ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(21) RINKU BAHETI Vs. SANDESH SHARDA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 142(1) — Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage under Article 142(1) — Discretionary Power — The Court reaffirmed that the power to grant a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage under Article 142(1) is discretionary and should be exercised with great care and caution.

B. Misuse of Criminal Laws in Matrimonial Disputes — Caution Against Vague Allegations — The Court cautioned against making vague and general allegations in criminal compl
India Law Library Docid # 2421006

(22) BHERULAL BHIMAJI OSWAL(D) BY LRs. Vs. MADHUSUDAN N.KUMBHARE[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Consumer Law — Medical Negligence — Medical negligence was established due to the doctor's failure to diagnose and treat a post-operative infection (endophthalmitis) in a timely manner, which led to the patient's loss of vision — The doctor's claim that the patient caused the infection by changing his own bandage was not supported by credible evidence — The court emphasized that medical professionals have a responsibility to provide proper post-operative care and to diagnose and treat complicati
India Law Library Docid # 2421048

(23) AJITH G. DAS AND OTHERS ETC Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Service Law — Recruitment Process — Post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II in Kerala — Autonomy of KPSC vs. Government's Role in Determining Vacancies — The Court clarifies that while the KPSC is an autonomous body responsible for conducting the selection process, the determination of the number of vacancies and the requisition for employees remain the prerogative of the State Government, which is the employer. The High Court had previously held that the KPSC had full autonomy in deciding on m
India Law Library Docid # 2421049

(24) AMUTHA Vs. A.R. SUBRAMANIAN[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-12-2024
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) — Cruelty — Mental Cruelty — The court affirms that lodging false complaints against a spouse constitutes mental cruelty — In this case, the wife filed a criminal complaint alleging dowry harassment against the husband and his family but later abandoned it without pursuing the matter — The court inferred that the complaint was baseless and filed with the intent to harass, causing mental agony to the husband — This reinforces the principle tha
India Law Library Docid # 2421050

(25) ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY ETC. Vs. GEETANJALI TIWARI (PANDEY) AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 18-12-2024
University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 — Regulation 10(f)(iii) — The Supreme Court upheld Allahabad University's decision not to count Respondent 1's past teaching experience for shortlisting under Regulation 10(f)(iii), rejecting her claim that it violated Article 14 — The Court found that courts cannot alter s
India Law Library Docid # 2420862

(26) COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM Vs. M/S. MADHAN AGRO INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 18-12-2024
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 — Alignment with HSN — The Court reaffirmed that when the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is aligned with the HSN, the Explanatory Notes and General Notes of the HSN become binding for the purpose of classification — Courts should refer to the HSN when interpreting tariff entries, especially when the Act's headings and notes are consistent with the HSN.
India Law Library Docid # 2420863

(27) PAWAPURI RICE MILLS Vs. THE BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 18-12-2024
Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 — Sections 3(6) and 7 — A government agency acting as a nodal agent for public procurement, such as the Civil Supplies Corporation, can initiate recovery proceedings under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 for amounts due as 'public demand' if the transaction falls under the definition of 'public demand' in the Act, even in the absence of a specific clause in the agreement authorizing such recovery proceedings.
India Law Library Docid # 2420864

(28) IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 18-12-2024
Forest Conservation Act, 1980 — Application of — Universal Application — The Court reaffirms that the FC Act applies to all forests, regardless of their classification or ownership — This includes areas traditionally recognized as forests by local communities.
India Law Library Docid # 2420865

(29) GEETA DUBEY AND OTHERS Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 18-12-2024
Standard of Proof in Motor Accident Claims — Preponderance of Probability — The court reaffirmed that in motor accident claims, where the accident or the involvement of a vehicle is in dispute, the claimant need only prove their case on the basis of a preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt (See paragraphs 20 and 21).
India Law Library Docid # 2420866

(30) SIDDHANT @ SIDHARTH BALU TAKTODE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 18-12-2024
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 — Rejection of Bail by Lower Courts —The case stems from a challenge to the High Court's decision to reject the appellant's bail application, which upheld the Special Judge's decision to deny bail — The lower courts based their decisions on the fact that the twin conditions required for granting bail under MCOCA were not met.
India Law Library Docid # 2421017

(31) SAMBHUBHAI RAISANGBHAI PADHIYAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-12-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 364, and 377 — Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 — Sections 4, 6, 29 and 30 — Kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of 4 year child — The Court clarified that where foundational facts exist for an offence under Section 5 of the POCSO Act, a presumption under Section 29 can be raised. Section 30 allows the accused to prove the absence of a culpable mental state.
India Law Library Docid # 2420821

(32) AYUB KHAN Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-12-2024
Mandatory Inclusion of Antecedents in Bail Orders — The Court established that the directions mandating the inclusion of antecedents in all bail orders are not binding precedents — They are considered mere suggestions and guidelines rather than enforceable legal requirements.
India Law Library Docid # 2420824

(33) DEEPTI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-12-2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 125 — Fresh Adjudication on Merits — The case establishes a precedent that when a petition under Section 125 CrPC is dismissed for non-prosecution, a higher court has the discretion to set aside the dismissal and direct a fresh adjudication on the merits of the case — This underscores the importance of considering the substantive claims rather than merely procedural lapses.
India Law Library Docid # 2420826

(34) STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER Vs. SURESH CHANDRA TEWARI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-12-2024
Res Judicata and Finality of Previous Litigation — The Court reaffirms that once a matter has been conclusively decided by all competent courts, including the Supreme Court through the withdrawal of a Special Leave Petition, it is res judicata and cannot be relitigated on the same grounds — This principle underscores the importance of finality in judicial decisions to maintain the integrity of the legal system.
India Law Library Docid # 2420827

(35) ATHAR PARWEZ Vs. UNION OF INDIA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-12-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 120, 120B, 121, 121A and 153A—Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Accused under the UAPA can be granted bail if there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against them are prima facie true, and if their long incarceration without trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
India Law Library Docid # 2420822

(36) NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. M/S. S.A. BUILDERS LTD.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-12-2024
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 31(7)(b) — Power of Arbitrator to Grant Post-Award Interest on Pre-Award Interest — The sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award includes the principal amount plus the interest accrued from the date of the cause of action to the date of the award — Therefore, post-award interest can be calculated on this composite amount — Arbitrators have the power to grant interest on the interest already awarded (compound interest) under Section 31(7)(b) of
India Law Library Docid # 2420823

(37) RAJESH KUMAR Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-12-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction Limitations — The Supreme Court holds that the National Commission's revisional jurisdiction under Section, is limited and should not be invoked to merely reevaluate factual findings made by the lower courts (State Commission) unless there is a patent illegality or a gross miscarriage of justice.
India Law Library Docid # 2420825

(38) ANKUSH VIPAN KAPOOR Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-12-2024
National Investigation Agency, 2008 — Sections 6 and 8 — Interpretation of Section 8 — Broad Interpretation — The Court interpreted Section 8 of the NIA Act expansively, holding that it allows the NIA to investigate any other offence committed by an accused if that offence is connected with a Scheduled Offence being investigated by the NIA.
India Law Library Docid # 2420820

(39) BHARTI ARORA Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 13-12-2024
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 36-A(5) — Trial Procedure under NDPS Act for offences punishable up to three years — Section 36-A(5) of the NDPS Act — This provision mandates that offences punishable under the NDPS Act with imprisonment for a term of not more than three years must be tried summarily.
India Law Library Docid # 2420736

(40) PARTHA CHATTERJEE Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 13-12-2024
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 7A and 8 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 — Balancing Public Interest and Personal Liberty — The Court emphasized the need to balance the public interest in ensuring the accused's presence during trial with the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution — It highlighted that prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial unjustly deprives the accused of their liberty.
India Law Library Docid # 2420737