⚖
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.
1,581–1,600 · Page 80 of 500
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 517 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 933
Whether the present appeal falls under the criteria of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage,’ warranting the Supreme Court to exercises its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice.
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 516 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1202
Whether the High Court erred in extending the benefit of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to the defendants despite the lack of specific pleadings, and no evidence to show consent of interested persons.
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.
1,581–1,600 · Page 80 of 500
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 517 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 933
Whether the present appeal falls under the criteria of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage,’ warranting the Supreme Court to exercises its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice.
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 516 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1202
Whether the High Court erred in extending the benefit of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to the defendants despite the lack of specific pleadings, and no evidence to show consent of interested persons.
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 515 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1071
Whether a second suit for arrears of rent and damages would be maintainable or barred under Order II Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code (CPC) if a prior suit was filed seeking a permanent injunction and the handover of vacant possession, especially after the plaintiff explicitly reserved the right in the first suit to pursue claims regarding arrears of rent and damages separately and was granted leave to file a separate suit.
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 514 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 2427
Validity of forfeiture by forest department of the security deposit made by successful auction bidder due to failure to comply with work mandate, considered.
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 513 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 617
Whether the power of general superintendence direction, and management of the Central Information Commission’s affairs under Section 12(4) of the Right to Information Act 2005, includes the authority to constitute benches of the CIC and frame Regulations for the effective management and allocation of work within the Commission, including the issuance of orders and the formation of committees.
Supreme Court of India12 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 512 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 2363
Validity of arrest of the appellant under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; scope and ambit of the Courts to examine the legality of the arrest under Section 19; whether the Court while examining the validity of arrest in terms of Section 19(1) of the PML Act will also go into and examine the necessity and need to arrest; whether interim bail ought to be granted to the appellant.
Supreme Court of India11 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 511 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 2329
The Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari declared the appellant to be a foreigner on the grounds that he failed to discharge his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 510 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 668
Appellant, pendente lite purchaser of the Subject Land, filed impleadment application before the District Judge (ADJ) under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, which was dismissed. The order was upheld by the High Court. Whether Appellant, who undisputedly had notice of the pending litigation, was not entitled to impleadment as he was not a bona fide purchaser.
Supreme Court of India18 Jan 2024Full text
2024 INSC 51 · [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1045
Consortium of lenders represented by the State Bank of India filed affidavit stating that the lenders were agreeable that if Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) satisfied particular criteria, including infusing Rs. 350 Crores by 31.08.2023, adhering to the resolution plan terms, and meeting employee payment obligations in accordance with the NCLAT order, they would abstain from challenging extension of time issues. However, the inability to meet these conditions would necessitate directing the Corporate Debtor-Jet Airways Limited into liquidation. SRA sought extension of time for the deposit
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 509 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 443
The matters in the instant case can be categorized into two groups: (i) SLPs, Miscellaneous Applications and Civil Appeals preferred by landowners who had already been granted compensation at INR 340 per sq. yd. and who are now seeking parity with Bir Singh where compensation was enhanced to INR 449 per sq. yd.; and (ii) Civil Appeals preferred by NOIDA as against the enhanced compensation of INR 449 per sq. yd. granted to some of the landowners The following questions arise for Consideration: (i) Should compensation be enhanced, and if so, to what extent. How should the quantum be calculated;
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 508 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1001
(i) Whether the respondents-landowners forestalled their right to challenge the acquisition proceeding on the ground of non-compliance of Section 5A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 because they have not filed objections; or they were not tenure holders as per the revenue records on the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act; or after submitting their objections, they have accepted compensation without any demur; (ii) If the answer to the aforementioned question is in negative, whether the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 5A has been complied with in the instant case.
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 506 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1236
(i) Whether section 125 CrPC applies to all married women including Muslim married women; (ii) Whether section 125 CrPC applies to all non-Muslim divorced women; (iii) Whether section 125 of the CrPC applies to all such Muslim women, married and divorced under the Special Marriage Act in addition to remedies available under the Special Marriage Act; (iv) If Muslim women are married and divorced under Muslim law, whether Section 125 of the CrPC as well as the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 are applicable; (v) If Section 125 of the CrPC is also resorte
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 505 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 2248
What should be the market value of the land of the appellant as on 03.06.1999; does the site of the appellant fall within ‘Blue Zone’ as contended by the acquiring body-Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC); if it falls within the ‘Blue Zone’, what should be the market value for the land; if the land or any part thereof is not to be determined as a ‘Blue Zone’, what was the ‘No Construction Zone’ as per the extant laws; and what should be the market value payable for that portion; what should be the market value payable for any portion, falling outside the ‘No Construction Zone’.
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 503 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 640
The question arose whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond all manner of doubt the fact that the appellant demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant; and whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence punishable u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 502 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 676
Instant suit has been filed by the State of West Bengal against Union of India seeking declaration that registration of cases by the defendant-UOI after withdrawal of Notification u/s. 6 of the DSPE Act by the plaintiff-State is unconstitutional and non-est; seeking restraining and forbearing the UOI from registering any case and/or investigating a case in connection with offences committed within the territory of State of West Bengal after withdrawal of the consent u/s. 6 of the DSPE Act by the State, as also sought quashing of such cases; and as regards the jurisdiction of the CBI to investi
Supreme Court of India9 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 501 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 2176
a. Whether the appellant Army Welfare Education Society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution of India so as to make a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution maintainable against it. In other words, whether a service dispute in the private realm involving a private educational institution and its employees can be adjudicated upon in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution; b. Even if it is assumed that the appellant Army Welfare Education Society is a body performing public duty amenable to writ jurisdiction, whether all its decisions are subject t
Supreme Court of India9 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 500 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 474
Matter pertains to the legality, validity and propriety of the auction proceedings conducted by the Tahsildar of the subject property, originally owned by the respondent No. 1; whether the provisions of Order XXI r. 90 CPC would apply to the writ proceedings u/Art. 226 of the Constitution; and whether the Additional Commissioner, had the jurisdiction to decide the two appeals filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 6 respectively u/s. 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Supreme Court of India9 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 499 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 634
In the instant writ petitions, Petitioners-transporters and tour operators assailed the legality of different State Governments levying and collecting Authorization Fee/Border Tax, allegedly, in violation of All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules, 2023. Petitioners also prayed for refund of the Border Tax/Authorization Fee already realized by the State Authorities at the time of their vehicles entering the State.
Supreme Court of India9 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 497 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 611
Whether the High Court fell in error in dismissing the suit primarily on the ground that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred by s.21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 when the issue of jurisdiction was not pressed by the respondents during the trial court proceedings.
Supreme Court of India9 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 496 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 416
Issue arose as regards the purchase of a vehicle/good by a Company for the use/personal use of its directors, if would amount to purchase for “commercial purpose” within the meaning of s. 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; in the matter pertaining to overheating of the car, the National Commission, if justified in awarded the compensation by directing the appellants to refund the purchase price-Rs. 58 lakhs approx. to the complainant, and take back the car; and National Commission, if justified in directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the complainant for the defic
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 515 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1071
Whether a second suit for arrears of rent and damages would be maintainable or barred under Order II Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code (CPC) if a prior suit was filed seeking a permanent injunction and the handover of vacant possession, especially after the plaintiff explicitly reserved the right in the first suit to pursue claims regarding arrears of rent and damages separately and was granted leave to file a separate suit.
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 514 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 2427
Validity of forfeiture by forest department of the security deposit made by successful auction bidder due to failure to comply with work mandate, considered.
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 513 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 617
Whether the power of general superintendence direction, and management of the Central Information Commission’s affairs under Section 12(4) of the Right to Information Act 2005, includes the authority to constitute benches of the CIC and frame Regulations for the effective management and allocation of work within the Commission, including the issuance of orders and the formation of committees.
Supreme Court of India12 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 512 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 2363
Validity of arrest of the appellant under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; scope and ambit of the Courts to examine the legality of the arrest under Section 19; whether the Court while examining the validity of arrest in terms of Section 19(1) of the PML Act will also go into and examine the necessity and need to arrest; whether interim bail ought to be granted to the appellant.
Supreme Court of India11 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 511 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 2329
The Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari declared the appellant to be a foreigner on the grounds that he failed to discharge his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 510 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 668
Appellant, pendente lite purchaser of the Subject Land, filed impleadment application before the District Judge (ADJ) under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, which was dismissed. The order was upheld by the High Court. Whether Appellant, who undisputedly had notice of the pending litigation, was not entitled to impleadment as he was not a bona fide purchaser.
Supreme Court of India18 Jan 2024Full text
2024 INSC 51 · [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1045
Consortium of lenders represented by the State Bank of India filed affidavit stating that the lenders were agreeable that if Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) satisfied particular criteria, including infusing Rs. 350 Crores by 31.08.2023, adhering to the resolution plan terms, and meeting employee payment obligations in accordance with the NCLAT order, they would abstain from challenging extension of time issues. However, the inability to meet these conditions would necessitate directing the Corporate Debtor-Jet Airways Limited into liquidation. SRA sought extension of time for the deposit
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 509 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 443
The matters in the instant case can be categorized into two groups: (i) SLPs, Miscellaneous Applications and Civil Appeals preferred by landowners who had already been granted compensation at INR 340 per sq. yd. and who are now seeking parity with Bir Singh where compensation was enhanced to INR 449 per sq. yd.; and (ii) Civil Appeals preferred by NOIDA as against the enhanced compensation of INR 449 per sq. yd. granted to some of the landowners The following questions arise for Consideration: (i) Should compensation be enhanced, and if so, to what extent. How should the quantum be calculated;
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 508 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1001
(i) Whether the respondents-landowners forestalled their right to challenge the acquisition proceeding on the ground of non-compliance of Section 5A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 because they have not filed objections; or they were not tenure holders as per the revenue records on the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act; or after submitting their objections, they have accepted compensation without any demur; (ii) If the answer to the aforementioned question is in negative, whether the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 5A has been complied with in the instant case.
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 506 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1236
(i) Whether section 125 CrPC applies to all married women including Muslim married women; (ii) Whether section 125 CrPC applies to all non-Muslim divorced women; (iii) Whether section 125 of the CrPC applies to all such Muslim women, married and divorced under the Special Marriage Act in addition to remedies available under the Special Marriage Act; (iv) If Muslim women are married and divorced under Muslim law, whether Section 125 of the CrPC as well as the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 are applicable; (v) If Section 125 of the CrPC is also resorte
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 505 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 2248
What should be the market value of the land of the appellant as on 03.06.1999; does the site of the appellant fall within ‘Blue Zone’ as contended by the acquiring body-Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC); if it falls within the ‘Blue Zone’, what should be the market value for the land; if the land or any part thereof is not to be determined as a ‘Blue Zone’, what was the ‘No Construction Zone’ as per the extant laws; and what should be the market value payable for that portion; what should be the market value payable for any portion, falling outside the ‘No Construction Zone’.
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 503 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 640
The question arose whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond all manner of doubt the fact that the appellant demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant; and whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence punishable u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
Supreme Court of India10 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 502 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 676
Instant suit has been filed by the State of West Bengal against Union of India seeking declaration that registration of cases by the defendant-UOI after withdrawal of Notification u/s. 6 of the DSPE Act by the plaintiff-State is unconstitutional and non-est; seeking restraining and forbearing the UOI from registering any case and/or investigating a case in connection with offences committed within the territory of State of West Bengal after withdrawal of the consent u/s. 6 of the DSPE Act by the State, as also sought quashing of such cases; and as regards the jurisdiction of the CBI to investi
Supreme Court of India9 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 501 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 2176
a. Whether the appellant Army Welfare Education Society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution of India so as to make a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution maintainable against it. In other words, whether a service dispute in the private realm involving a private educational institution and its employees can be adjudicated upon in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution; b. Even if it is assumed that the appellant Army Welfare Education Society is a body performing public duty amenable to writ jurisdiction, whether all its decisions are subject t
Supreme Court of India9 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 500 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 474
Matter pertains to the legality, validity and propriety of the auction proceedings conducted by the Tahsildar of the subject property, originally owned by the respondent No. 1; whether the provisions of Order XXI r. 90 CPC would apply to the writ proceedings u/Art. 226 of the Constitution; and whether the Additional Commissioner, had the jurisdiction to decide the two appeals filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 6 respectively u/s. 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Supreme Court of India9 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 499 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 634
In the instant writ petitions, Petitioners-transporters and tour operators assailed the legality of different State Governments levying and collecting Authorization Fee/Border Tax, allegedly, in violation of All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules, 2023. Petitioners also prayed for refund of the Border Tax/Authorization Fee already realized by the State Authorities at the time of their vehicles entering the State.
Supreme Court of India9 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 497 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 611
Whether the High Court fell in error in dismissing the suit primarily on the ground that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred by s.21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 when the issue of jurisdiction was not pressed by the respondents during the trial court proceedings.
Supreme Court of India9 Jul 2024Full text
2024 INSC 496 · [2024] 7 S.C.R. 416
Issue arose as regards the purchase of a vehicle/good by a Company for the use/personal use of its directors, if would amount to purchase for “commercial purpose” within the meaning of s. 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; in the matter pertaining to overheating of the car, the National Commission, if justified in awarded the compensation by directing the appellants to refund the purchase price-Rs. 58 lakhs approx. to the complainant, and take back the car; and National Commission, if justified in directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the complainant for the defic
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis