⚖
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.
1,341–1,360 · Page 68 of 500
Supreme Court of India22 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 809 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1757
Whether the High Court was able to demonstrate perversity and non-appreciation of the materials on record by the Trial Court while reversing its finding of acquittal.
Supreme Court of India22 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 807 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1902
What is the nature of enquiry while determining quashing of a First Information Report u/s.482 Cr.P.C., against a Bank and its Officials.
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.
1,341–1,360 · Page 68 of 500
Supreme Court of India22 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 809 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1757
Whether the High Court was able to demonstrate perversity and non-appreciation of the materials on record by the Trial Court while reversing its finding of acquittal.
Supreme Court of India22 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 807 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1902
What is the nature of enquiry while determining quashing of a First Information Report u/s.482 Cr.P.C., against a Bank and its Officials.
Supreme Court of India21 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 806 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1448
The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 read with sections 147 and 148 Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. His application for remission was considered expeditiously by the State Government after interference of the Supreme Court. The State Government while granting remission imposed four conditions on the appellant. The appellant contended that two out of these four conditions are vague, subjective and arbitrary. The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the legality of these two conditions imposed by the appropriate government in exercise of
Supreme Court of India21 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 805 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1748
Appellant, which is a statutory body under the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 and Respondent, a company, entered into a lease agreement for leasing storage space for a period of three years. Clause 16 of the agreement incorporated the arbitration clause. Dispute arose between the parties on the issue of revised storage charges and renewal of agreement. Appellant invoked the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 for eviction of Respondent from its premises. Respondent invoked arbitration by filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Act for t
Supreme Court of India21 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 804 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2314
Appellant-Airman, was charged for “Violation of good order and Air Force Discipline” and “Use of insubordinate language to a superior officer”. An order of admonition was passed on 18.05.2010 against the appellant by the Officiating Commanding Officer. Armed Force Tribunal set aside the punishment of ‘Admonition’ passed against the appellant vide order dated 18.01.2011. Not satisfied with the order of Armed Forces Tribunal, appellant demanded compensation by filing the present appeals.
Supreme Court of India21 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 803 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1736
Whether retired Lecturers/Principals of Government Aided Private Colleges, who were granted arrears of revised pension, are entitled to interest on delayed payment of revised pension.
Supreme Court of India21 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 802 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2303
Whether the appellant employee falls within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was illegally terminated from service in violation of procedure laid down in law.
Supreme Court of India21 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 801 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2227
Whether the delay of more than one year in issuing a reasoned order after oral dismissal in open court proceedings as ante-dated by the High Court constitutes a breach of the principles of fairness, propriety, and discipline required to be followed by the judiciary in the administration of justice?
Supreme Court of India21 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 800 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1726
Whether the High Court fell in error in remanding the matter to Trial Court and giving liberty to the accused to cross-examine a prosecution witness and allowing the prosecution to lead further evidence in the form of formal witnesses.
Supreme Court of India2 Feb 2024Full text
2024 INSC 80 · [2024] 2 S.C.R. 12
(i)Whether, the underlying principle of Section(s) 73 & 74 respectively of the Contract Act, 1872 Act is applicable to forfeiture of earnest- money deposit under Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules. In other words, whether the forfeiture of the earnest-money deposit under Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules can be only to the extent of loss or damages incurred by the Bank; (ii) Whether, the forfeiture of the entire amount towards the earnest-money deposit under Rule 9(5) of the Rules amounts to unjust enrichment. In other words, whether the quantum of forfeiture under the SARFAESI Rule is limited to t
Supreme Court of India3 Jan 2024Full text
2024 INSC 8 · [2024] 1 S.C.R. 11
As regards the principles of judicial discipline, if the lower or subordinate Courts could contradict the decisions of higher courts.
Supreme Court of India18 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 799 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2183
Whether a challenge to the constitutional validity of a statutory provision can be adjudicated upon in the absence of a lis and contest between the parties.
Supreme Court of India21 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 797 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1709
(1) Whether the appellants are entitled to higher compensation for their acquired lands, and if so, to what extent; and (2) Whether the methodology for calculating the quantum of such compensation has been appropriately applied.
Supreme Court of India21 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 796 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2278
(i) Whether the mandatory procedure under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was followed while considering objections against the acquisition; (ii) Whether the acquisition proceedings were vitiated on grounds of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution due to differential treatment of similarly placed landowners; (iii) Whether appeals are liable to be dismissed as infructuous in view of subsequent developments like ‘settlement’ between the parties; (iv) Whether the doctrine of merger applies, given prior dismissal of other appeals by the State against the same impugned judgment.
Supreme Court of India18 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 794 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 911
Whether there is a mandate to decide the application u/s. 319 CrPC before cross-examination of other witnesses.
Supreme Court of India18 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 792 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 736
The issue involved in the instant cases concerns the grant of Indian citizenship to the respondent.
Supreme Court of India18 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 791 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1404
Whether Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) has a right to contest an appeal against its order determining tariff for aeronautical services before Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), and then consequently prefer an appeal against the order of TDSAT before this Court under Section 31 of the Airport Economic Regulatory Authority Act, 2008; and Even if AERA does not have a right to contest an appeal against its order determining tariff for aeronautical services before TDSAT, does it have a right to prefer an appeal against the order of TDSAT before this Court in
Supreme Court of India18 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 790 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1513
Petitioner, an NGO raised significant concerns as regards prevelance of child marriages and failure of authorities to prevent them despite the enactment of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Sought issuance of effective guidelines inter alia for stronger enforcement mechanisms, awareness programs, appointment of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers, and comprehensive support systems for child brides.
Supreme Court of India17 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 789 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 961
Issue arose as regards the constitutional validity of s.6A of the Citizenship Act; does s.6A offend preambular values like fraternity; s.6A, if ultra vires Part II of the Constitution; does s.6A create an unreasonable classification which violates Art. 14; does s.6A suffer from manifest arbitrariness; does s.6A violate the rights provided to ‘indigenous’ communities u/Art. 29; s.6A, if ultra vires Art. 21; does s.6A violate the political rights of Indian citizens in Assam u/Art. 326; does the operation of s.6A cause ‘external aggression’ and ‘internal disturbance’, culminating in the invocatio
Supreme Court of India17 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 788 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 753
Whether the conviction of the appellant and the death sentence awarded for the alleged murders of his wife, daughter and mother were justified.
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis
Supreme Court of India21 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 806 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1448
The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 read with sections 147 and 148 Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. His application for remission was considered expeditiously by the State Government after interference of the Supreme Court. The State Government while granting remission imposed four conditions on the appellant. The appellant contended that two out of these four conditions are vague, subjective and arbitrary. The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the legality of these two conditions imposed by the appropriate government in exercise of
Supreme Court of India21 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 805 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1748
Appellant, which is a statutory body under the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 and Respondent, a company, entered into a lease agreement for leasing storage space for a period of three years. Clause 16 of the agreement incorporated the arbitration clause. Dispute arose between the parties on the issue of revised storage charges and renewal of agreement. Appellant invoked the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 for eviction of Respondent from its premises. Respondent invoked arbitration by filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Act for t
Supreme Court of India21 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 804 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2314
Appellant-Airman, was charged for “Violation of good order and Air Force Discipline” and “Use of insubordinate language to a superior officer”. An order of admonition was passed on 18.05.2010 against the appellant by the Officiating Commanding Officer. Armed Force Tribunal set aside the punishment of ‘Admonition’ passed against the appellant vide order dated 18.01.2011. Not satisfied with the order of Armed Forces Tribunal, appellant demanded compensation by filing the present appeals.
Supreme Court of India21 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 803 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1736
Whether retired Lecturers/Principals of Government Aided Private Colleges, who were granted arrears of revised pension, are entitled to interest on delayed payment of revised pension.
Supreme Court of India21 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 802 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2303
Whether the appellant employee falls within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was illegally terminated from service in violation of procedure laid down in law.
Supreme Court of India21 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 801 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2227
Whether the delay of more than one year in issuing a reasoned order after oral dismissal in open court proceedings as ante-dated by the High Court constitutes a breach of the principles of fairness, propriety, and discipline required to be followed by the judiciary in the administration of justice?
Supreme Court of India21 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 800 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1726
Whether the High Court fell in error in remanding the matter to Trial Court and giving liberty to the accused to cross-examine a prosecution witness and allowing the prosecution to lead further evidence in the form of formal witnesses.
Supreme Court of India2 Feb 2024Full text
2024 INSC 80 · [2024] 2 S.C.R. 12
(i)Whether, the underlying principle of Section(s) 73 & 74 respectively of the Contract Act, 1872 Act is applicable to forfeiture of earnest- money deposit under Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules. In other words, whether the forfeiture of the earnest-money deposit under Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules can be only to the extent of loss or damages incurred by the Bank; (ii) Whether, the forfeiture of the entire amount towards the earnest-money deposit under Rule 9(5) of the Rules amounts to unjust enrichment. In other words, whether the quantum of forfeiture under the SARFAESI Rule is limited to t
Supreme Court of India3 Jan 2024Full text
2024 INSC 8 · [2024] 1 S.C.R. 11
As regards the principles of judicial discipline, if the lower or subordinate Courts could contradict the decisions of higher courts.
Supreme Court of India18 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 799 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2183
Whether a challenge to the constitutional validity of a statutory provision can be adjudicated upon in the absence of a lis and contest between the parties.
Supreme Court of India21 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 797 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1709
(1) Whether the appellants are entitled to higher compensation for their acquired lands, and if so, to what extent; and (2) Whether the methodology for calculating the quantum of such compensation has been appropriately applied.
Supreme Court of India21 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 796 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2278
(i) Whether the mandatory procedure under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was followed while considering objections against the acquisition; (ii) Whether the acquisition proceedings were vitiated on grounds of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution due to differential treatment of similarly placed landowners; (iii) Whether appeals are liable to be dismissed as infructuous in view of subsequent developments like ‘settlement’ between the parties; (iv) Whether the doctrine of merger applies, given prior dismissal of other appeals by the State against the same impugned judgment.
Supreme Court of India18 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 794 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 911
Whether there is a mandate to decide the application u/s. 319 CrPC before cross-examination of other witnesses.
Supreme Court of India18 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 792 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 736
The issue involved in the instant cases concerns the grant of Indian citizenship to the respondent.
Supreme Court of India18 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 791 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1404
Whether Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) has a right to contest an appeal against its order determining tariff for aeronautical services before Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), and then consequently prefer an appeal against the order of TDSAT before this Court under Section 31 of the Airport Economic Regulatory Authority Act, 2008; and Even if AERA does not have a right to contest an appeal against its order determining tariff for aeronautical services before TDSAT, does it have a right to prefer an appeal against the order of TDSAT before this Court in
Supreme Court of India18 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 790 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1513
Petitioner, an NGO raised significant concerns as regards prevelance of child marriages and failure of authorities to prevent them despite the enactment of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Sought issuance of effective guidelines inter alia for stronger enforcement mechanisms, awareness programs, appointment of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers, and comprehensive support systems for child brides.
Supreme Court of India17 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 789 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 961
Issue arose as regards the constitutional validity of s.6A of the Citizenship Act; does s.6A offend preambular values like fraternity; s.6A, if ultra vires Part II of the Constitution; does s.6A create an unreasonable classification which violates Art. 14; does s.6A suffer from manifest arbitrariness; does s.6A violate the rights provided to ‘indigenous’ communities u/Art. 29; s.6A, if ultra vires Art. 21; does s.6A violate the political rights of Indian citizens in Assam u/Art. 326; does the operation of s.6A cause ‘external aggression’ and ‘internal disturbance’, culminating in the invocatio
Supreme Court of India17 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 788 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 753
Whether the conviction of the appellant and the death sentence awarded for the alleged murders of his wife, daughter and mother were justified.
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis