⚖
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.
1,721–1,740 · Page 87 of 500
Supreme Court of India12 Jan 2024Full text
2024 INSC 34 · [2024] 1 S.C.R. 404
Whether the High Court was justified in convicting A1 only u/s. 323 while acquitting u/s. 302/34, and convicting and sentencing A2 u/s. 302 and 323 read with s. 34; and whether in trial u/s. 302 IPC, it is safe to convict on the basis of the statement of an untrustworthy witness.
Supreme Court of India25 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 339 · [2024] 5 S.C.R. 62
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.
1,721–1,740 · Page 87 of 500
Supreme Court of India12 Jan 2024Full text
2024 INSC 34 · [2024] 1 S.C.R. 404
Whether the High Court was justified in convicting A1 only u/s. 323 while acquitting u/s. 302/34, and convicting and sentencing A2 u/s. 302 and 323 read with s. 34; and whether in trial u/s. 302 IPC, it is safe to convict on the basis of the statement of an untrustworthy witness.
Supreme Court of India25 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 339 · [2024] 5 S.C.R. 62
Whether delay in submitting Change Report to record name in register maintained u/s 7 Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (1950 Act) in relation to the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) of a Public Trust, can be condoned. Further, consequence of Change Report being submitted beyond stipulated time of 90 days u/s 22(1) 1950 Act.
Supreme Court of India16 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 333 · [2024] 5 S.C.R. 404
Whether the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was correct in setting aside the finding of the Single Judge that the Delhi High Court has no territorial jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India30 Jan 2024Full text
2024 INSC 332 · [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230
The Tribunal’s judgment negated the appellants’ plea for regularization and absorption into the posts of ‘Accounts Clerk’ against which they were temporarily appointed. The High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India23 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 330 · [2024] 4 S.C.R. 757
Post surgery of appendicitis at respondent hospital, the claimant- appellant suffered continuous pains near the surgical site. Eventually upon investigation, it was found that a 2.5 cm needle was present in the abdomen and for removing it another surgery had to be performed. District Forum passed award directing Rs.5 lakhs to be paid to the appellant. However, State Commission reduced the compensation to Rs.1 lakhs. NCDRC applying the eggshell skull rule enhanced the compensation to Rs.2 lakhs. Appellant sought enhancement of compensation.
Supreme Court of India11 Jan 2024Full text
2024 INSC 33 · [2024] 1 S.C.R. 454
Mere notings and in-principle approvals, if confers a vested right; in view of the change in policy decision and the amended 1981 Rules that the allotment of land would be made through auction and also included those cases where allotment was yet to be made, if the High Court was justified in granting relief to the respondent society; and that the litigant who is not diligent, if could invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India22 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 329 · [2024] 4 S.C.R. 694
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court allowing the objections u/s. 47 CPC filed by the respondent no. 1, setting aside the order passed by the Executing Court and holding that the decree passed by the trial court in the suit was inexecutable and a nullity.
Supreme Court of India22 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 328 · [2024] 5 S.C.R. 143
Respondent no.1-complainant decided to go to watch a movie on the silver screen with her family. However, she found that the movie did not contain the song, which was widely circulated for promoting and publicising the movie. Whether there is any ‘deficiency’ in the provision of the entertainment service that the consumer has availed by paying the consideration through the purchase of a ticket. The complainant alleges that there is ‘deficiency’ in the service because what was shown in the film was not as per what was promised. Whether it is an ‘unfair trade practice’ giving rise to a cause of
Supreme Court of India19 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 327 · [2024] 4 S.C.R. 664
Issue as regards the applicability of the relevant rule for imposition of penalty. Whether it was the rule that existed when the violation occurred during the license period of 2009-10 (rule 19 of Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996, before the amendment) or the rule 19 that was substituted by an amendment in 2011 when proceedings for penalty were initiated.
Supreme Court of India18 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 326 · [2024] 4 S.C.R. 633
Whether an auction/ sale under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFESI Act) carried out without issuing the mandatory 30-day notice to the borrower under Rules 8(6) and 8 (7) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 is liable to be set aside. If so, can the bona fide purchaser, who was originally the tenant, be forced to hand over the physical possession of the premises in order get the refund. Whether the bona fide purchaser would be entitled to refund of the auction money and interest, and compensation for im
Supreme Court of India19 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 325 · [2024] 5 S.C.R. 561
Criminal appeal filed by appellant Jadunath Singh against the Allahabad High Court’s decision to grant bail to Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar @ Chandu, and Rishi Kumar, who were convicted for life imprisonment under the Indian Penal Code for offenses including murder. The incident occurred on February 11, 2011, in Village Bhogaon, where Arvind Kumar and his associates, armed with firearms, opened fire on Jadunath Singh and others, resulting in the deaths of Rajvir and Pawan Kumar, and injuries to Ravita. The accused were convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, and 120B of the Indian Penal Cod
Supreme Court of India19 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 324 · [2024] 5 S.C.R. 74
Whether the High Court erred in not quashing FIR under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a complaint alleging offences under Sections 498A, 406, 384, 420, and 120(B), Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the ground that the second FIR was on the same set of allegations.
Supreme Court of India19 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 323 · [2024] 4 S.C.R. 686
Whether the High Court appropriately exercised its discretion under Section 439 of the CrPC while granting bail to the accused persons.
Supreme Court of India6 Mar 2024Full text
2024 INSC 321 · [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1044
Whether the judgment dated 07.02.2020 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal which upholds the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal is legally flawed and unsustainable; Whether the reasons or grounds taken by the successful resolution applicants in the instant case qualify and can be treated as a fraud on the part of the resolution professional.
Supreme Court of India19 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 320 · [2024] 5 S.C.R. 174
Whether the High Court was justified in deciding the appeal as a first Court on independent appreciation of evidence and recording its own findings to hold the accused appellants (A-1, A-2 and A-3) guilty of charge u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 IPC.
Supreme Court of India11 Jan 2024Full text
2024 INSC 32 · [2024] 1 S.C.R. 390
Despite the commercial nature of the dispute involved, criminal complaint was filed and an FIR was registered against the appellants. Whether, the High Court was justified in refusing to quash the FIR and the summoning order.
Supreme Court of India19 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 319 · [2024] 5 S.C.R. 1
Special Court under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 would be as provided u/s. 435 of the Companies Act as it existed at the time when the Code came into effect, or it would be as provided u/s.435 after the 2018 Amendment; and the reference to ‘Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013’ in s. 236(1) is ‘legislation by incorporation’ or ‘legislation by reference’.
Supreme Court of India18 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 317 · [2024] 4 S.C.R. 624
Matter pertains to correctness of the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court quashing the FIR registered in Arunachal Pradesh.
Supreme Court of India18 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 316 · [2024] 4 S.C.R. 655
Whether CJM as also the High Court fell in error in taking cognizance u/s. 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the CJM had relied upon not only the Protest Petition which was supported by affidavit of the complainant but also on the affidavits of witnesses which were filed along with the Protest Petition to support the contents of the complaint.
Supreme Court of India18 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 315 · [2024] 4 S.C.R. 598
Issue arose that when there is an agreement based on ex-parte decree, and the ex-parte decree having been set aside, parties if could rely upon the agreement.
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis
Whether delay in submitting Change Report to record name in register maintained u/s 7 Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (1950 Act) in relation to the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) of a Public Trust, can be condoned. Further, consequence of Change Report being submitted beyond stipulated time of 90 days u/s 22(1) 1950 Act.
Supreme Court of India16 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 333 · [2024] 5 S.C.R. 404
Whether the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was correct in setting aside the finding of the Single Judge that the Delhi High Court has no territorial jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India30 Jan 2024Full text
2024 INSC 332 · [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230
The Tribunal’s judgment negated the appellants’ plea for regularization and absorption into the posts of ‘Accounts Clerk’ against which they were temporarily appointed. The High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India23 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 330 · [2024] 4 S.C.R. 757
Post surgery of appendicitis at respondent hospital, the claimant- appellant suffered continuous pains near the surgical site. Eventually upon investigation, it was found that a 2.5 cm needle was present in the abdomen and for removing it another surgery had to be performed. District Forum passed award directing Rs.5 lakhs to be paid to the appellant. However, State Commission reduced the compensation to Rs.1 lakhs. NCDRC applying the eggshell skull rule enhanced the compensation to Rs.2 lakhs. Appellant sought enhancement of compensation.
Supreme Court of India11 Jan 2024Full text
2024 INSC 33 · [2024] 1 S.C.R. 454
Mere notings and in-principle approvals, if confers a vested right; in view of the change in policy decision and the amended 1981 Rules that the allotment of land would be made through auction and also included those cases where allotment was yet to be made, if the High Court was justified in granting relief to the respondent society; and that the litigant who is not diligent, if could invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India22 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 329 · [2024] 4 S.C.R. 694
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court allowing the objections u/s. 47 CPC filed by the respondent no. 1, setting aside the order passed by the Executing Court and holding that the decree passed by the trial court in the suit was inexecutable and a nullity.
Supreme Court of India22 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 328 · [2024] 5 S.C.R. 143
Respondent no.1-complainant decided to go to watch a movie on the silver screen with her family. However, she found that the movie did not contain the song, which was widely circulated for promoting and publicising the movie. Whether there is any ‘deficiency’ in the provision of the entertainment service that the consumer has availed by paying the consideration through the purchase of a ticket. The complainant alleges that there is ‘deficiency’ in the service because what was shown in the film was not as per what was promised. Whether it is an ‘unfair trade practice’ giving rise to a cause of
Supreme Court of India19 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 327 · [2024] 4 S.C.R. 664
Issue as regards the applicability of the relevant rule for imposition of penalty. Whether it was the rule that existed when the violation occurred during the license period of 2009-10 (rule 19 of Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996, before the amendment) or the rule 19 that was substituted by an amendment in 2011 when proceedings for penalty were initiated.
Supreme Court of India18 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 326 · [2024] 4 S.C.R. 633
Whether an auction/ sale under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFESI Act) carried out without issuing the mandatory 30-day notice to the borrower under Rules 8(6) and 8 (7) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 is liable to be set aside. If so, can the bona fide purchaser, who was originally the tenant, be forced to hand over the physical possession of the premises in order get the refund. Whether the bona fide purchaser would be entitled to refund of the auction money and interest, and compensation for im
Supreme Court of India19 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 325 · [2024] 5 S.C.R. 561
Criminal appeal filed by appellant Jadunath Singh against the Allahabad High Court’s decision to grant bail to Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar @ Chandu, and Rishi Kumar, who were convicted for life imprisonment under the Indian Penal Code for offenses including murder. The incident occurred on February 11, 2011, in Village Bhogaon, where Arvind Kumar and his associates, armed with firearms, opened fire on Jadunath Singh and others, resulting in the deaths of Rajvir and Pawan Kumar, and injuries to Ravita. The accused were convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, and 120B of the Indian Penal Cod
Supreme Court of India19 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 324 · [2024] 5 S.C.R. 74
Whether the High Court erred in not quashing FIR under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a complaint alleging offences under Sections 498A, 406, 384, 420, and 120(B), Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the ground that the second FIR was on the same set of allegations.
Supreme Court of India19 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 323 · [2024] 4 S.C.R. 686
Whether the High Court appropriately exercised its discretion under Section 439 of the CrPC while granting bail to the accused persons.
Supreme Court of India6 Mar 2024Full text
2024 INSC 321 · [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1044
Whether the judgment dated 07.02.2020 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal which upholds the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal is legally flawed and unsustainable; Whether the reasons or grounds taken by the successful resolution applicants in the instant case qualify and can be treated as a fraud on the part of the resolution professional.
Supreme Court of India19 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 320 · [2024] 5 S.C.R. 174
Whether the High Court was justified in deciding the appeal as a first Court on independent appreciation of evidence and recording its own findings to hold the accused appellants (A-1, A-2 and A-3) guilty of charge u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 IPC.
Supreme Court of India11 Jan 2024Full text
2024 INSC 32 · [2024] 1 S.C.R. 390
Despite the commercial nature of the dispute involved, criminal complaint was filed and an FIR was registered against the appellants. Whether, the High Court was justified in refusing to quash the FIR and the summoning order.
Supreme Court of India19 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 319 · [2024] 5 S.C.R. 1
Special Court under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 would be as provided u/s. 435 of the Companies Act as it existed at the time when the Code came into effect, or it would be as provided u/s.435 after the 2018 Amendment; and the reference to ‘Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013’ in s. 236(1) is ‘legislation by incorporation’ or ‘legislation by reference’.
Supreme Court of India18 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 317 · [2024] 4 S.C.R. 624
Matter pertains to correctness of the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court quashing the FIR registered in Arunachal Pradesh.
Supreme Court of India18 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 316 · [2024] 4 S.C.R. 655
Whether CJM as also the High Court fell in error in taking cognizance u/s. 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the CJM had relied upon not only the Protest Petition which was supported by affidavit of the complainant but also on the affidavits of witnesses which were filed along with the Protest Petition to support the contents of the complaint.
Supreme Court of India18 Apr 2024Full text
2024 INSC 315 · [2024] 4 S.C.R. 598
Issue arose that when there is an agreement based on ex-parte decree, and the ex-parte decree having been set aside, parties if could rely upon the agreement.
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis