Latest Cases

(941) M/S ORIENTAL KURIES LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN P.D. JOSE Vs. LISSA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-11-2019
The issue which has arisen for consideration in the present Civil Appeal is with respect to the jural relationship between a chit fund entity and the subscribers, created by a chitty agreement; and whether it is a debt in prasenti or a promise to discharge a contractual obligation
(2020) AIRSC 115 : (2020) AIRSCCivil 690 : (2020) 138 ALR 220 : (2020) 1 BC 305 : (2020) 1 ILRKerala 77 : (2019) 4 KerLJ 878 : (2020) 2 LW 367 : (2020) 3 MLJ 303 : (2019) 14 SCALE 758

(942) JOAQUIM HERLANDER COELHO PEREIRA AND OTHERS Vs. BLAZE FERNANDES [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-11-2019
This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 12th October, 2018 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Civil Revision No.25/2018 whereby, the application filed by respondent for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'C.P.C.') came to be allowed by the High Court, whilst reversing the decision of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji, Goa dated 8th March, 2018 disallowing the same. The appellant(s) filed s

(943) ROHTAS AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-11-2019
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 302 read with 34, 148 and 149 - Murder - Delay in registration of FIR - Accused persons denied their involvement in the commission of the offence - High Court, on reappreciation of the evidence on record, affirmed the finding of guilt against the appellants "R" (Accused No. 1) and "S" (Accused No. 2) but acquitted "R1" (Accused No. 4) and "D" (Accused No. 6) by giving them benefit of doubt - Held, There was no delay in registration of the FIR - This Court is also
(2019) AIRSC 5684 : (2020) AIRSCCri 418 : (2019) 11 JT 130 : (2020) 2 MLJCriminal 189 : (2019) 14 SCALE 672 : (2019) 10 SCC 554

(944) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. LT. COL. OM DUTT SHARMA (RETD.) DEAD THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-11-2019
The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jabalpur (for short, Tribunal) on 9th February, 2017 whereby, an Original Application filed by the respondent - Lt. Col. Om Dutt Sharma was allowed holding that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of One Rank One Pension (for short, 'OROP').
(2020) 1 MLJ 389 : (2019) 14 SCALE 728 : (2020) 2 SCC 133 : (2019) 4 SCT 801 : (2020) 1 SLJ 57

(945) TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED Vs. AALOK JAGGA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-11-2019
Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 - Sections 3(1), 3(2)(v), 3(2) and 3(3) - Environment (Protection) Rules, 1996 - Rule 5(3)(d) - Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 - Section 6(2) - Housing projects cannot be permitted to come up within such a short distance from the wildlife sanctuary.
(2020) 10 FLT 1 : (2019) 11 JT 1 : (2020) 3 MLJ 274 : (2019) 14 SCALE 641

(946) BANSIDHAR SHARMA(SINCE DECEASED) REP BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-11-2019
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Sections 144 and 151 - Principle of Doctrine of Restitution - Provisions of Section 144 CPC are not attracted as there being no variation or reversal of a decree or order as contemplated by Section 144 CPC.
(2019) AIRSC 5643 : (2020) 138 ALR 214 : (2020) 1 AndhLD 276 : (2019) 4 CivCC 824 : (2019) 4 CurCC 141 : (2019) 11 JT 19 : (2019) 14 SCALE 658

(947) YASMEEN ZUBER AHMAD PEERZADE & ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-11-2019

(2020) 2 SCC 50

(948) STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. MAN SINGH [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-11-2019
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 362 and 482 - Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 468, 471 and 419 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section 4 - Accused obtained a job on the basis of forged documents - Even if he was to be given benefit under Probation of Offenders Act, then also he could not retain his job because the job was obtained on the basis of forged documents - Employee cannot claim a right to continue in service on the ground that he was released on probation. (See :
(2020) 110 ACrC 260 : (2020) 205 AIC 269 : (2019) AIRSC 5622 : (2020) AIRSCCri 284 : (2019) 3 ALTCrl 408 : (2020) 1 AndhLDCriminal 250 : (2020) 1 ApexCourtJudgments(SC) 284 : (2020) 1 CalCriLR 281 : (2020) 1 CriCC 397 : (2020) CriLJ 643 : (2019) CriLR 1319 : (2019) 4 Crimes 243 : (2020) 1 ECrC 71 : (2019) 4 JabLJ 594 : (2019) 4 JLJR 444 : (2019) 11 JT 53 : (2019) 4 LawHeraldSC 3287 : (2019) 3 LSSC 126 : (2020) 1 LWCri 628 : (2020) 1 LWCri 628 : (2019) 4 MPJR 116 : (2019) 4 PLJR 369 : (2019) 4 RajCriC 2509 : (2019) 14 SCALE 598 : (2019) 10 SCC 161 : (2020) 1 SCCCri 132 : (2019) 2 SCCLS 787

(949) MRINALINI PADHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-11-2019
Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 - Section 4(d1) - Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 - Section 31 - Antitemple activities - Stopping of nitis/pujas/seva and misbehavior/misconduct - An incident dated 28.12.2018 which took place in the Shrine has also been highlighted by the Temple Administration in which one Bhitar Chhu Sevak, who was entrusted with the daily duty of opening the door to the Sanctum-Santorum at 4.30 a.m. for daily puja/nitis, did not open the door on the ground of his personal issue
(2019) 6 ALT 244 : (2019) 14 SCALE 608

(950) IN RE : VIJAY KURLE AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-11-2019
Pursuant to order dated 30.09.2019, all the documents have been supplied to the alleged contemnors Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Alleged contemnor No. 2 has filed additional reply pursuant to the documents being supplied. Alleged contemnor Nos. 1 and 3 pray for and are granted three weeks’ time to file additional reply, if any, after receipt of the documents. It is made clear that no further time shall be granted. List on 09.12.2019.
(2019) 10 SCC 219

(951) DR. SYED AFZAL AND OTHERS Vs. RUBINA SYED FAIZUDDIN AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-11-2019
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Order 39 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 2, Order 39 Rule 2-A - Interim mandatory injunction - Interlocutory applications are likely to be listed before the High Court next week. Therefore, at this stage, we do not wish to enter into the merits of the dispute, as the same may prejudice either of the parties. Suffice it to say that the regular appeal pending before the High Court is of the year 2013 and the applications, out of which the present appeals arise, are of the
(2020) 1 CivCC 412

(952) DR. SYED AFZAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS Vs. RUBINA SYED FAIZUDDIN AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-11-2019
Specific relief, 1963 - Section 39 - Preliminary decree for partition -This was not a case where an ad-interim mandatory injunction and police aid were required to be granted without affording an opportunity to the appellants herein to file a counter affidavit and to put forth their case - It is true that the Civil Court is not powerless to grant interim mandatory injunction, as such a power has been recognised by this Court in a long line of decisions, the important among them being Dorab Cowas
(2020) 1 RCRCivil 185

(953) RANBIR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-11-2019
Five persons were arrayed as accused in Session Trial No.14 of 2011 on the file of District & Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, for the offences punishable under Section 304 read with 201 IPC. The case of the prosecution as culled out from the judgement of the Trial Court was as under: "Prosecution case in brief is that Kirti Singh Rana s/o late Sri Shiv Singh Rana, R/o Village Srikot Patti Kemar, P.S. Ghansali, District Tehri Garhwal submitted a tehrir to Police Station Ghansali aga
(2020) 1 ApexCourtJudgments(SC) 244 : (2020) 1 RCRCriminal 124

(954) NARUBHAI AMARSINH MAKWANA (KOLI PATEL) Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-11-2019
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2016 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 3056 of 2008, by which the High Court has partly allowed the said appeal preferred by the appellantoriginal accused and has converted the conviction of the appellantoriginal accused from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, the original accused has preferred the present appeal. While assailing the impugned judgment a

(955) RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, AJMER AND ANOTHER Vs. SHIKUN RAM FIRUDA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-10-2019
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-servicemen) Rules, 1988 - Rule 6B - A candidate who is not eligible on the last date of submission of application cannot be treated to be eligible in the category of Ex-servicemen when the writ petitioners were in active service on the last date of submission of application forms - Press Note was issued only to allow the corrections or to change category in the application forms already submitted online - Pres
(2020) 164 FLR 897 : (2019) 10 JT 420 : (2019) 3 MPWN 84 : (2019) 14 SCALE 396 : (2019) 10 SCC 271 : (2019) 2 SCCLS 862 : (2019) 4 SCT 789 : (2020) 1 SLJ 53

(956) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 1 Vs. NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-10-2019
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 2(35) - Application for recalling of judgement - Applicant was duly served through their authorized representative, and were provided sufficient opportunities to appear before this Court, and contest the matter - Applicant chose to let the matter proceed ex-parte - Grounds for Re­call of the Judgment are devoid of any merit whatsoever - Applicant having failed to make out any credible or cogent ground for Re­call of the judgment - Application dismissed.
(2019) 311 CTC 263 : (2019) 311 CurTR 263 : (2019) 418 ITR 449 : (2019) 10 JT 597 : (2019) 14 SCALE 433 : (2019) 10 SCC 206 : (2020) 268 TAXMAN 1

(957) MISS XYZ Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-10-2019
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 376, 499 and 506(2) - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114-A - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 482 - Rape - Blackmailing by viral nude pictures - Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape - A reading of the Section makes it clear that, where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to
(2019) AIRSC 5395 : (2019) 3 ALTCrl 381 : (2020) 1 AndhLDCriminal 190 : (2019) 4 CriCC 763 : (2020) CriLJ 660 : (2019) 4 JLJR 447 : (2019) 10 JT 424 : (2019) 3 MPWN 71 : (2019) 4 PLJR 372 : (2020) 1 RCRCriminal 64 : (2019) 14 SCALE 392 : (2019) 10 SCC 337

(958) STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. MURTI SHRI CHATURBHUJNATH AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-10-2019
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1959 - Section 115 - Correction in revenue entries - Suit was filed by the Deity through the Pujaris claiming ownership to the lands received from Manager of the landlord situated in Village Kharsod Kalan, District Ujjain. The Pujaris did not lay any claim to ownership of the lands in them. The Temple was constructed by the forefather of the Pujaris, who continued to perform puja and enjoy the usufructs of the lands also. They were suddenly made aware of the corr
(2019) 10 JT 428 : (2019) 14 SCALE 400 : (2019) 10 SCC 319 : (2020) 1 WLN 34

(959) SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER/ DEHAR POWER HOUSE CIRCLE BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD (PW) SLAPPER AND ANOTHER Vs. EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, SUNDER NAGAR/ASSESSING AUTHORITY [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-10-2019
Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - Section 48 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Extension of prescribed period in certain cases - Whether the High Court while exercising revisional power under Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, condone the delay in case a revision under Section 48 of the Act of 2005 - Held, that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are held applicable to the revisional provision under Section 48 of the Act of 2005 - The High C
(2019) 30 GSTL 193 : (2019) 71 GSTR 1 : (2019) 10 JT 401 : (2019) 14 SCALE 414

(960) MUKESH RAMDEVJI AGARWAL AND ANOTHER Vs. BALMUKUND DHRUVANARAYAN LOHIYA (HUF) AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-10-2019
Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 12(3) - Computation of limitation - Appellate Court as also the High Court have proceeded on the basis of the endorsement on the certified copy of the order under appeal and proceeded to hold that the appeal was within limitation, since in computing limitation, the time required for obtaining the certified copy is required to be excluded. The reasoning as of the Appellate Court confirmed and reiterated by the High Court is unexceptionable. Whether the certified cop
(2019) 3 ApexCourtJudgments(SC) 627 : (2020) 1 CivCC 260