ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(981) SUNDER LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-02-2024
The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether a witness which has been shown in the prosecution list but not examined on behalf of the prosecution, can be permitted to be examined as a defence witness. In our considered view, both the Courts are wrong in declining the request of the appellant, as factually, the witness sought to be examined on the side of the defence has not been examined by the prosecution. In other words, the prosecution has consequentially chosen
India Law Library Docid # 1884110

(982) ATUL @ ASHUTOSH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-02-2024
Leave granted. Out of fixed term sentence of five years, the appellantaccused has already undergone half of the sentence. The appeal against conviction of the year 2022 is not likely to reach before he completes the entire sentence. Hence, a case is made out for grant of suspension of sentence pending the appeal and grant of bail. For that purpose, the appellant shall be produced before the Trial Court within a period of one week from today.
India Law Library Docid # 1884119

(983) XXX Vs. THE STATE REPRESENTED THR. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-02-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 417, 376, 420, 354A, 506(i) and 34 — Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 66A — The appellant lodged an FIR alleging offences under various sections of the IPC and IT Act — The chargesheet filed did not include some serious charges, prompting the appellant to seek further investigation — Whether the appellant's application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. should be treated as a Protest Petition and whether further investigation is warranted — The appellant a
India Law Library Docid # 2417324

(984) ANIL KISHORE PANDIT Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-02-2024
Post of Amin — The appellant applied for the post of Amin based on an advertisement that set the age cut-off date as January 1, 2011 — His application was initially accepted, but later rejected due to a change in the cut-off date to November 1, 2011 — Whether the change in the age cut-off date during the selection process was valid and whether the appellant's rejection based on the new cut-off date was justified — The appellant argued that the change in the cut-off date was arbitrary and not pub
India Law Library Docid # 2417325

(985) HAALESH @ HALESHI @ KURUBARA HALESHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-02-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 - Murder - Unlawful Assembly with Common Object - An overt act of some of the accused persons of an unlawful assembly with the common object to kill the deceased and to cause grievous hurt to the other family members is enough to rope in all of them for an offence under Section 302 IPC in aid with Section 149 IPC - Contention advanced on behalf of the appellants that the medical evidence or the medical report on record does not subst
India Law Library Docid # 1603909

(986) THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. SHANMUGAVELU [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-02-2024
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - Rule 9(5) - Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 73 and 74 - Forfeiture of earnest-money deposit by the secured creditor - Constitutional validity of Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules is upheld - High Court erred in law by holding that forfeiture of the entire deposit under Rule 9 sub-rule (5) of the SARFAESI Rules by bank after having already recovered its dues from the subsequent sale amounts to unjust enrichment - Sections 73 and 74 of the 1872 Act will h
India Law Library Docid # 1603910

(987) VINOD KANJIBHAI BHAGORA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-02-2024
Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022 - Rule 25 - Pension - Qualifying service for the purpose of calculating terminal benefits / pensionary benefits under the Pension Rules would include prior services rendered by such an person under inter alia the Central Government provided that (i) the employment of such person under the Central Government encompassed an underlying pension scheme; and (ii) such person came to be absorbed by the State Government - Pension is earned by a government ser
India Law Library Docid # 1603925

(988) RAJU KRISHNA SHEDBALKAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-02-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 406, 417 and 420 - Cheating and criminal breach of trust - Appellant was accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust by Respondent-informant, who claimed he deceived her family by accepting money for marriage arrangements that never took place - High Court partly allowed appellant's petition, quashing charges under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, but upheld charges under Section 417 of the IPC against him - Appellant argued that the High Court's reasoning for
India Law Library Docid # 1604204

(989) DATTATRAYA Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 01-02-2024
This appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 23.11.2010 passed by the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 06/2009 whereby the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 316 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) was upheld and the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 and 10 years of R.I. under Section 316 of IPC, and was directed to pay fine amount of Rs.5000 and Rs.2000/-, respectively.
India Law Library Docid # 1882476

(990) S. DAVID RAJKUMAR Vs. R. GEETHA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 01-02-2024
The limited grievance raised by the Appellant in the present Appeal is that though the High Court had enhanced the amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, For short the Tribunal Chennai vide Award, dtd. 22/7/2005 from Rs.1,09,598.00 (Rupees One Lakh Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Eight) to Rs.6,80,000.00 (Rupees Six Lakhs and Eighty Thousand), noting that the Court-fee affixed by the Appellant on the Appeal was proportionately valued at Rs.3,00,000.00 (Rupees Three Lakhs), t
India Law Library Docid # 1884114

(991) SUSHIL KUMAR PANDEY AND OTHERS Vs. THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 01-02-2024
Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 - Rules 11, 14 and 30 - Judicial Service - Change of Selection criteria - Selection process of District Judge Cadre in the State of Jharkhand - Empowers the High Court administration in specific cases to reassess the suitability and eligibility of a candidate in a special situation by calling for additional documents - High Court administration cannot take aid of this Rule to take a blanket decis
India Law Library Docid # 1603926

(992) HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION Vs. SUBHASH CHAND AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 31-01-2024
The appellant-Haryana Staff Selection Commission published an advertisement on 28th June, 2015 inviting applications for the posts of (PGT)-H.E.S.II (Group-B Services). The closing date for the submission of online applications was 21st September, 2015. The last date for the deposit of fee by the candidates was 24th September, 2015. The advertisement itself specifies the posts reserved for various categories, including SBC (5%) and EBPGC (5%). The first respondent specifically applied under the
India Law Library Docid # 1882348

(993) KUMUD GUPTA Vs. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 31-01-2024
Appellants counsel submitted that the Tribunal had rightly assessed the compensation at Rs.47,10,000.00 (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs and Ten Thousands only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the Claim Petition till realisation and a sum of Rs.35,31,151.00 (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs, Thirty One Thousand, one Hundred and Fifty One Only) was also deposited and which has been received by the appellants herein. However, in the appeal filed by the respondent-Insurer, the High Court, by the
India Law Library Docid # 1883040

(994) VANDEEP SINGH BASRA AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 31-01-2024
Education Law — Selection — The petitioners were selected for a superspecialty course at the Institute of National Importance (INI) — They sought permission to resign from their current institutions to join INI — Whether the petitioners should be allowed to resign from their current institutions and whether the vacant seats should be included in the mop-up round — The court approved the proposal from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, allowing the petitioners to resign and the vacant sea
India Law Library Docid # 2417326

(995) GOVERNMENT OF GOA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY Vs. MARIA JULIETA D’SOUZA (D) AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 31-01-2024
Suit for declaration of title and injunction - There is a clear distinction between burden of proof and standard of proof - While inquiring into whether a fact is proved, the sufficiency of evidence is to be seen in the context of standard of proof, which in civil cases is by preponderance of probability - High Court has correctly arrived at its conclusion regarding the existence of title in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the evidence adduced - Appeal dismissed.
India Law Library Docid # 1603927

(996) IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 31-01-2024
Environmental Rule of Law - The importance of ensuring the effective functioning of these environmental bodies as this is imperative for the protection, restitution, and development of the ecology - The role of the constitutional courts is therefore to monitor the proper institutionalisation of environmental regulatory bodies and authorities - In furtherance of the principles of environmental rule of law, the bodies, authorities, regulators, and executive offices entrusted with environmental dut
India Law Library Docid # 1603904

(997) BHARAT SHER SINGH KALSIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 31-01-2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 482 - Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 - Quashing of FIR - Misuse of Power of Attorney, misappropriation of property, failure to provide an account, and participation in a fraudulent sale deed - The dispute, if any, is between the land-owners/principals inter-se and/or between them and the PoA-holder - It would be improper to drag the appellant into criminal litigation, when he had no role either in the execution of the P
India Law Library Docid # 1603905

(998) SAFIYA BANO ALIAS SHAKIRA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-01-2024
This appeal challenges the order dated 24th July 2019, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 17636 of 2019, vide which the petition filed by the present appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the FIR No. 321 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 498¡A, 323, 504, 494, 377 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) against the present appellants is rejected.
India Law Library Docid # 1882346

(999) VEENA GUPTA AND ANOTHER Vs. CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-01-2024
National Green Tribunal (NGT) passed an ex parte order in suo motu proceedings, holding the appellants guilty and directing payment of compensation without issuing notices to the Project Proponents - The main issue was whether the NGT's orders were sustainable, considering they were passed without giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard - The appellants argued that they were not given a full opportunity to contest the matter and place all their defenses before the NGT - The respondents,
India Law Library Docid # 1882507

(1000) VITHAL Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-01-2024
This appeal was heard for admission, as a fresh case on 13.12.2023. While reserving orders, we had required Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant to submit written brief by 05.01.2024. The same has since been filed. Prima facie, we were inclined to dismiss the appeal, however, after considering the submissions, we feel that this appeal raises a substantial question which needs to be addressed and decided by this Court. Since we had heard the matter at length and, a
India Law Library Docid # 1882515