⚖
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.
1,361–1,380 · Page 69 of 500
Supreme Court of India17 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 787 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 786
Whether Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition of appellants on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of respondent no. 2/driver, nor it is proved that the car was involved in the accident.
Supreme Court of India16 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 784 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1381
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.
1,361–1,380 · Page 69 of 500
Supreme Court of India17 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 787 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 786
Whether Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition of appellants on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of respondent no. 2/driver, nor it is proved that the car was involved in the accident.
Supreme Court of India16 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 784 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1381
The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court and held that the appellant(s) herein could not raise any demand of tax/fee/royalty on advertisement(s) since it has been made without any legislative sanction and is, thus, violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The core question confronting this Court, as it was before the Division Bench, is whether the demand is by way of a tax/levy or simply in the nature of royalty for permission for advertising through hoardings within the limits of the Corporation.
Supreme Court of India16 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 782 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 639
Whether the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent power under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR against the appellant under Section 376, Penal Code, 1860.
Supreme Court of India16 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 781 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 860
Issue arose as regards the treatment to be given to broken period interest, whether a deduction of the broken period interest can be claimed by the Bank, purchaser of the government Securities.
Supreme Court of India16 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 780 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1371
Whether there was any default on part of the respondents-auction purchasers in depositing the balance auction amount within the time prescribed pursuant to the auction sale so as to attract Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and allow the appellant-Bank to cancel the auction which had already been confirmed.
Supreme Court of India31 Jan 2024Full text
2024 INSC 78 · [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1194
Institutionalisation and Reconstitution of the Central Empowered Committee.
Supreme Court of India26 Sep 2024Full text
2024 INSC 778 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 947
Issue arose as to whether the plaintiffs proved their continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract as mandated u/s.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; whether the agreement to sell was valid and enforceable against three co-owners-sisters, considering that defendant no. 1-co-owner lacked the authority to act on their behalf without a valid and subsisting General Power of Attorney; and whether the relief of specific performance, being discretionary, having been denied by the trial court was rightly granted by the High Court.
Supreme Court of India15 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 777 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 920
Appellant-claimant, if entitled to enhancement of compensation.
Supreme Court of India1 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 776 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 701
The Judge who had convicted the appellant was transferred post conviction, before the appellant could be heard on the quantum of sentence and a new Judge was posted in his place. Appellant relying on Sections 353 and 354, Cr.P.C sought direction from the High Court to the new Presiding Officer to re-hear the case, including on the question of conviction. High Court whether justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant and directing the new Presiding Officer to hear the appellant on the question of sentence and pass an appropriate order in terms of Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Supreme Court of India15 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 775 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 673
Whether the appellant should be disqualified from obtaining admission under the PwD category for the MBBS Course merely because his disability is quantified at 44% /45%.
Supreme Court of India27 Sep 2024Full text
2024 INSC 774 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 384
The issue which arises for consideration is the interpretation of Rule 50 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (NCLT Rules) and Rule 22 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 (NCLAT Rules).
Supreme Court of India14 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 773 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1359
Whether a pendente lite transferee, a stranger to the suit can file application under Order XXI Rule 99, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking re-delivery after dispossession.
Supreme Court of India14 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 772 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 893
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR, the cognizance order and the proceedings in pursuance thereof without considering the materials collected during investigation.
Supreme Court of India14 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 771 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 769
The Sessions Court found the appellant guilty of the offence u/s.302 r/w. s.34 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court was also affirmed by the High Court.
Supreme Court of India14 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 770 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 901
Whether the High Court, under the impugned judgment, was justified in holding that the sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no.2/appellant was hit by doctrine of lis pendens and that defendant no.2/appellant is not a bona fide purchaser.
Supreme Court of India31 Jan 2024Full text
2024 INSC 77 · [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1165
Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for quashing of the FIR registered u/ss. 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC against the vendee for the criminal acts, misuse of power of attorney-PoA, misappropriation of property, and executing fraudulent sale deed, when he had no role either in the execution of the PoA nor in any misdeed by the PoA holder vis-à-vis the land-owners/principals.
Supreme Court of India14 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 769 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 708
Issue arose as to whether the impugned judgment is to be sustained in view of the indisputable or undisputed facts; whether the suit schedule property is the Joint Hindu Family property; whether the finding of the High Court that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property is the correct conclusion on assimilation of facts and appreciation of evidence; and whether the High Court was right in declining to accept the appellants’ contention that they perfected the title over the suit land by adverse possession.
Supreme Court of India30 Sep 2024Full text
2024 INSC 768 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 971
Whether the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) was right in passing the impugned judgment holding that the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (KSERC) was not bound by the directives of the State Government issued under Section 108 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and it exceeded its review jurisdiction under Section 94.
Supreme Court of India3 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 767 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1483
The High Court rejected the application filed by the appellants herein seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings under section 306 of IPC.
Supreme Court of India3 Sep 2024Full text
2024 INSC 766 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 811
High Court whether justified in quashing the charges against Respondent Nos.2-5 (husband and in-laws of the victim-deceased) holding that prima facie the respondents did not abet the deceased to commit suicide.
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis
The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court and held that the appellant(s) herein could not raise any demand of tax/fee/royalty on advertisement(s) since it has been made without any legislative sanction and is, thus, violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The core question confronting this Court, as it was before the Division Bench, is whether the demand is by way of a tax/levy or simply in the nature of royalty for permission for advertising through hoardings within the limits of the Corporation.
Supreme Court of India16 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 782 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 639
Whether the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent power under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR against the appellant under Section 376, Penal Code, 1860.
Supreme Court of India16 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 781 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 860
Issue arose as regards the treatment to be given to broken period interest, whether a deduction of the broken period interest can be claimed by the Bank, purchaser of the government Securities.
Supreme Court of India16 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 780 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1371
Whether there was any default on part of the respondents-auction purchasers in depositing the balance auction amount within the time prescribed pursuant to the auction sale so as to attract Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and allow the appellant-Bank to cancel the auction which had already been confirmed.
Supreme Court of India31 Jan 2024Full text
2024 INSC 78 · [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1194
Institutionalisation and Reconstitution of the Central Empowered Committee.
Supreme Court of India26 Sep 2024Full text
2024 INSC 778 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 947
Issue arose as to whether the plaintiffs proved their continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract as mandated u/s.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; whether the agreement to sell was valid and enforceable against three co-owners-sisters, considering that defendant no. 1-co-owner lacked the authority to act on their behalf without a valid and subsisting General Power of Attorney; and whether the relief of specific performance, being discretionary, having been denied by the trial court was rightly granted by the High Court.
Supreme Court of India15 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 777 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 920
Appellant-claimant, if entitled to enhancement of compensation.
Supreme Court of India1 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 776 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 701
The Judge who had convicted the appellant was transferred post conviction, before the appellant could be heard on the quantum of sentence and a new Judge was posted in his place. Appellant relying on Sections 353 and 354, Cr.P.C sought direction from the High Court to the new Presiding Officer to re-hear the case, including on the question of conviction. High Court whether justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant and directing the new Presiding Officer to hear the appellant on the question of sentence and pass an appropriate order in terms of Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Supreme Court of India15 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 775 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 673
Whether the appellant should be disqualified from obtaining admission under the PwD category for the MBBS Course merely because his disability is quantified at 44% /45%.
Supreme Court of India27 Sep 2024Full text
2024 INSC 774 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 384
The issue which arises for consideration is the interpretation of Rule 50 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (NCLT Rules) and Rule 22 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 (NCLAT Rules).
Supreme Court of India14 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 773 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1359
Whether a pendente lite transferee, a stranger to the suit can file application under Order XXI Rule 99, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking re-delivery after dispossession.
Supreme Court of India14 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 772 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 893
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR, the cognizance order and the proceedings in pursuance thereof without considering the materials collected during investigation.
Supreme Court of India14 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 771 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 769
The Sessions Court found the appellant guilty of the offence u/s.302 r/w. s.34 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court was also affirmed by the High Court.
Supreme Court of India14 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 770 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 901
Whether the High Court, under the impugned judgment, was justified in holding that the sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no.2/appellant was hit by doctrine of lis pendens and that defendant no.2/appellant is not a bona fide purchaser.
Supreme Court of India31 Jan 2024Full text
2024 INSC 77 · [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1165
Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for quashing of the FIR registered u/ss. 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC against the vendee for the criminal acts, misuse of power of attorney-PoA, misappropriation of property, and executing fraudulent sale deed, when he had no role either in the execution of the PoA nor in any misdeed by the PoA holder vis-à-vis the land-owners/principals.
Supreme Court of India14 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 769 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 708
Issue arose as to whether the impugned judgment is to be sustained in view of the indisputable or undisputed facts; whether the suit schedule property is the Joint Hindu Family property; whether the finding of the High Court that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property is the correct conclusion on assimilation of facts and appreciation of evidence; and whether the High Court was right in declining to accept the appellants’ contention that they perfected the title over the suit land by adverse possession.
Supreme Court of India30 Sep 2024Full text
2024 INSC 768 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 971
Whether the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) was right in passing the impugned judgment holding that the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (KSERC) was not bound by the directives of the State Government issued under Section 108 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and it exceeded its review jurisdiction under Section 94.
Supreme Court of India3 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 767 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1483
The High Court rejected the application filed by the appellants herein seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings under section 306 of IPC.
Supreme Court of India3 Sep 2024Full text
2024 INSC 766 · [2024] 9 S.C.R. 811
High Court whether justified in quashing the charges against Respondent Nos.2-5 (husband and in-laws of the victim-deceased) holding that prima facie the respondents did not abet the deceased to commit suicide.
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis