ive

Latest Cases

(981) Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rashid H. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 23-10-2019
A complaint was received on 7.1.2003 that the Respondent molested the daughter of T. Thapa in the servant quarter of officers mess. The Respondent was working as a cook and T. Thapa was his colleague in the kitchen. The Respondent's daughter was 4 1/2 years old. The court of enquiry was conducted on 11.1.2003. The statement of victim and her father were recorded. The Respondent admitted to the guilt. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the Respondent Under Section 20(3) of the Air Force
(2019) AIRSC 5581 : (2020) AIRSCCivil 651 : (2020) 1 SCT 101

(982) STATE OF MANIPUR AND OTHERS Vs. KOTING LAMKANG [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-10-2019
This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and order dated 27.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Manipur at Imphal in M.C. (RFA)No. 19 of 2017 in reference to RFA No. 5/2017 whereby and where under, the learned Judge after considering the application filed by the appellants for condonation of delay of 312 days in preferring the Regular First Appeal, has declined to condone the delay and the application was consequently dismissed. The condonation was sought by the appellants with the projecti
(2020) 1 ALT 31 : (2019) 4 CurCC 138 : (2019) 10 SCC 408

(983) SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-10-2019
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 420 and 120B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 8 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) - INX Media Scam - Grant of Bail - "flight risk" - Appellant is not a "flight risk" and in view of the conditions imposed, there is no possibility of his abscondence from the trial. Statement of the prosecution that the appellant has influenced the witnesses and there is likelihood of his further influencing the witnesses cannot be the ground to deny bail to the a
(2019) AIRSC 5272 : (2020) AIRSCCri 193 : (2019) 3 ALTCrl 355 : (2020) 1 BomCR(Cri) 225 : (2020) CriLJ 663 : (2020) 1 LWCri 568 : (2020) 1 LWCri 568 : (2020) 1 RCRCriminal 100 : (2019) 14 SCALE 157 : (2019) 8 SLT 643

(984) STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. UDHAM AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-10-2019
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 326, 452 and 34 - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons - Enhancement of sentence - It is established that sentencing is a socio­legal process, wherein a Judge finds an appropriate punishment for the accused considering factual circumstances and equities - In light of the fact that the legislature provided for discretion to the Judges to give punishment, it becomes important to exercise the same in a principled manner - It is a fundamental princ
(2019) AIRSC 5305 : (2020) AIRSCCri 462 : (2019) 3 ALTCrl 377 : (2020) 1 AndhLDCriminal 212 : (2020) CriLJ 757 : (2019) 4 JabLJ 445 : (2019) 4 JLJR 454 : (2019) 10 JT 442 : (2019) 4 PLJR 379 : (2020) 1 RCRCriminal 67 : (2019) 14 SCALE 151 : (2019) 10 SCC 300

(985) M/S TERAI TEA COMPANY LIMITED Vs. KUMKUM MITTAL AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-10-2019
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 35 - Refund of stamp duty - Suit for specific performance - Agreement to sell - Appeals are directed against the order passed by the High Court directing the suit Court to impound the document and take appropriate steps in accordance with law for the assessment of the stamp duty, penalty and the like thereon. - Where the parties to the proceedings originally in Suit filed at the instance of the appellant have consented to obtain a consent decree of specific perfo
(2019) 11 JT 27 : (2019) 14 SCALE 146 : (2019) 10 SCC 142

(986) MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI Vs. HARISH LAMBA OF BOMBAY, INDIAN INHABITANT AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-10-2019
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Sections 139, 140 and 169 - Water Charges Rules - Applicability of - High Court misread the impugned demand notices as being under Section 169 of the Act, when in fact the same were for recovery of property tax in the form of water benefit tax under Section 139 read with Sections 140 and 141 of the Act. The liability to pay such tax arises irrespective of disconnection of water supply/water meter including due to nonpayment of taxes, being a compulsory im
(2020) 2 AIRBomR 666 : (2019) AIRSC 5543 : (2020) AIRSCCivil 1087 : (2020) 2 ALLMR 480 : (2019) 14 SCALE 287

(987) BIJAY KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. AMIT KUMAR CHAMARIYA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-10-2019
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 - Section 7(2) and 7(3) - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - Section 17(2), 17(2A), 17(2B) - Extension of time to deposit of arrears of rent - Sub sections (2A) and (2B) of Section 17 of 1956 Act confer unfettered power on the court to extend the period of deposit of rent, which is circumscribed by the proviso of sub sections (2) and (3) of Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of sub section (2) are mandat
(2019) AIRSC 5461 : (2020) AIRSCCivil 883 : (2019) 10 JT 431 : (2019) 2 RCRRent 689 : (2019) 14 SCALE 277 : (2019) 10 SCC 660 : (2020) 1 WBLR 14

(988) RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-10-2019
Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 - Section 16 - Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 - Rule 34 - Transfer of land - Lack of use of expression 'package deal' will not change the nature of transfer which is in terms of Section 16 of the Act with the date of transfer specified as June 1, 1980 in terms of Rule 34 of the Rules. The transfer of land forming part of compensation pool is contemplated by Section 16 of the Act, when it provides that fo
(2019) AIRSC 5584 : (2020) AIRSCCivil 609 : (2020) 1 AndhLD 301 : (2019) 11 JT 74 : (2019) 14 SCALE 302 : (2019) 4 WLN 101

(989) SHAUKATHUSSAIN MOHAMMED PATEL Vs. KHATUNBEN MOHMMEDBHAI POLARA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-10-2019
This appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 06.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Civil Revision Application No.354 of 2017. The instant proceedings arise out of an application preferred by the respondent under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was initially rejected by the Trial Court but came to be allowed by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
(2019) 3 ApexCourtJudgments(SC) 661 : (2019) 4 CivCC 714 : (2020) 1 JLJR 191 : (2020) 1 PLJR 138 : (2020) 1 RCRCivil 170 : (2019) 10 SCC 226

(990) BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS Vs. AMIT KUMAR AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-10-2019
The legal issue involved in these appeals is whether the Patna High Court was right in holding that when the allottee of land, allotted for industrial purposes, further transferred the land to some other entity, the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) was only entitled to recover the unearned increase on the basis of cost of land and development charges and not on the basis of the market value of the land or the circle rate of the land. In view of the decision that we intend to t
(2019) 4 JLJR 440 : (2019) 4 PLJR 365 : (2019) 16 SCALE 174 : (2019) 10 SCC 733

(991) SHAUKATHUSSAIN MOHAMMED PATEL Vs. KHATUNBEN MOHMMEDBHAI POLARA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-10-2019
This appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 06.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Civil Revision Application No.354 of 2017. The instant proceedings arise out of an application preferred by the respondent under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was initially rejected by the Trial Court but came to be allowed by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Special Civil Suit No.204/2016 was filed by the appel
(2020) 1 RCRCivil 170 : (2019) 10 SCC 226

(992) KARAN SINGH Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-10-2019
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15th March, 2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7662 of 2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi setting aside the order dated 19th February, 2015 passed in O.A. No. 43 of 2014 of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Corporation was directed to pay the appellant pension and other benefits in accordance with the pension scheme introduced by the Delhi Transport Corporation(DTC) vide its Office Order dated 27th November, 1992 read with VRS,
(2019) AIRSC 5566 : (2020) AIRSCCivil 951 : (2020) 1 ApexCourtJudgments(SC) 121 : (2020) 1 CLR 449 : (2020) 1 JCR 93 : (2019) 14 SCALE 264 : (2019) 4 SCT 780 : (2020) 1 SLJ 111 : (2020) 1 SLJSC 111

(993) M. SRIKANTH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-10-2019
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 120-B 418, 420, 448 and 380 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 156(3) and 482 - Forgery and fabrication and executing the lease deed on the basis of the forged and fabricated documents - Quashing of proceedings - Where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused - Where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR a
(2019) AIRSC 5363 : (2020) AIRSCCri 204 : (2019) 3 ALTCrl 369 : (2020) 1 AndhLDCriminal 202 : (2019) 4 JCC 4111 : (2019) 10 JT 451 : (2020) 1 MLJCriminal 228 : (2020) 1 RCRCriminal 81 : (2019) 14 SCALE 169 : (2019) 10 SCC 373

(994) OM PARKASH AND ANOTHER Vs. AMAR SINGH AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-10-2019
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Order 21 Rule 97, Order 21 Rule 99, Order 7 Rule 11, Order 21 Rule 25 and Order 21 Rule 35(3) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 - Delivery of possession - Whether delivery of possession to the decree holder with police assistance was vitiated in absence of any orders by the Court for providing such police assistance?
(2019) AIRSC 5370 : (2020) 1 ALT 103 : (2020) 1 AndhLD 85 : (2019) 3 ApexCourtJudgments(SC) 578 : (2019) 10 JT 446 : (2020) 2 MhLJ 803 : (2019) 4 MPJR 67 : (2020) 1 OriLawRev 22 : (2020) 1 RCRCivil 74 : (2019) 14 SCALE 322 : (2019) 10 SCC 136

(995) STRESSED ASSESTS STABILIZATION FUND Vs. WEST BENGAL SMALL IND. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-10-2019
In this appeal by special leave, an affirming judgment of the Calcutta High Court (dismissing the appeal, against an order allowing the respondent's application under Section 535 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereafter "the Act") has been questioned. The appellant (hereafter "SASF") is a trust, constituted as a special purpose vehicle (SPV) by the Central Government for acquiring by transfer, the stressed assets of the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI), to administer and manage the stres
(2019) 14 SCALE 403 : (2019) 10 SCC 148 : (2019) 4 WLN 47

(996) RAHUL SUDHAKAR ANANTWAR Vs. SHIVKUMAR KANHIYALAL SHRIVASTAV [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-10-2019
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) - Section 138 and 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Accused has not disputed his signature on the said cheque presented for clearance. Contention of the appellant that the cheque issued in the name of the Firm, named, Synergy and Solution Incorporation was removed from his office table is not convincing nor the same is supported by any evidence. As pointed by the High Court in the statutory presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, the appellant-acc
(2020) ACD 82 : (2019) AIRSC 5520 : (2020) AIRSCCri 319 : (2020) ALLMRCri 1431 : (2020) 1 AndhLDCriminal 182 : (2020) 1 ApexCourtJudgments(SC) 192 : (2020) 1 BC 468 : (2020) 1 CivCC 1 : (2020) 1 CriCC 260 : (2019) CriLR 1317 : (2019) 4 Crimes 250 : (2020) 1 ICC 500 : (2019) 4 RajCriC 2507 : (2020) 1 RCRCriminal 94 : (2019) 10 SCC 203 : (2020) 1 SCCCri 129

(997) Rahul Sudhakar Anantwar Vs. Shivkumar Kanhiyalal Shrivastav [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-10-2019
This appeal arises out of judgment and order 05.09.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in and by which the High Court has reversed the acquittal of the Appellant Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and convicted him Under Section 138 of the said Act and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) and also costs of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) total Rs. 5,20,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty
(2019) AIRSC 5520 : (2020) 1 RCRCriminal 94 : (2019) 10 SCC 203

(998) Madhu Rani Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-10-2019
This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 22.12.2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi dismissing the application being Crl.M.C. No. 09 of 2015 filed by the Appellant Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court has refused to set aside the order dated 08.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, allowing a revisional application filed by the Respondent No. 2 and holding that the FDR deposited by the Appellant in Court, pu
(2019) AIRSC 5470 : (2020) AIRSCCri 397 : (2020) 1 AndhLDCriminal 4 : (2020) 1 ApexCourtJudgments(SC) 287 : (2020) 1 CriCC 484 : (2020) CriLJ 551

(999) BARUN CHANDRA THAKUR Vs. RYAN AUGUSTINE PINTO AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-10-2019
Permission to file SLP is granted. Leave granted. With the consent of counsel of the parties, the appeal was heard finally. The respondent had approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking modification of orders made previously, which had granted anticipatory bail to him. By the impugned order, the conditions governing his anticipatory bail were modified. In these circumstances, the father of the victim of the crime has approached this Court, claiming to be aggrieved by the
(2020) 1 ApexCourtJudgments(SC) 216 : (2020) 1 RCRCriminal 121

(1000) SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY Vs. UCO BANK AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-10-2019
The appellant calls in question the order of the High Court, by which the learned single Judge, according to the appellant, has made observations against him which are unwarranted, both on facts and in law. The appellant is a Judicial Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal. According to the appellant, in a case filed against the first respondent-bank on account of non-appearance on behalf of the first respondent-bank, the bank came to be proceeded
(2019) 4 CPJ 21