⚖
Loading…
Loading…
Indian case law by case name, citation, provision or legal issue, with the case summary, the judgment text where we hold it and the provisions it applies.
401–420 · Page 21 of 500
Supreme Court of India28 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 786 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1179
Whether the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was justified in directing the appellant-Administration for construction of verandah in front of Court Room No.1 and laying of green paver blocks in the kutcha parking, the open area used for parking.
Supreme Court of India28 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 785 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 881
Indian case law by case name, citation, provision or legal issue, with the case summary, the judgment text where we hold it and the provisions it applies.
401–420 · Page 21 of 500
Supreme Court of India28 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 786 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1179
Whether the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was justified in directing the appellant-Administration for construction of verandah in front of Court Room No.1 and laying of green paver blocks in the kutcha parking, the open area used for parking.
Supreme Court of India28 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 785 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 881
The instant matter arises from a series of encounters reported in the State of Assam (Respondent No. 1), the authenticity of which has been called into question on various counts. The appellant asserted that no meaningful or effective inquiry has been undertaken in respect of these cases and the guidelines laid down in People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. has been flouted blatantly.
Supreme Court of India28 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 784 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2764
Whether unauthorised tree felling and construction in the Delhi Ridge Forest without requisite permissions as directed by the Supreme Court in its orders in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India constitute wilful disobedience. Whether the omission to disclose during a hearing that tree felling had already commenced on an earlier date, while the relevant application remained pending, constitutes wilful disobedience that obstructed the administration of justice. If the breach by the Respondents is wilful and deliberate, what are the remedial and corrective measures that must be undertaken by them to purg
Supreme Court of India8 Apr 2025Full text
2025 INSC 783 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2606
Whether the observation of the Revenue Officer, as prima facie accepted by the High Court that the transaction of gift deed dated 07.12.1967 was a Benami transaction is totally erroneous as the amendment (2nd and 3rd Amendment in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955) came into effect almost two decades after registered gift deed was executed.
Supreme Court of India25 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 782 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 150
Issue arose as regards the correctness of order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition whereby the appellant sought quashing of criminal case against him that the appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with the complainant on false promise of marriage.
Supreme Court of India23 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 781 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2704
The Division Bench of the High Court held that appellant was not entitled to the benefit of maternity leave.
Supreme Court of India6 Jan 2025Full text
2025 INSC 78 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1524
Appellant had been convicted by the Courts below under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The issue was whether the conviction could be said to have been vitiated because of non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
Supreme Court of India23 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 779 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2726
Whether the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) are included in Organized Group-A Service (OGAS); all benefits available to OGAS, if available to the CAPFs.
Supreme Court of India22 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 778 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 216
Issue arose as regards sentencing the accused; about the rehabilitation of the victim and her child; and about adopting measures for adolescent well being and child protection.
Supreme Court of India22 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 777 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 139
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants under various sections of Penal Code, 1860, when the prosecution failed to conduct fair investigation and had suppressed affidavits of the eyewitnesses.
Supreme Court of India23 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 774 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 856
Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction of the appellants/accused no. 1 to 11 for offences punishable u/ss.302 and 307 r/w. s.149 of the Penal Code, 1860 and the other offences; whether, in the instant case, the trial Court followed the condition precedent before examining a minor witness; whether the trial Court satisfied itself that minor witness understood the importance of the oath.
Supreme Court of India22 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 772 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 190
Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the plaint filed by the appellant u/Or.VII, r.11, CPC, 1908.
Supreme Court of India23 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 771 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1007
Issue arose whether High Court was justified in remitting the matter back to the trial court on the second occasion, for de-novo disposal.
Supreme Court of India23 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 770 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2486
Issue pertains to whether the notification by the Coal India imposing Evacuation Facility Charges constituted a change in law under the Power Purchase Agreement; and as regards the interpretation of Article 10.2.1 vis-à-vis Article 10.5 of the PPA with specific reference to 10.5.1(ii).
Supreme Court of India23 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 769 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1128
RBI issued Administration Circular No.1 on 14.09.2020 opening a last option for the serving and retiring employees to switch over to pension scheme from CPF scheme. Whether the fixing of the cut off date i.e. 01.07.2020 for grant of pensionary benefits and that too prospectively is in consonance with law or is discriminatory and arbitrary.
Supreme Court of India22 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 768 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 105
Whether the arrest of the appellant’s son was per se illegal for want of supply of appropriate and meaningful grounds of arrest, as alleged.
Supreme Court of India23 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 767 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2448
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the applications filed u/s.482 Cr.PC by appellant for quashing the proceedings arising out of FIR u/s.2 and 3 of U.P. Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and the non-bailable warrants issued against the appellant respectively.
Supreme Court of India23 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 766 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2658
Whether it could be said that the respondent no.1-village had fulfilled all the necessary conditions/criteria for the issuance of formal order(s) of recognition as per the O.M.s dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 respectively, especially in light of the fact that the appellant had raised objections to the Public Notice dated 13.10.2009; whether the existence of an “inter-district boundary dispute” was a valid reason to keep the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village in abeyance?
Supreme Court of India23 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 764 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2185
Issue arose whether the High Court committed any error in rejecting the original petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the I.A. for deletion of name of the appellant from the array of parties was barred by res judicata; whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of s.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965; and whether the transfer of possession of the suit property was implicit in the decree of specific performance in the facts of the case.
Supreme Court of India22 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 763 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 94
Challenge to the Demand Notices issued to the Appellants demanding 10% of the total bid amount to be deposited with the concerned District Mineral Foundation(s) (DMF).
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis
The instant matter arises from a series of encounters reported in the State of Assam (Respondent No. 1), the authenticity of which has been called into question on various counts. The appellant asserted that no meaningful or effective inquiry has been undertaken in respect of these cases and the guidelines laid down in People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. has been flouted blatantly.
Supreme Court of India28 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 784 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2764
Whether unauthorised tree felling and construction in the Delhi Ridge Forest without requisite permissions as directed by the Supreme Court in its orders in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India constitute wilful disobedience. Whether the omission to disclose during a hearing that tree felling had already commenced on an earlier date, while the relevant application remained pending, constitutes wilful disobedience that obstructed the administration of justice. If the breach by the Respondents is wilful and deliberate, what are the remedial and corrective measures that must be undertaken by them to purg
Supreme Court of India8 Apr 2025Full text
2025 INSC 783 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2606
Whether the observation of the Revenue Officer, as prima facie accepted by the High Court that the transaction of gift deed dated 07.12.1967 was a Benami transaction is totally erroneous as the amendment (2nd and 3rd Amendment in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955) came into effect almost two decades after registered gift deed was executed.
Supreme Court of India25 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 782 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 150
Issue arose as regards the correctness of order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition whereby the appellant sought quashing of criminal case against him that the appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with the complainant on false promise of marriage.
Supreme Court of India23 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 781 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2704
The Division Bench of the High Court held that appellant was not entitled to the benefit of maternity leave.
Supreme Court of India6 Jan 2025Full text
2025 INSC 78 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1524
Appellant had been convicted by the Courts below under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The issue was whether the conviction could be said to have been vitiated because of non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
Supreme Court of India23 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 779 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2726
Whether the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) are included in Organized Group-A Service (OGAS); all benefits available to OGAS, if available to the CAPFs.
Supreme Court of India22 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 778 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 216
Issue arose as regards sentencing the accused; about the rehabilitation of the victim and her child; and about adopting measures for adolescent well being and child protection.
Supreme Court of India22 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 777 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 139
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants under various sections of Penal Code, 1860, when the prosecution failed to conduct fair investigation and had suppressed affidavits of the eyewitnesses.
Supreme Court of India23 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 774 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 856
Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction of the appellants/accused no. 1 to 11 for offences punishable u/ss.302 and 307 r/w. s.149 of the Penal Code, 1860 and the other offences; whether, in the instant case, the trial Court followed the condition precedent before examining a minor witness; whether the trial Court satisfied itself that minor witness understood the importance of the oath.
Supreme Court of India22 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 772 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 190
Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the plaint filed by the appellant u/Or.VII, r.11, CPC, 1908.
Supreme Court of India23 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 771 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1007
Issue arose whether High Court was justified in remitting the matter back to the trial court on the second occasion, for de-novo disposal.
Supreme Court of India23 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 770 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2486
Issue pertains to whether the notification by the Coal India imposing Evacuation Facility Charges constituted a change in law under the Power Purchase Agreement; and as regards the interpretation of Article 10.2.1 vis-à-vis Article 10.5 of the PPA with specific reference to 10.5.1(ii).
Supreme Court of India23 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 769 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1128
RBI issued Administration Circular No.1 on 14.09.2020 opening a last option for the serving and retiring employees to switch over to pension scheme from CPF scheme. Whether the fixing of the cut off date i.e. 01.07.2020 for grant of pensionary benefits and that too prospectively is in consonance with law or is discriminatory and arbitrary.
Supreme Court of India22 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 768 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 105
Whether the arrest of the appellant’s son was per se illegal for want of supply of appropriate and meaningful grounds of arrest, as alleged.
Supreme Court of India23 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 767 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2448
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the applications filed u/s.482 Cr.PC by appellant for quashing the proceedings arising out of FIR u/s.2 and 3 of U.P. Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and the non-bailable warrants issued against the appellant respectively.
Supreme Court of India23 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 766 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2658
Whether it could be said that the respondent no.1-village had fulfilled all the necessary conditions/criteria for the issuance of formal order(s) of recognition as per the O.M.s dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 respectively, especially in light of the fact that the appellant had raised objections to the Public Notice dated 13.10.2009; whether the existence of an “inter-district boundary dispute” was a valid reason to keep the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village in abeyance?
Supreme Court of India23 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 764 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2185
Issue arose whether the High Court committed any error in rejecting the original petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the I.A. for deletion of name of the appellant from the array of parties was barred by res judicata; whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of s.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965; and whether the transfer of possession of the suit property was implicit in the decree of specific performance in the facts of the case.
Supreme Court of India22 May 2025Full text
2025 INSC 763 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 94
Challenge to the Demand Notices issued to the Appellants demanding 10% of the total bid amount to be deposited with the concerned District Mineral Foundation(s) (DMF).
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis