ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(421) ANJALI Vs. CHETAN[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 11-02-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 142 — Exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 142 for Dissolution of Marriage — The Supreme Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage in exceptional circumstances, ensuring justice and putting an end to prolonged litigation — In cases where marriage has irretrievably broken down, and parties are embroiled in multiple litigations, the Court may invoke Article 142 to dissolve the marriage, promoting the
India Law Library Docid # 2422686

(422) SETH SOORAJMULL BALIKA VIDYALAYA AND OTHERS Vs. ASHA GUPTA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 11-02-2025
Service Law — Termination — Termination of a contractual employee upon completion of the contract term does not require adherence to principles of natural justice if no stigma is attached.
India Law Library Docid # 2422806

(423) KARUNA PARMAR Vs. PRAKASH SINHA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 11-02-2025
Motor Accident Claims — Courts must consider the highest potential earnings of an accident victim when determining compensation, and for minors, the minimum wage for a skilled worker in the state at the time of the accident can be used to calculate future earnings
India Law Library Docid # 2422808

(424) VINAYAK Vs. MANOHAR SINGH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 11-02-2025
Motor Accident Claims — In assessing compensation for motor vehicle accidents, the Court must consider the victim's actual monthly income, enhance future prospects based on age, and determine permanent disability percentage based on the nature of the profession and injury — The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation awarded to a victim of a motor vehicle accident, increasing the monthly income consideration, future prospects, and percentage of permanent disability. The Court relied on previous
India Law Library Docid # 2422811

(425) DEEPAK KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 11-02-2025
Motor Accident Claims — In calculating compensation for a deceased driver, the Court must consider the applicable minimum wage rate for a skilled driver at the time of the accident, rather than a notional income — The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the dependents of a road accident victim, correcting the High Court's calculation of the deceased's monthly income based on the minimum wage rate for a skilled driver.
India Law Library Docid # 2422812

(426) M. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM Vs. S. MANOHARAN AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 11-02-2025
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 — Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Employers are liable to pay interest on delayed gratuity and wages under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, from the date they become payable — The Supreme Court directed the payment of gratuity and wages to workers, including interest in a case where the employer had failed to make payments for nearly 39 years.
India Law Library Docid # 2422816

(427) ISMAILBHAI HATUBHAI PATEL Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 11-02-2025
Criminal Trial — Discharge of an Accused in a Criminal Trial — The court can discharge an accused if, upon considering the allegations in the charge-sheet, it finds no sufficient ground to proceed against them, as was the case with the appellant, a lawyer, who acted for a client with a power of attorney
India Law Library Docid # 2423007

(428) C.S. UMESH Vs. T.V. GANGARAJU AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 11-02-2025
Improper Modification of Court Order — The Supreme Court deplored the practice of making oral mentions for modifying orders/judgments, citing violation of principles of natural justice and procedure established by law
India Law Library Docid # 2423008

(429) HARI NANDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 11-02-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 353, 298, and 504 — Discharge from Criminal Proceedings — The Supreme Court allows the appeal and discharges the appellant from all charges under Sections 353, 298, and 504, finding that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out in the First Information Report (FIR)
India Law Library Docid # 2423046

(430) AC CHOKSHI SHARE BROKER PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. JATIN PRATAP DESAI AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-02-2025
Bombay Stock Exchange Byelaws, 1957 - Bye-law 248(a) - The appellant, a stockbroker, sought arbitration against a respondent and his wife for trading losses from the wife's account, claiming the husband guaranteed joint liability - The arbitral tribunal found both jointly liable - The husband appealed, and the High Court set aside the award against him, questioning the tribunal's jurisdiction under Bye-law 248(a)
India Law Library Docid # 2422375

(431) SUSHANT SHARMA Vs. U.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-02-2025
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 — In cases involving disputes over child custody and interaction, courts may exercise parens patriae jurisdiction to ensure the child's welfare, granting interim relief such as supervised interactions and asset protections, while also directing the parties to pursue concurrent proceedings under relevant statutes and may appoint Court Commissioners to oversee arrangements, with costs
India Law Library Docid # 2422484

(432) B.V. RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-02-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 269, 270 and 504 — Supreme Court held that the allegations against the appellant (Director of an Institute) of scolding a subordinate (complainant) for lackadaisical approach to duties, amidst Covid-19 pandemic, do not constitute offences under Sections 269, 270, and 504 of the IPC, as they lack the necessary ingredients, particularly the intention to provoke breach of peace or commit another offence, and thus, the criminal proceedings against the appellant are
India Law Library Docid # 2422410

(433) PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA Vs. RAMBABU SAINI AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-02-2025
Motor Accident Claims — Permanent disability — When a medical board's assessment of permanent disability is doubted by a Tribunal, the Tribunal should seek a re-assessment of the disability rather than determining the disability on its own.
India Law Library Docid # 2422370

(434) DEEPAK SINGH ALIAS DEEPAK CHAUHAN Vs. MUKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-02-2025
Motor Accident Claims — Compensation, particularly concerning the calculation of notional income for students and the re-evaluation of compensation — The court referenced Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh to argue against equating a student's notional income with minimum wage, suggesting a minimum of Rs. 10,000 per month for students from premier institutions — Considering the 2012 accident date, the court relied on the Harpreet Singh case to recompute the compensation, which included
India Law Library Docid # 2422371

(435) HANSRAJ Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-02-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Murder — Acquittal — Circumstantial evidence — Dispute over wages — “last seen” theory — Recovery of a murder weapon and witness testimonies — However, the Supreme Court found weaknesses in the prosecution's case — Motive was trivial, the "last seen" theory lacked independent corroboration, the weapon's recovery was questionable, and witness statements were inconsistent — Forensic evidence also failed to link bloodstains to the deceased — The court ruled
India Law Library Docid # 2422372

(436) RAVI Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-02-2025
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 106 — Burden of Proof — In a case built on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecution must first establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before the burden shifts to the accused to explain the circumstances, as per Section 106 — The court referenced the principle that Section 106 should not compensate for the prosecution's inability to provide evidence of guilt — The Court reiterated that this section applies only when t
India Law Library Docid # 2422373

(437) AMRIT YADAV Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-02-2025
Service Law — Validity of a recruitment process and appointments made for Class IV employees — Invalidity of Advertisement and Recruitment Process — The advertisement dated 29th July, 2010, issued by respondent No. 4, was deemed invalid because it failed to specify the total number of posts available and the number of reserved versus unreserved posts — This lack of transparency violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
India Law Library Docid # 2422374

(438) ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-02-2025
Representation of the People Act, 1951 — A smaller bench cannot reopen an issue already disposed of by a larger bench, but may consider related, undecided constitutional validity issues — The Supreme Court declined to reopen the issue of setting up special courts for cases against MPs/MLAs, as it was already disposed of by a larger bench — However, the Court agreed to hear the constitutional validity of parts of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and granted time for filing counter-affi
India Law Library Docid # 2422810

(439) PARAMESHWAR SUBRAY HEGDE Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-02-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Mere misdescription of the vehicle's make in a claim petition cannot be a ground for dismissal if the vehicle's registration number remains consistent —The Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment that had dismissed a claim petition due to a discrepancy in the vehicle's make (TATA Sumo vs. TATA Spacio), as the registration number (KA-31/6059) was consistent, thus validating the original compensation award of Rs. 40,000 with interest, minus interest for the delayed
India Law Library Docid # 2423725

(440) HARE KRUSHNA MAHANTA Vs. HIMADARI SAHU AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-02-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — “Just and Fair compensation” — The court's core reasoning involves ensuring just and fair compensation to the aggrieved party, even if it exceeds the claimed amount — This principle was previously stated in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto — The decision involves calculating the final compensation based on factors such as monthly income, future prospects, permanent disability, medical expenses, attendant charges, special diet and transportation, pain and suffering, and l
India Law Library Docid # 2422306