ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(841) U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD Vs. CHANDRA SHEKHAR AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-03-2024
The appellant-U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Board) is aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.10.2015, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, whereby acquisition in respect of Khasra No.673 (mentioned as plot No. 673 in the impugned judgment), situated within the revenue estate of village Hariharpur, Tehsil and District Lucknow, has been quashed on the ground that the respondent-tenure holders were not accorded opportunity to submit objections against
India Law Library Docid # 1882468

(842) SNEHADEEP STRUCTURES PVT. LIMITED Vs. MAHARASHTRA SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-03-2024
During the course of the hearing, our attention was drawn to Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993[3]. For the sake of convenience, the said Sections are reproduced below: - Liability of buyer to make payment.- Where any supplier supplies any goods or renders any services to any buyer, the buyer shall make payment therefor on or before the date agreed upon between him and the supplier in writing or, where there is n
India Law Library Docid # 1882486

(843) RAJKUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-03-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 342, 354, 366, 376(2)(n), 312, 201, 420, 506 and 509 —Information Technology Act, 2000 — Sections 66(E), 67 and 67(A) — The petitioner sought to invalidate an FIR filed against him by a former partner, alleging various offenses under the IPC and IT Act — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the nature of the relationship and the allegations made — The FIR was a counterblast to his complaint of blackmail/extortion — He argued that the relationship was conse
India Law Library Docid # 2417283

(844) NAEEM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-03-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 34, 302 and 307 - Murder - Dying Declaration - The conviction is based solely on the dying declaration of the deceased, who stated that her brother-in-law poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze over a dispute regarding the partition of their shared residence, and that co-accused ‘N1’ and ‘N2 aided him in the act - The main legal issues are whether the dying declaration is reliable, voluntary and free from tutoring, and whether it can be the sole basis of conv
India Law Library Docid # 1603974

(845) SANGAM MILK PRODUCER COMPANY LTD. Vs. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-03-2024
Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 - Section 2(v), 3 and 4 - Whether “ghee” is a “product of livestock” under the Act and if the government notification regarding “ghee” followed proper procedure - The court upheld that “ghee” is indeed a “product of livestock” and the 1994 government notification was valid - The court ruled that market fees must be paid for “ghee” from 1994 to 2009, with provisions for installment payments.
India Law Library Docid # 1603975

(846) THE TELANGANA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RECRUITMENT BOARD Vs. SALUVADI SUMALATHA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-03-2024
Service Law - Recruitment Process - Public Employment - Merely because a recruitment agency is not in a position to satisfy the Court, a relief cannot be extended to a candidate deprived as it will have a cascading effect not only on the said recruitment, but also to numerous others as well.
India Law Library Docid # 1603976

(847) SUMAN L. SHAH Vs. THE CUSTODIAN AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-03-2024
Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 - Sections 3(2) and 3(3) - Attachment of Property - Properties of the person notified under Section 3(2) would stand attached automatically with effect from the date of notification by virtue of Section 3(3).
India Law Library Docid # 1603977

(848) VINOD KATARA Vs. STATE OF U.P. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-03-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 302 read with Section 34 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 94 – Presumption and determination of age – The writ petition involves Appellant convicted for murder in 1982 and sentenced to life imprisonment - His appeal was dismissed in 2016, and he was taken into custody - Juvenility Claim – Appellant claims he was a juvenile at the time of the incident in 1982 - A Medical Board estimated his age to be around 56 in 2021 sugges
India Law Library Docid # 1603978

(849) PRABHAT KUMAR MISHRA @ PRABHAT MISHRA Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. AND OTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-03-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 306 - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(2)(v) - Abetment of suicide – Necessary ingredients - The appellant challenged the Allahabad High Court’s decision which rejected his application to quash the criminal case against him – Appellant was accused under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, based on a suicide note left by the deceased ‘D’ , who cited pressure and harassment from Appellant and ano
India Law Library Docid # 1603979

(850) SRINIVAS RAGHAVENDRARAO DESAI (DEAD) BY LRS. Vs. V. KUMAR VAMANRAO @ ALOK AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-03-2024
A suit[4] was filed by Kumar Vamanrao alias Alok son of Sudheendra Desai(plaintiff No.1), Kumar Vyas alias Prateek Sudheendra Desai (plaintiff No. 2) and Aruna wife of Sudheendra Desai (plaintiff No.3), sons and wife of Sudheendra (defendant No. 1) respectively, impleading the parents of defendant No.1 and great grant mother of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2. Kumari Arundhati (defendant No. 5) was daughter of Ramarao (defendant No.2 and sister of defendant No.1. Martandappa (defendant No.6) was said
India Law Library Docid # 1882484

(851) AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY NAMED HPEIF HOLDINGS 1 LIMITED) [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-03-2024
Heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Vikram Nankani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants (Award Debtors). Also heard Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Mr. Darius Khambata, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent (Award Holder). The challenge in these appeals is to the order dated 25.04.2023 in the Arbitration Petition No. 833 of 2015 and Notice of Motion No. 2475 of 2016 respectively whereunder, the High Court has facilitated the enforcement of the final Award dated 27.09.2014 is
India Law Library Docid # 1882488

(852) DISTRICT APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PNDT ACT AND CHIEF DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER Vs. JASHMINA DILIP DEVDA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-03-2024
Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 – Sections 20(1), 20(2) and 20(3) – The case involves the interpretation of Section 20 of the PC&PNDT Act, concerning the suspension or cancellation of registration by the appropriate authority - The main issue is whether the appropriate authority followed due process in suspending the registration of "Dev Hospital" without notice, under Section 20(1), (2), and (3) - The petitioner contends that the
India Law Library Docid # 1882514

(853) RAMESH KUMAR BUNG AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-03-2024
The case involves a special leave petition arising from a judgment by the High Court of Telangana — The informant had furnished an affidavit belatedly — The Supreme Court disposed of the special leave petitions without commenting on the merits, as the matter is still under investigation — The petitioners can approach the Court for appropriate relief if they feel threatened —The Court emphasized that the directions given in the case of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & O
India Law Library Docid # 2417284

(854) M/S TROIS CORPORATION HK LTD. Vs. M/S NATIONAL VENTURES PVT LIMITED [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-03-2024
Suit for Recovery — The respondent filed a suit to recover Rs 3.42 crores, leading to an ex parte decree against the appellant — The main issue is whether the ex parte decree should be set aside due to non-compliance with the service of summons rules — The appellant argued that the High Court's requirement to deposit 75% of the suit claim to set aside the ex parte decree was disproportionate —The respondent maintained that the ex parte decree was valid and the appellant failed to comply with pro
India Law Library Docid # 2417285

(855) RAJESH MONGA Vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-03-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections 47, 49(2) and 59 – The appellant filed a complaint against HDFC and its employees for charging him an adjustable interest rate on his home loan, contrary to the assurance given by the employees that the rate would be based on the RBI’s prime lending rate - The NCDRC dismissed the complaint, holding that the appellant was bound by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, which clearly stated that the interest rate would be as per HDFC’s retail prime
India Law Library Docid # 1603968

(856) SITA SOREN Vs. UNION OF INDIA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-03-2024
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article - 105(2), 194(2) - The appellant, a member of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, was charged with accepting a bribe to vote in favour of a candidate in the Rajya Sabha election - She claimed immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in PV Narasimha Rao vs. State (CBI/SPE) - The Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench of seven judges to reconsider the correctness of PV Narasimha Rao, which held tha
India Law Library Docid # 1603969

(857) SRINIVAS RAGHAVENDRARAO DESAI (DEAD) BY LRS. Vs. V. KUMAR VAMANRAO @ ALOK AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-03-2024
Suit for Partition - The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition of family properties against the defendants, who are their relatives - The plaintiffs were granted 1/6th share each in some of the properties, while the rest of the properties were either dismissed from the suit or remitted to the trial court for further evidence - The High court partly allowed the appeals of both the plaintiffs and the defendants, and modified the shares of the parties in some of the properties -The High court also
India Law Library Docid # 1603970

(858) SHAZIA AMAN KHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-03-2024
Custody of Minor Child - Custody dispute between the biological father and the maternal aunt of a minor girl - The main issue is whether the welfare of the child is best served by staying with the aunt, who has raised her since she was 3-4 months old, or by returning to the father, who claims his parental right - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the aunt and set aside the order of the High Court, which had directed the custody of the child to be handed over to the father - The Supreme Cou
India Law Library Docid # 1603971

(859) THANGAM AND ANOTHER Vs. NAVAMANI AMMAL [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-03-2024
Will – Validity of - Validity of a will executed by ‘P’ in favour of ‘N’, his niece. - The will was challenged by ‘T’ and ‘L’, the widow and daughter of the testator, on the ground of suspicious circumstances - The trial court upheld the will, the first appellate court reversed it, and the High court restored the trial court’s decree - The main issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, and whether the High court erred in interfering with th
India Law Library Docid # 1603972

(860) MURARI LAL CHHARI AND OTHERS Vs. MUNISHWAR SINGH TOMAR AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-03-2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 197, 200 and 202 - Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 323, 294, 427, 341, 447, 506B read with Section 34 and Sections 107, 141 of the - Illegally capturing of land and breaking of fencing - Criminal appeal filed by the appellants, who are officers of the Special Armed Forces (SAF), against the order of the magistrate taking cognizance of a complaint filed by the first respondent, who claimed to be the owner of a disputed land - The first respondent alleged
India Law Library Docid # 1603973