⚖
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.
1,921–1,940 · Page 97 of 500
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1034 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1235
Issue arose as regards the regularization of services of long term serving employees performing essential function in government establishment.
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1032 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2083
Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to accused persons despite specific allegations of heinous crime u/s.302 of Penal Code, 1860 and chargesheet on record that established the allegations made u/s.302 of Penal Code, 1860 are true.
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.
1,921–1,940 · Page 97 of 500
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1034 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1235
Issue arose as regards the regularization of services of long term serving employees performing essential function in government establishment.
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1032 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2083
Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to accused persons despite specific allegations of heinous crime u/s.302 of Penal Code, 1860 and chargesheet on record that established the allegations made u/s.302 of Penal Code, 1860 are true.
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1030 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2075
Whether a separate application for condonation of delay is mandatory in cases where sufficient justification was provided while seeking restoration against ex-parte decree.
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1029 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2043
Whether the appellants can be classified as ‘Financial Creditors’ within the meaning of s.5(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1027 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1997
The issue concerned a challenge to collection and levying of toll, as legitimised by provisions enumerated in Agreement dated 12.11.1997 (Concession Agreement), executed between Appellant-NOIDA Toll Bridge Company Limited (NTBCL), the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) and the Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited (IL&FS); The Concession Agreement conferred upon NTBCL the rights necessary for implementation of the Delhi NOIDA Bridge Project or the Delhi-NOIDA Direct Flyway (DND Flyway/Project) and, in connection thereto, the collection and levying of toll; In a
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1026 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1210
Whether the High Court was right in holding that the compromise decree in favor of the appellant needed registration and stamp duty was also required to be paid for mutation of the subject land.
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1025 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1445
Whether the High Court erred in affirming the order of the trial Court dismissing the application filed by the appellants under Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of plaint being barred by limitation.
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1946
The dishonoured cheque in question was signed by respondent- accused, in his capacity as Director and Authorised Signatory of the Company Shilabati Hospital Pvt. Ltd., on the account maintained by the Company with Standard Chartered Bank. By the impugned order, the High Court acquitted respondent-accused of offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 holding that in absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, the complaint against the respondent-accused was not maintainable; whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned order is the question fo
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1023 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1911
The High Court held that the s.154(1)(e) of the the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 bars the civil court from exercising its jurisdiction; whether the High Court committed any error in taking view that the suit filed by the appellant herein was barred u/s.154(1)(e) of the Regulation, 1886.
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1022 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1186
Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment setting aside the decree of specific performance passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1021 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1884
Whether the original suit filed by the plaintiffs even after the amendment of the plaint at the stage of first appeal seeking possession of the suit property could be said to be time barred. In other words, whether the suit would be governed by Article 58 or Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1020 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1160
Issue arose whether the courts below were justified in accepting the prosecution case that the act of suicide by the victim was a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants at the mahalokadalat when there was a clear gap of over a month between the incident at the mahalokadalat and the commission of suicide.
Supreme Court of India12 Feb 2024Full text
2024 INSC 102 · [2024] 2 S.C.R. 258
Whether in exercise of powers under s.60(5), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Adjudicating Authority-NCLT can recall an order of approval passed under s.31(1) of the IBC; whether the application for recall of the order was barred by time; whether the resolution plan put forth by the resolution applicant did not meet the requirements of s.30(2) of the IBC read with Regulations 37 and 38 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 and; what relief, if any, the appellant is entitled to.
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1019 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1533
Whether the High Court should have exercised its inherent powers u/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings u/ss.498-A, 312, 313 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860.
Supreme Court of India18 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1014 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1355
Issue arose whether the petitioner-wife is entitled to the transfer of the divorce petition; and whether this Court, upon the application filed by the respondent-husband, can exercise its powers u/Art. 142(1) of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce to the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Supreme Court of India5 Feb 2024Full text
2024 INSC 101 · [2024] 2 S.C.R. 252
The High Court, if justified in refusing to quash the docket order which re-initiated criminal proceedings against the appellants for offences u/s. 420, 498A, 506 IPC and u/s. 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Supreme Court of India18 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1007 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1553
Whether the High Court was justified in directing re-investigation and retrial of the same offence on the same set of facts, after acquitting the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt; Whether, in the attending fact and circumstances, the de novo investigation violated the principle of double jeopardy and the appellant’s right u/Art.20(ii) of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India18 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1003 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1795
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reading down Reg.10(f)(iii) of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018.
Supreme Court of India22 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1000 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1492
Inconsistency between the U.P. State amendment and the subsequent Parliamentary amendment to Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Whether in view of the Parliament amending a provision subsequent to a State legislature’s amendment of a provision of law in the Concurrent List, the Parliamentary amendment would apply.
Supreme Court of India2 Feb 2024Full text
2024 INSC 100 · [2024] 2 S.C.R. 155
Whether the Appellant’s subsequent employment with the State Government could be construed to mean that the Appellant had been ‘absorbed’ by the State Government, such that the Appellants’ prior service with the Central Government would be considered as a part of ‘qualifying service’ in terms of Rule 25(ix) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022.
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1030 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2075
Whether a separate application for condonation of delay is mandatory in cases where sufficient justification was provided while seeking restoration against ex-parte decree.
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1029 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2043
Whether the appellants can be classified as ‘Financial Creditors’ within the meaning of s.5(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1027 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1997
The issue concerned a challenge to collection and levying of toll, as legitimised by provisions enumerated in Agreement dated 12.11.1997 (Concession Agreement), executed between Appellant-NOIDA Toll Bridge Company Limited (NTBCL), the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) and the Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited (IL&FS); The Concession Agreement conferred upon NTBCL the rights necessary for implementation of the Delhi NOIDA Bridge Project or the Delhi-NOIDA Direct Flyway (DND Flyway/Project) and, in connection thereto, the collection and levying of toll; In a
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1026 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1210
Whether the High Court was right in holding that the compromise decree in favor of the appellant needed registration and stamp duty was also required to be paid for mutation of the subject land.
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1025 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1445
Whether the High Court erred in affirming the order of the trial Court dismissing the application filed by the appellants under Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of plaint being barred by limitation.
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1024 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1946
The dishonoured cheque in question was signed by respondent- accused, in his capacity as Director and Authorised Signatory of the Company Shilabati Hospital Pvt. Ltd., on the account maintained by the Company with Standard Chartered Bank. By the impugned order, the High Court acquitted respondent-accused of offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 holding that in absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, the complaint against the respondent-accused was not maintainable; whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned order is the question fo
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1023 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1911
The High Court held that the s.154(1)(e) of the the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 bars the civil court from exercising its jurisdiction; whether the High Court committed any error in taking view that the suit filed by the appellant herein was barred u/s.154(1)(e) of the Regulation, 1886.
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1022 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1186
Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment setting aside the decree of specific performance passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1021 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1884
Whether the original suit filed by the plaintiffs even after the amendment of the plaint at the stage of first appeal seeking possession of the suit property could be said to be time barred. In other words, whether the suit would be governed by Article 58 or Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1020 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1160
Issue arose whether the courts below were justified in accepting the prosecution case that the act of suicide by the victim was a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants at the mahalokadalat when there was a clear gap of over a month between the incident at the mahalokadalat and the commission of suicide.
Supreme Court of India12 Feb 2024Full text
2024 INSC 102 · [2024] 2 S.C.R. 258
Whether in exercise of powers under s.60(5), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Adjudicating Authority-NCLT can recall an order of approval passed under s.31(1) of the IBC; whether the application for recall of the order was barred by time; whether the resolution plan put forth by the resolution applicant did not meet the requirements of s.30(2) of the IBC read with Regulations 37 and 38 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 and; what relief, if any, the appellant is entitled to.
Supreme Court of India19 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1019 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1533
Whether the High Court should have exercised its inherent powers u/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings u/ss.498-A, 312, 313 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860.
Supreme Court of India18 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1014 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1355
Issue arose whether the petitioner-wife is entitled to the transfer of the divorce petition; and whether this Court, upon the application filed by the respondent-husband, can exercise its powers u/Art. 142(1) of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce to the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Supreme Court of India5 Feb 2024Full text
2024 INSC 101 · [2024] 2 S.C.R. 252
The High Court, if justified in refusing to quash the docket order which re-initiated criminal proceedings against the appellants for offences u/s. 420, 498A, 506 IPC and u/s. 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Supreme Court of India18 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1007 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1553
Whether the High Court was justified in directing re-investigation and retrial of the same offence on the same set of facts, after acquitting the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt; Whether, in the attending fact and circumstances, the de novo investigation violated the principle of double jeopardy and the appellant’s right u/Art.20(ii) of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India18 Dec 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1003 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1795
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reading down Reg.10(f)(iii) of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018.
Supreme Court of India22 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 1000 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1492
Inconsistency between the U.P. State amendment and the subsequent Parliamentary amendment to Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Whether in view of the Parliament amending a provision subsequent to a State legislature’s amendment of a provision of law in the Concurrent List, the Parliamentary amendment would apply.
Supreme Court of India2 Feb 2024Full text
2024 INSC 100 · [2024] 2 S.C.R. 155
Whether the Appellant’s subsequent employment with the State Government could be construed to mean that the Appellant had been ‘absorbed’ by the State Government, such that the Appellants’ prior service with the Central Government would be considered as a part of ‘qualifying service’ in terms of Rule 25(ix) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022.
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis