⚖
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.
5,541–5,560 · Page 278 of 500
Supreme Court of India1 Apr 2019Full text
2019 INSC 445 · [2019] 6 S.C.R. 378
from respondent – On delivery, the service engineer pointed out that 1000 mv/650 Watt UPS was not suitable and advised appellant to purchase 1KVA Online UPS for usage during power failure – Stand of appellant was that he got a confirmation from the manufacturer of the equipment that UPS which the appellant had D was su…
Supreme Court of India1 Apr 2019Full text
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.
5,541–5,560 · Page 278 of 500
Supreme Court of India1 Apr 2019Full text
2019 INSC 445 · [2019] 6 S.C.R. 378
from respondent – On delivery, the service engineer pointed out that 1000 mv/650 Watt UPS was not suitable and advised appellant to purchase 1KVA Online UPS for usage during power failure – Stand of appellant was that he got a confirmation from the manufacturer of the equipment that UPS which the appellant had D was su…
Supreme Court of India1 Apr 2019Full text
2019 INSC 444 · [2019] 6 S.C.R. 673
aside. Respondent-Complainant purchased a hydraulic excavator machine in 2004-05. The excavator was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited (earlier insurer) from 15 Nov. 2004 to 14 Nov. 2005. Claim lodged by the respondent on the C ground that the excavator had been set on fire by Naxalites. Claim was set…
Supreme Court of India29 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 438 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 1009
1009 1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R. A Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 As per clause 43(2) of the Contract, the contractor signs a “No claim” certificate in favour of the railway in the prescribed format after the work is finally measured up and the contractor shall be debarred from disputing t…
Supreme Court of India29 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 436 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 1046
1046 SUNIL KUMAR BISWAS v. ORDINANCE FACTORY 1047 BOARD & ORS. Rajat Sharma, Subhasish Bhowmick, Advs. for the Appellant. A Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adit Khorana (for Mukesh Kumar Maroria), Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. B 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is dir…
Supreme Court of India29 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 435 · [2019] 6 S.C.R. 467
B Vikas Singh Jangra, Amit Kumar Pathak, Advs. for the Appellant. K. K. Venugopal, Attorney General for India, R. Balasubramanian, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, A.K. Sharma, Mrs.Anil Katiyar, Advs. for the Respondent. The Order of the Court was passed by C N. V. RAMANA, J. 1. This Special Leave Petition has been filed against…
Supreme Court of India29 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 434 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 916
EAC is directed to revisit the conditions subject of which it had granted EC, in a time bound manner – Constitution of India – Arts. 14, 21, 51A(g) and 142 – National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – ss. 16(h) and 20. Government of India approved setting up of an airport in CGoa in the year 2000. Ministry of Environment and …
Supreme Court of India9 Jan 2019Full text
2019 INSC 43 · [2019] 3 S.C.R. 281
[2019] 3 S.C.R. 281 281 ARUN KUMAR MANGLIK A v. CHIRAYU HEALTH AND MEDICARE PRIVATE LTD. & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 227-228 of 2019) JANUARY 09, 2019 B [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.] Negligence: Medical Negligence – Complaint before Medical Council of C India – Alleging medical negligence leading …
Supreme Court of India29 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 420 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 535
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 535 535 PATTU RAJAN A v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal Nos. 680-681 of 2009) B MARCH 29, 2019 [N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s.302 – Abduction and murder of husband of complainant (PW1) – Prosecution case was that accused no.1 C wanted to take P…
Supreme Court of India28 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 415 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 521
Civil Appeal No.3285 of 2019. H UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.v. ANTIQUE ART 523 EXPORTS PVT. LTD. Vineet Malhotra, Yasir Rauf, Obhirup Ghosh, Vishal Ghori, Mohit A Paul, Advs. for the Appellant. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Rahul Sharma, P. N. Puri, Vivek Sibal, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was deliv…
Supreme Court of India28 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 414 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 881
Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The trial in the suit has not been done satisfactorily inasmuch as the defendant was not afforded an adequate opportunity to file his written statement. In the absence G of any written statement, the defendant could neither adduce proper evidence nor file any documentary eviden…
Supreme Court of India28 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 413 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 886
E Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. This Court has consistently held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to allow the second appeal without framing a substantial question of law as provided under Section 100 of the Code. In other words, the sine qua non for allowing F the second appeal is to first frame the …
Supreme Court of India28 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 411 · [2019] 2 S.C.R. 1065
not justified in remanding the case to the magistrate – There was enough material before the appellate court to decide the appeal on merits – Thus, the order passed by the High Court and the appellate court set aside. Allowing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1 The High Court was not justified in allowing the revision f…
Supreme Court of India28 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 410 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 511
B With Civil Appeal No.4838 of 2011. Mohit Chaudhary, Ms. Puja Sharma, Balwinder Singh Suri, Ms. Sarima Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. Devadatt Kamat, AAG, Aristotle Joseph S., Javedur Rahman, C Ms. Priya Aristotle, Rajesh Inamdar, Aditya Bhat, V. N. Raghupathy, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was…
Supreme Court of India9 Jan 2019Full text
2019 INSC 41 · [2019] 1 S.C.R. 215
G Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 When in the northern side of the plot a pitch road was constructed which was prior to consolidation operation, the co-sharers of plot were entitled to get the benefit of road and H 215 216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. A when the Settlement Officer of Consolidation ha…
Supreme Court of India27 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 409 · [2019] 8 S.C.R. 912
Contempt of Court – A Bench of the Supreme Court convicted one advocate ‘MN’ for committing contempt in the face of the Court by judgment dated 12.03.2019, as reported in [2019] 5 SCR 313 – E Two complaints were filed against the said Bench of the Supreme Court – One complaint dated 20.03.2019 was filed by the ‘Indian …
Supreme Court of India27 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 408 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 91
Court was not justified in directing release of the accused – Order passed by the High Court is set aside. Interpretation of statutes: Provisions, when mandatory or directory – Held: While laying down a particular procedure if no negative or adverse consequences are contemplated for non-C adherence, relevant provision …
Supreme Court of India27 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 407 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 139
3. The real bone of contention which survives for consideration is the NCCD. The reason for this is that while the two cesses discussed aforesaid were in the nature of levy on the G excise duty payable, the NCCD is levied on the product itself, as per Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001. It is this aspect, inter alia,…
Supreme Court of India27 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 406 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 152
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R. A and relied on s.70 of the Contract Act – The non-production of the cement issue register and unstamped receipt by the department led the arbitrator to raise an adverse inference against the department – The arbitrator proceeded to award varying sums under the three contracts …
Supreme Court of India26 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 404 · [2019] 2 S.C.R. 1047
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3199-3200, 3201-3202 AND 3203 OF 2019. H CTO, ANTI EVASION, CIRCLE III, RAJ., JAIPUR v. 1049 M/S PRASOON ENTERPRISES, JAIPUR Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, D.K. Devesh, Satyendra Kumar, Irshad A Ahmad, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Ravinder Pal Singh, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judg…
Supreme Court of India26 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 403 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 46
SCR 400; Co-operators Life Insurance Company v. Randolph Charles Gibbens 2009 SCC 59 – referred to Lovelace v. Traveler’s Protective Association 47 Am. St. Rep. 638; Sinclair v. Maritime Passengers Assurance E (1861) 3 E&E 478; Fenton v. Thorley & Co. Ltd. (1903) AC 443; Steel v. Cammel, Laird & Co. (1905) 2 K.B. 232; …
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis
2019 INSC 444 · [2019] 6 S.C.R. 673
aside. Respondent-Complainant purchased a hydraulic excavator machine in 2004-05. The excavator was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited (earlier insurer) from 15 Nov. 2004 to 14 Nov. 2005. Claim lodged by the respondent on the C ground that the excavator had been set on fire by Naxalites. Claim was set…
Supreme Court of India29 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 438 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 1009
1009 1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R. A Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 As per clause 43(2) of the Contract, the contractor signs a “No claim” certificate in favour of the railway in the prescribed format after the work is finally measured up and the contractor shall be debarred from disputing t…
Supreme Court of India29 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 436 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 1046
1046 SUNIL KUMAR BISWAS v. ORDINANCE FACTORY 1047 BOARD & ORS. Rajat Sharma, Subhasish Bhowmick, Advs. for the Appellant. A Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adit Khorana (for Mukesh Kumar Maroria), Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. B 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is dir…
Supreme Court of India29 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 435 · [2019] 6 S.C.R. 467
B Vikas Singh Jangra, Amit Kumar Pathak, Advs. for the Appellant. K. K. Venugopal, Attorney General for India, R. Balasubramanian, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, A.K. Sharma, Mrs.Anil Katiyar, Advs. for the Respondent. The Order of the Court was passed by C N. V. RAMANA, J. 1. This Special Leave Petition has been filed against…
Supreme Court of India29 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 434 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 916
EAC is directed to revisit the conditions subject of which it had granted EC, in a time bound manner – Constitution of India – Arts. 14, 21, 51A(g) and 142 – National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – ss. 16(h) and 20. Government of India approved setting up of an airport in CGoa in the year 2000. Ministry of Environment and …
Supreme Court of India9 Jan 2019Full text
2019 INSC 43 · [2019] 3 S.C.R. 281
[2019] 3 S.C.R. 281 281 ARUN KUMAR MANGLIK A v. CHIRAYU HEALTH AND MEDICARE PRIVATE LTD. & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 227-228 of 2019) JANUARY 09, 2019 B [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.] Negligence: Medical Negligence – Complaint before Medical Council of C India – Alleging medical negligence leading …
Supreme Court of India29 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 420 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 535
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 535 535 PATTU RAJAN A v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal Nos. 680-681 of 2009) B MARCH 29, 2019 [N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s.302 – Abduction and murder of husband of complainant (PW1) – Prosecution case was that accused no.1 C wanted to take P…
Supreme Court of India28 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 415 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 521
Civil Appeal No.3285 of 2019. H UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.v. ANTIQUE ART 523 EXPORTS PVT. LTD. Vineet Malhotra, Yasir Rauf, Obhirup Ghosh, Vishal Ghori, Mohit A Paul, Advs. for the Appellant. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Rahul Sharma, P. N. Puri, Vivek Sibal, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was deliv…
Supreme Court of India28 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 414 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 881
Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The trial in the suit has not been done satisfactorily inasmuch as the defendant was not afforded an adequate opportunity to file his written statement. In the absence G of any written statement, the defendant could neither adduce proper evidence nor file any documentary eviden…
Supreme Court of India28 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 413 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 886
E Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. This Court has consistently held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to allow the second appeal without framing a substantial question of law as provided under Section 100 of the Code. In other words, the sine qua non for allowing F the second appeal is to first frame the …
Supreme Court of India28 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 411 · [2019] 2 S.C.R. 1065
not justified in remanding the case to the magistrate – There was enough material before the appellate court to decide the appeal on merits – Thus, the order passed by the High Court and the appellate court set aside. Allowing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1 The High Court was not justified in allowing the revision f…
Supreme Court of India28 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 410 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 511
B With Civil Appeal No.4838 of 2011. Mohit Chaudhary, Ms. Puja Sharma, Balwinder Singh Suri, Ms. Sarima Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. Devadatt Kamat, AAG, Aristotle Joseph S., Javedur Rahman, C Ms. Priya Aristotle, Rajesh Inamdar, Aditya Bhat, V. N. Raghupathy, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was…
Supreme Court of India9 Jan 2019Full text
2019 INSC 41 · [2019] 1 S.C.R. 215
G Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 When in the northern side of the plot a pitch road was constructed which was prior to consolidation operation, the co-sharers of plot were entitled to get the benefit of road and H 215 216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. A when the Settlement Officer of Consolidation ha…
Supreme Court of India27 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 409 · [2019] 8 S.C.R. 912
Contempt of Court – A Bench of the Supreme Court convicted one advocate ‘MN’ for committing contempt in the face of the Court by judgment dated 12.03.2019, as reported in [2019] 5 SCR 313 – E Two complaints were filed against the said Bench of the Supreme Court – One complaint dated 20.03.2019 was filed by the ‘Indian …
Supreme Court of India27 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 408 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 91
Court was not justified in directing release of the accused – Order passed by the High Court is set aside. Interpretation of statutes: Provisions, when mandatory or directory – Held: While laying down a particular procedure if no negative or adverse consequences are contemplated for non-C adherence, relevant provision …
Supreme Court of India27 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 407 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 139
3. The real bone of contention which survives for consideration is the NCCD. The reason for this is that while the two cesses discussed aforesaid were in the nature of levy on the G excise duty payable, the NCCD is levied on the product itself, as per Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001. It is this aspect, inter alia,…
Supreme Court of India27 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 406 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 152
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R. A and relied on s.70 of the Contract Act – The non-production of the cement issue register and unstamped receipt by the department led the arbitrator to raise an adverse inference against the department – The arbitrator proceeded to award varying sums under the three contracts …
Supreme Court of India26 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 404 · [2019] 2 S.C.R. 1047
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3199-3200, 3201-3202 AND 3203 OF 2019. H CTO, ANTI EVASION, CIRCLE III, RAJ., JAIPUR v. 1049 M/S PRASOON ENTERPRISES, JAIPUR Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, D.K. Devesh, Satyendra Kumar, Irshad A Ahmad, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Ravinder Pal Singh, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judg…
Supreme Court of India26 Mar 2019Full text
2019 INSC 403 · [2019] 5 S.C.R. 46
SCR 400; Co-operators Life Insurance Company v. Randolph Charles Gibbens 2009 SCC 59 – referred to Lovelace v. Traveler’s Protective Association 47 Am. St. Rep. 638; Sinclair v. Maritime Passengers Assurance E (1861) 3 E&E 478; Fenton v. Thorley & Co. Ltd. (1903) AC 443; Steel v. Cammel, Laird & Co. (1905) 2 K.B. 232; …
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis