ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(341) RAM BALAK SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 01-05-2024
Bihar Consolidation of Upholdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 – Section 37 - Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts - The dispute involves 0.32 decimal of land in Bihar, originally settled by ex-landlord ‘R’ to ‘M’, and then allegedly inherited by the plaintiff-appellant through adoption - The main issue is the possession and confirmation of the plaintiff's possession over the land, which was challenged by the State authorities claiming the land as state-owned pond land (jalkar) - The
India Law Library Docid # 1604125

(342) DEEPENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 01-05-2024
Education Law - The case involves a service rule amendment by the State of Madhya Pradesh, impacting job aspirants - The amendment was later recalled, but not before affecting an ongoing recruitment process - The main issue was the application of the amended rule to the recruitment process, leading to legal challenges and the question of whether meritorious reservation category candidates should be treated as unreserved at the preliminary examination stage - The petitioners challenged the validi
India Law Library Docid # 1604126

(343) MUNISH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. M/S MITTAL TRADING COMPANY [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-04-2024
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Penal Code, 1860 — Section 420 — The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 alleging that the appellant issued a cheque dated 22.07.2010 to discharge a financial liability — The respondent later sought to amend the complaint to change the cheque date to 22.07.2012 —Whether the amendment to change the cheque date from 22.07.2010 to 22.07.2012 should be permitted —The appellant argued that the amendment should not be allowed as the original
India Law Library Docid # 2417234

(344) AJAY ISHWAR GHUTE AND OTHERS Vs. MEHER K. PATEL AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-04-2024
Land Dispute - The case involves a dispute over land ownership and the construction of a compound wall, which was permitted by the High Court under police protection without considering the rights of affected third parties - The main issue is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the construction of the compound wall under police protection, and whether necessary parties were impleaded - The petitioners argued that the High Court's order was illegal due to non-joinder of necessary par
India Law Library Docid # 1604117

(345) COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BELAPUR Vs. JINDAL DRUGS LTD. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-04-2024
Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 35L(1)(b) – qualification as 'manufacture' under the Act - The primary issue is whether the labeling activity constitutes 'manufacture' as per Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, thereby making respondent eligible for cenvat credit and rebate on exported goods - The revenue (petitioner) argued that the additional labeling done by Respondent did not amount to manufacture and hence, they were not entitled to the cenvat credit and rebate claims
India Law Library Docid # 1604118

(346) SWAMI VEDVYASANAND JI MAHARAJ (D) THR LRS. Vs. SHYAM LAL CHAUHAN AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-04-2024
Title Suit - The case involves a title suit regarding property in Bihar, with ‘S1’ as one of the defendants - After his death, two claimants sought substitution in the Second Appeal pending before the Patna High Court - The main issue was determining the legal representative (LR) for substitution in the Second Appeal after Swami ‘S1’s death - The appellant, argued for substitution in place of ‘S2’, whose claim was previously dismissed by the High Court - The respondent, was upheld as the LR by
India Law Library Docid # 1604119

(347) NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER Vs. M/S TATA STEEL LTD. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-04-2024
Insurance Act, 1938 - Section 64 UM(2) - Insurance Policy - Dispute regarding an insurance claim settlement after a fire incident - The primary issues revolve around the applicability of the Reinstatement Value Clause in the insurance policy, the correct method of calculating depreciation, and the settlement amount - Appellant contends that the claim was settled correctly by applying a 60% depreciation rate and challenges the NCDRC's order which partly allowed the insured's complaint - Responden
India Law Library Docid # 1604120

(348) PRIYANKA JAISWAL Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-04-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 323, 498A, 504 and 506 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3 and 4 – Jurisdiction - The appellant challenges the High Court's order quashing proceedings against respondents for offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act due to alleged dowry harassment - The appeal raises questions about the correctness of the High Court's order based on non-compliance with Section 41A Cr.P.C., omnibus allegations, and jurisdiction of the Jamshedpur court - The appellant
India Law Library Docid # 1604121

(349) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-04-2024
Stamp Act, 1899 - Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 - Power to levy and collect stamp duty – The primary issues are the legislative competence of the State to levy stamp duty on insurance policies and the applicability of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 or the 1998 Act - LIC contends that the state lacks legislative competence to impose stamp duty on insurance policies and challenges the demand for stamp duty payment for policies issued using stamps purchased from Maharas
India Law Library Docid # 1604122

(350) JASOBANTA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-04-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 302 – Murder – Property Dispute - The High Court affirmed the conviction, which led to this appeal - The appeal challenges the reliability of eyewitnesses and the recovery of the murder weapon, questioning the appellant's conviction - The appellant claims false implication, questioning the credibility of eyewitnesses and the voluntariness of the extra-judicial confession - The State argues that the conviction is based on correct evidence assessment and that the a
India Law Library Docid # 1604114

(351) SURESH @ UNNI @ VADI SURESH Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-04-2024
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sections 3(a) and 4(a)(i) - Arms Act, 1958 - Section 27(1) - Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 302, 307,143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 427 and 449 read with Section 149 - The case involves who appealed against his conviction under various sections of the IPC and other acts - The incident occurred on March 6, 2006, involving an unlawful assembly, murder, and grievous injuries with deadly weapons - The appeal challenges the High Court's partial allowance of Appellant’s
India Law Library Docid # 1604115

(352) FIRDOSKHAN KHURSHIDKHAN Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-04-2024
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 42, 50 and 67 - The appeals arise from a common judgment by the Gujarat High Court, dismissing appeals against a trial court's conviction of the appellants under the NDPS Act for possession of narcotics - The main issues revolve around the compliance with mandatory procedures of the NDPS Act during the search and seizure, and the admissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act - The appellants contend non-c
India Law Library Docid # 1604116

(353) FRANK VITUS Vs. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2024
Dropping of a Google PIN — The case involves the petitioner, appealing against the Narcotics Control Bureau and others — The appeal arises from a judgment by the High Court of Delhi — Two main issues were discussed: A bail condition requiring the dropping of a Google PIN and bail condition requiring an undertaking from the Embassy of the accused's country of origin that he will not be permitted to leave India —The petitioner's counsel argued against the bail conditions imposed by the High Court
India Law Library Docid # 2417235

(354) DAVID HANGSHING AND ANOTHER Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2024
Transfer of Case — The petitioners requested the transfer of their case from Manipur to another state due to the prevailing situation in Manipur and difficulties in conducting hearings via video conference —The main issue was whether the case should be transferred to ensure a fair trial given the current conditions in Manipur —The Supreme Court allowed the transfer of the case to the Special Judge (NIA) at Guwahati, Assam, to facilitate a fair trial —The Court considered the material on record,
India Law Library Docid # 2417236

(355) POOJA SINGHAL Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2024
Expeditious Trial — Petitioner filed a special leave petition against the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi —The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition and did not interfere with the impugned judgment — The Court noted that 12 out of 17 prosecution witnesses had already deposed and expressed hope for an expeditious trial —The petitioner can revive a request for bail if there is a change in circumstances or if the trial is prolonged for reasons not attributable to her
India Law Library Docid # 2417237

(356) A (MOTHER OF X) Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 376 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 — Sections 4, 8 and 12 — Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 — Section 3(2-B) — A 14-year-old minor, 'X', was denied permission by the Bombay High Court to terminate her pregnancy, which resulted from a sexual assault — The pregnancy was at 25 weeks when the case was brought to light —Whether the minor should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy despite it exceeding the statutory period of 24 weeks
India Law Library Docid # 2417238

(357) FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. M/S COROMANDAL SACKS PRIVATE LIMITED [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 26-04-2024
Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 — Sections 22(1) and 3(1)(o) — The case involves a dispute over the supply and payment for HDPE bags — Whether the suspension of legal proceedings under Section 22(1) of the 1985 Act applies to this case —Whether the High Court was correct in granting 24% compound interest on the principal amount —FCIL argued that the 1985 Act overrides the 1993 Act and that the civil suit was not maintainable due to the statutory bar under Section 22 of t
India Law Library Docid # 2417239

(358) ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 26-04-2024
EVM and VVPAT - Reliability - The petitioners challenged the reliability of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) systems, suspecting potential manipulation and demanding transparency in the voting process - The core issues revolved around the integrity of EVMs, the adequacy of VVPAT verification, and the fundamental right of voters to know their votes are correctly recorded and counted - Petitioner argued for a return to paper ballots, provision of VVP
India Law Library Docid # 1604109

(359) ANIRUDDHA KHANWALKAR Vs. SHARMILA DAS AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 26-04-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420 read with Section 120-B - The appellant challenged lower courts' orders regarding the summoning of respondents for alleged dishonest inducement in a marriage - The appellant claimed he was deceived into marrying a married respondent and that all respondents conspired to induce him into marriage and leave him with a significant sum of money - The respondents argued that there was no concealment or cheating, as all facts were disclosed to the appellant from th
India Law Library Docid # 1604110

(360) SANJAY MARUTI JADHAV AND ANOTHER Vs. AMIT TATOBA SAWANT [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 26-04-2024
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 6 - Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property - The appellants, owner of the property, allegedly evicted the respondent illegally and by force - The main issue was the maintainability of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the illegal dispossession - The appellants contended voluntary handover of possession and challenged the maintainability of the suit - The respondent filed a suit within six months of dispossession under Se
India Law Library Docid # 1604111