⚖
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.
821–840 · Page 42 of 500
Supreme Court of India18 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 248 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 193
Issue arose as to whether the registration of the subsequent FIR is legally permissible and whether the High Court was correct in exercising its inherent powers in quashing the same.
Supreme Court of India17 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 246 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 205
Appellant, if entitled to anticipatory bail.
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.
821–840 · Page 42 of 500
Supreme Court of India18 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 248 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 193
Issue arose as to whether the registration of the subsequent FIR is legally permissible and whether the High Court was correct in exercising its inherent powers in quashing the same.
Supreme Court of India17 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 246 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 205
Appellant, if entitled to anticipatory bail.
Supreme Court of India11 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 245 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 648
Whether the High Court having, on earlier occasions, emphasized the necessity to abide by the command of its directions and also issuing notice to the Chief Secretary to comply with the order, was justified in directing the parties to mediation.
Supreme Court of India4 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 243 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1091
Whether ‘equitable mortgages’ are recognized in India under the nomenclature of ‘charge’ in terms of Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA); Who holds a valid mortgage over the property—the Appellant (Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Ltd.) or the Respondent No.1 (Central Bank of India).
Supreme Court of India17 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 242 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 636
High Court denied regular bail to the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 420, 201, 120-B read with Section 34, Penal Code, 1860. On facts, appellant, if entitled to bail. Factors relevant for considering application under Section 437(6) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Supreme Court of India17 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 241 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 234
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellants challenging the initiation of the criminal proceedings against them for the offences u/ss.499 and 500 IPC.
Supreme Court of India2 Jan 2025Full text
2025 INSC 24 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 81
Whether the time for filing an application under Section 17, Arbitration Act, 1940 commences when the party seeking to challenge the award receives a formal notice of the making of the award, or from the date such party is aware of the existence of the award.
Supreme Court of India18 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 239 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1588
The first issue is whether the power to grant remission can be exercised without the convict or anyone on behalf of the convict applying to the appropriate Government for a grant of remission. The second issue is about the nature of conditions imposed while granting remission. The third issue is whether there can be automatic revocation of remission granted to the convict if he commits a breach of the terms and conditions on which remission is granted. Lastly, another question is whether there is a requirement to record reasons while rejecting applications of the convicts for grant of permanen
Supreme Court of India11 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 236 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 208
Whether the respondents-Corporation justified in calling upon the appellant-contractor to show cause as to why they should not be blacklisted for a period of three years on alleged violation of the clauses of the tender; and whether the appeal should be entertained arising from a challenge to the show cause notice.
Supreme Court of India16 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 233 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 183
Whether forfeiture of gratuity is permissible in the event of termination of service on misconduct, which can be categorised as an act constituting an offence involving moral turpitude; without there being any conviction in a criminal case or even a criminal proceeding having been initiated.
Supreme Court of India17 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 231 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1948
Whether the State could amend the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 to provide that the input tax credit (ITC) already earned on goods kept in stock could be availed at a reduced rate as the rate of tax on the goods stood reduced in the interregnum when there was no enabling provision in the parent statute i.e., the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
Supreme Court of India17 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 229 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1241
Whether High Court was justified in quashing the FIR registered against the Respondent in the absence of a preliminary enquiry before registration of FIR under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; whether a composite order can be passed under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 directing registration of FIR and conducting investigation in the case.
Supreme Court of India4 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 225 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1890
a. Whether the Trial Court followed the basic requirements of a fairly conducted trial, in accordance with well-established prepositions of law, before imposing death sentence upon the Appellant/Accused? b. Whether the High Court was correct in confirming the death sentence imposed by the Trial Court?
Supreme Court of India12 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 223 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 91
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petitions filed by the Appellant-an independent non-executive director under Section 482, CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Appellant, if vicariously liable under Section 141.
Supreme Court of India13 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 222 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 630
Appellant in judicial custody for 5 years, no certainty as regards the time likely to take in conclusion of the trial. Whether the appellant is entitled to bail.
Supreme Court of India10 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 221 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 158
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court reversing the acquittal of the appellants-husband and mother-in-law of the deceased-wife and held them both guilty of offences under the Penal Code, 1860 and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 for causing the death of the deceased by setting her on fire.
Supreme Court of India13 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 220 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 80
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 is justified.
Supreme Court of India2 Jan 2025Full text
2025 INSC 22 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 158
Issue arose as regards the extension of the term of the Claims Commission, and determining the Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefits of the villages acquired by the appellant-MCL
Supreme Court of India13 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 218 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 100
Whether the appellant-Corporation is guilty of suggestio falsi by not disclosing what it had pleaded before the MACT and suppresio veri by suppressing the award; whether the High Court was justified in exercising review jurisdiction; and whether the respondent is entitled to back wages for the period for which he remained out of service.
Supreme Court of India13 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 217 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 138
Whether the appellant-companies are covered by the notification issued by the State dated 30.09.1991 for the purpose of availing 25% rebate on the tariff chargeable for availing power supply.
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis
Supreme Court of India11 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 245 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 648
Whether the High Court having, on earlier occasions, emphasized the necessity to abide by the command of its directions and also issuing notice to the Chief Secretary to comply with the order, was justified in directing the parties to mediation.
Supreme Court of India4 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 243 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1091
Whether ‘equitable mortgages’ are recognized in India under the nomenclature of ‘charge’ in terms of Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA); Who holds a valid mortgage over the property—the Appellant (Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Ltd.) or the Respondent No.1 (Central Bank of India).
Supreme Court of India17 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 242 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 636
High Court denied regular bail to the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 420, 201, 120-B read with Section 34, Penal Code, 1860. On facts, appellant, if entitled to bail. Factors relevant for considering application under Section 437(6) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Supreme Court of India17 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 241 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 234
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellants challenging the initiation of the criminal proceedings against them for the offences u/ss.499 and 500 IPC.
Supreme Court of India2 Jan 2025Full text
2025 INSC 24 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 81
Whether the time for filing an application under Section 17, Arbitration Act, 1940 commences when the party seeking to challenge the award receives a formal notice of the making of the award, or from the date such party is aware of the existence of the award.
Supreme Court of India18 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 239 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1588
The first issue is whether the power to grant remission can be exercised without the convict or anyone on behalf of the convict applying to the appropriate Government for a grant of remission. The second issue is about the nature of conditions imposed while granting remission. The third issue is whether there can be automatic revocation of remission granted to the convict if he commits a breach of the terms and conditions on which remission is granted. Lastly, another question is whether there is a requirement to record reasons while rejecting applications of the convicts for grant of permanen
Supreme Court of India11 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 236 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 208
Whether the respondents-Corporation justified in calling upon the appellant-contractor to show cause as to why they should not be blacklisted for a period of three years on alleged violation of the clauses of the tender; and whether the appeal should be entertained arising from a challenge to the show cause notice.
Supreme Court of India16 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 233 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 183
Whether forfeiture of gratuity is permissible in the event of termination of service on misconduct, which can be categorised as an act constituting an offence involving moral turpitude; without there being any conviction in a criminal case or even a criminal proceeding having been initiated.
Supreme Court of India17 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 231 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1948
Whether the State could amend the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 to provide that the input tax credit (ITC) already earned on goods kept in stock could be availed at a reduced rate as the rate of tax on the goods stood reduced in the interregnum when there was no enabling provision in the parent statute i.e., the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
Supreme Court of India17 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 229 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1241
Whether High Court was justified in quashing the FIR registered against the Respondent in the absence of a preliminary enquiry before registration of FIR under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; whether a composite order can be passed under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 directing registration of FIR and conducting investigation in the case.
Supreme Court of India4 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 225 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1890
a. Whether the Trial Court followed the basic requirements of a fairly conducted trial, in accordance with well-established prepositions of law, before imposing death sentence upon the Appellant/Accused? b. Whether the High Court was correct in confirming the death sentence imposed by the Trial Court?
Supreme Court of India12 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 223 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 91
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petitions filed by the Appellant-an independent non-executive director under Section 482, CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Appellant, if vicariously liable under Section 141.
Supreme Court of India13 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 222 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 630
Appellant in judicial custody for 5 years, no certainty as regards the time likely to take in conclusion of the trial. Whether the appellant is entitled to bail.
Supreme Court of India10 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 221 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 158
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court reversing the acquittal of the appellants-husband and mother-in-law of the deceased-wife and held them both guilty of offences under the Penal Code, 1860 and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 for causing the death of the deceased by setting her on fire.
Supreme Court of India13 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 220 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 80
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 is justified.
Supreme Court of India2 Jan 2025Full text
2025 INSC 22 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 158
Issue arose as regards the extension of the term of the Claims Commission, and determining the Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefits of the villages acquired by the appellant-MCL
Supreme Court of India13 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 218 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 100
Whether the appellant-Corporation is guilty of suggestio falsi by not disclosing what it had pleaded before the MACT and suppresio veri by suppressing the award; whether the High Court was justified in exercising review jurisdiction; and whether the respondent is entitled to back wages for the period for which he remained out of service.
Supreme Court of India13 Feb 2025Full text
2025 INSC 217 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 138
Whether the appellant-companies are covered by the notification issued by the State dated 30.09.1991 for the purpose of availing 25% rebate on the tariff chargeable for availing power supply.
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis