⚖
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.
681–700 · Page 35 of 500
Supreme Court of India31 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 424 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 436
i) Whether the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC) has the jurisdiction to regulate inter-state open access under the Electricity Act, 2003; ii) Whether the imposition of penalties for variations in drawal from contracted demand amounts to an unreasonable restriction on the right to open access under Section 42 of the Act of 2003; iii) Whether Regulation 26(7) of Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2016 is ultra vires for requiring an advance notice of 24 hours a day prior, thereby preventing urgent procurement and crea
Supreme Court of India31 Mar 2025
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.
681–700 · Page 35 of 500
Supreme Court of India31 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 424 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 436
i) Whether the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC) has the jurisdiction to regulate inter-state open access under the Electricity Act, 2003; ii) Whether the imposition of penalties for variations in drawal from contracted demand amounts to an unreasonable restriction on the right to open access under Section 42 of the Act of 2003; iii) Whether Regulation 26(7) of Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2016 is ultra vires for requiring an advance notice of 24 hours a day prior, thereby preventing urgent procurement and crea
Supreme Court of India31 Mar 2025
2025 INSC 423 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 331
The appellant’s writ petition, assailing the correctness of the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai/Competent Authority, was dismissed by the High Court.
Supreme Court of India31 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 422 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 342
Whether the respondents who have admittedly completed three years of service in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.12000-18300 (on 01.01.2006) are now entitled for pay band of Rs.37400- 67000 and AGP of Rs.9000; also, whether they are liable to be re-designated as Associate Professors.
Supreme Court of India31 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 421 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 344
Whether Resolution Plan-RP approved by Committee of Creditors-CoC and NCLT was in contravention of provisions of any law requiring NCLAT to exercise its jurisdiction u/s.61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; whether the NCLAT should have entertained the appeals filed by the respondents-63 Moons u/s.61 of the Code and tinkered with the RP approved by the CoC and the NCLT; whether NCLAT was correct in dismissing appeals by FD Holders challenging the distribution mechanism whereby full amount was not reimbursed; and whether ex-promoters/directors have a right to participate in meetings
Supreme Court of India26 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 420 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1407
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Trial Court issuing summons u/s.319, CrPC against the private respondents.
Supreme Court of India7 Jan 2025Full text
2025 INSC 42 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 542
Whether the plaint in the subsequent suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff, i.e., O.S. No. 49/2007, is liable to be rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the said suit is barred by the law of limitation.
Supreme Court of India31 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 419 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 327
Appellant sought release of his land from acquisition.
Supreme Court of India1 Apr 2025Full text
2025 INSC 418 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2753
Issue arose as regards the appropriate rate of interest to be awarded on the enhanced valuation of shares sold by the appellants to the Respondent No.1-State in 1973 as determined by the High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India31 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 417 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 488
Dispute arose as to whether the power exercised by Appellant in his capacity as a Tehsildar, while passing a Land Settlement Order- a quasi-judicial order u/s.57(2) of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, could be considered of a nature that would warrant disciplinary proceedings against him. The questions for consideration were (i) whether the chargesheet issued to appellant by Respondent-State fell within the scope of observations carved out by this Court in K.K. Dhawan case; and (ii) Whether inordinate unexplained delay in issuance of the chargesheet (in this case 14 years) was in itself
Supreme Court of India31 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 416 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court whereby it set aside the order of the trial court summoning respondents as additional accused for facing trial along with the principal accused.
Supreme Court of India17 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 415 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1448
Whether in the instant case, the Judicial Magistrate in terms of s.256, Cr.PC was justified in dismissing the complaint for default vide order dated 16.04.2021.
Supreme Court of India28 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 412 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1254
Whether the order by which the respondent-civil servant was dismissed from service, following disciplinary proceedings, should have been interdicted by the High Court on the ground that the charge-sheet had not been approved by the Chief Minister of Jharkhand.
Supreme Court of India28 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 411 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1350
Whether, the imported goods is to be treated as Base Oil as claimed by the appellants or High Speed Diesel (HSD) determined by the Customs Authorities, which is contested by the appellants. The High Court had concluded that the Customs Authority had been able to prove that the imported product is HSD by applying the test of preponderance of probability. Whether the High Court was justified, by applying the test of preponderance of probability and concluding that the substance in question is HSD.
Supreme Court of India28 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 410 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1309
Whether on facts, the offences punishable under Sections 196, 197, 299 and 302 of the BNS as alleged, were made out against the appellant, a Member of Rajya Sabha; whether the High Court erred in rejecting the petition filed by the appellant to quash the FIR lodged against him.
Supreme Court of India27 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 408 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1277
The issue relates to the applicability of the “theory of deduction” for determining the compensation payable under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Supreme Court of India18 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 407 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1460
The present appeals assail the orders passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in several writ petitions in respect of acquisition of various parcels of land from time to time by issuance of notifications u/ss.4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Supreme Court of India27 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 405 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1245
Cross-FIRs related to the same incident and for the same offences, with allegations and counter-allegations, were filed by two lawyers against each other. The Supreme Court explored the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties.
Supreme Court of India27 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 404 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1235
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal directing the eviction of the eldest son of the appellant-mother, a senior citizen from a portion of the house in question allegedly belonging to his deceased father.
Supreme Court of India27 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 403 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1226
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the courts below convicting the accused-appellant u/s.302 IPC.
Supreme Court of India27 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 402 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1217
Issue arose as regards the order by which High Court allowed the petition of the respondents thereby quashing FIR and further investigation under ss.34, 306, 420, 506 of Penal Code, 1860.
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis
2025 INSC 423 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 331
The appellant’s writ petition, assailing the correctness of the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai/Competent Authority, was dismissed by the High Court.
Supreme Court of India31 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 422 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 342
Whether the respondents who have admittedly completed three years of service in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.12000-18300 (on 01.01.2006) are now entitled for pay band of Rs.37400- 67000 and AGP of Rs.9000; also, whether they are liable to be re-designated as Associate Professors.
Supreme Court of India31 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 421 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 344
Whether Resolution Plan-RP approved by Committee of Creditors-CoC and NCLT was in contravention of provisions of any law requiring NCLAT to exercise its jurisdiction u/s.61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; whether the NCLAT should have entertained the appeals filed by the respondents-63 Moons u/s.61 of the Code and tinkered with the RP approved by the CoC and the NCLT; whether NCLAT was correct in dismissing appeals by FD Holders challenging the distribution mechanism whereby full amount was not reimbursed; and whether ex-promoters/directors have a right to participate in meetings
Supreme Court of India26 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 420 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1407
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Trial Court issuing summons u/s.319, CrPC against the private respondents.
Supreme Court of India7 Jan 2025Full text
2025 INSC 42 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 542
Whether the plaint in the subsequent suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff, i.e., O.S. No. 49/2007, is liable to be rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the said suit is barred by the law of limitation.
Supreme Court of India31 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 419 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 327
Appellant sought release of his land from acquisition.
Supreme Court of India1 Apr 2025Full text
2025 INSC 418 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2753
Issue arose as regards the appropriate rate of interest to be awarded on the enhanced valuation of shares sold by the appellants to the Respondent No.1-State in 1973 as determined by the High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India31 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 417 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 488
Dispute arose as to whether the power exercised by Appellant in his capacity as a Tehsildar, while passing a Land Settlement Order- a quasi-judicial order u/s.57(2) of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, could be considered of a nature that would warrant disciplinary proceedings against him. The questions for consideration were (i) whether the chargesheet issued to appellant by Respondent-State fell within the scope of observations carved out by this Court in K.K. Dhawan case; and (ii) Whether inordinate unexplained delay in issuance of the chargesheet (in this case 14 years) was in itself
Supreme Court of India31 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 416 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court whereby it set aside the order of the trial court summoning respondents as additional accused for facing trial along with the principal accused.
Supreme Court of India17 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 415 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1448
Whether in the instant case, the Judicial Magistrate in terms of s.256, Cr.PC was justified in dismissing the complaint for default vide order dated 16.04.2021.
Supreme Court of India28 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 412 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1254
Whether the order by which the respondent-civil servant was dismissed from service, following disciplinary proceedings, should have been interdicted by the High Court on the ground that the charge-sheet had not been approved by the Chief Minister of Jharkhand.
Supreme Court of India28 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 411 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1350
Whether, the imported goods is to be treated as Base Oil as claimed by the appellants or High Speed Diesel (HSD) determined by the Customs Authorities, which is contested by the appellants. The High Court had concluded that the Customs Authority had been able to prove that the imported product is HSD by applying the test of preponderance of probability. Whether the High Court was justified, by applying the test of preponderance of probability and concluding that the substance in question is HSD.
Supreme Court of India28 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 410 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1309
Whether on facts, the offences punishable under Sections 196, 197, 299 and 302 of the BNS as alleged, were made out against the appellant, a Member of Rajya Sabha; whether the High Court erred in rejecting the petition filed by the appellant to quash the FIR lodged against him.
Supreme Court of India27 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 408 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1277
The issue relates to the applicability of the “theory of deduction” for determining the compensation payable under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Supreme Court of India18 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 407 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1460
The present appeals assail the orders passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in several writ petitions in respect of acquisition of various parcels of land from time to time by issuance of notifications u/ss.4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Supreme Court of India27 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 405 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1245
Cross-FIRs related to the same incident and for the same offences, with allegations and counter-allegations, were filed by two lawyers against each other. The Supreme Court explored the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties.
Supreme Court of India27 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 404 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1235
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal directing the eviction of the eldest son of the appellant-mother, a senior citizen from a portion of the house in question allegedly belonging to his deceased father.
Supreme Court of India27 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 403 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1226
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the courts below convicting the accused-appellant u/s.302 IPC.
Supreme Court of India27 Mar 2025Full text
2025 INSC 402 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1217
Issue arose as regards the order by which High Court allowed the petition of the respondents thereby quashing FIR and further investigation under ss.34, 306, 420, 506 of Penal Code, 1860.
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis