⚖
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.
3,281–3,300 · Page 165 of 382
Supreme Court of India29 Jan 2016Full text
2016 INSC 111 · [2016] 1 S.C.R. 373
G Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. When there is allegation that there has been non-application of mind and the representation has been rejected in a laconic or mechanical manner by the competent authority, the Court can always call for the file and peruse the notes and the H 373 374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 2016…
Supreme Court of India7 Dec 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1107 · [2016] 8 S.C.R. 437
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.
3,281–3,300 · Page 165 of 382
Supreme Court of India29 Jan 2016Full text
2016 INSC 111 · [2016] 1 S.C.R. 373
G Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. When there is allegation that there has been non-application of mind and the representation has been rejected in a laconic or mechanical manner by the competent authority, the Court can always call for the file and peruse the notes and the H 373 374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 2016…
Supreme Court of India7 Dec 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1107 · [2016] 8 S.C.R. 437
437 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R. A considers an order passed by a court as voidable or non est, ll(USI approach the court of competent jurisdiction for setting aside the said order - Injunction ordained that while dealing with the hotel unit the rights of the applicant be disclosed - However, the financial…
Supreme Court of India6 Dec 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1105 · [2016] 11 S.C.R. 219
Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. On facts, it is clear that the High Court has gone wrong in holding that the Labour Court did not follow the procedure. It is seen from the award that the management had H 219 / 220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20161 11 S.C.R. A not sought for an opportunity for leading evidence. And d…
Supreme Court of India5 Dec 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1099 · [2016] 11 S.C.R. 193
Interpretation of Statutes: Rule of interpretation - If two Statutes dealing with the same subject use different language then it is not permissible to apply the language of one Statute to other while interpreting such Statutes - Likewise, once assesseejuljills F the conditions specified in section for claiming exe111p…
Supreme Court of India2 Dec 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1092 · [2016] 8 S.C.R. 741
convict a personH GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 743 under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit ·A an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option. The assessment of the evidence on record does not demonstrate any…
Supreme Court of India2 Dec 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1090 · [2016] 8 S.C.R. 139
GURPAL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 141 Yatinder Singh, Sr. Adv.( AC), Arijeet Singh, Ms. Apraj ita A Anvita, Ad vs. for the Appellant. SaurabhAjay Gupta, AAG., Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Saurabh Singhal, Nishant Bishnoi, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B AMITAVA ROY, J. 1. The subject matter o…
Supreme Court of India29 Jan 2016Full text
2016 INSC 109 · [2016] 1 S.C.R. 447
[2016] I S.C.R. 44 7 SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER & ORS. A v. S.C.R. CArERERS, DRY FRUITS, FRUIT JUICE STALLS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 618-620of2016) B JANUARY 29, 2016 (V. GO PALA GOWDA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.) Licence - Renewal of- Under Catering Policy, 2010 of Indian Railways - To the pre-…
Supreme Court of India2 Dec 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1089 · [2016] 8 S.C.R. 101
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, while respondent company was the acquirer, UBL was the person acting in concert. This is evident from the letter of offer (public announcement) dated 15'h February, 2005. The embargo under Regulation 22(7) of the G Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares …
Supreme Court of India1 Dec 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1087 · [2016] 11 S.C.R. 99
DW-5/4; Courts below held that Mark A clearly shows that the same related to property bearing Khasra No. 267 and in that way the same can not be connected to the suit land. Based on oral H 99 100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 11 S.C.R. A and documentary evidence, the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fac…
Supreme Court of India1 Dec 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1086 · [2016] 9 S.C.R. 759
Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The prosecution heavily relied upon the Gconfessional statement of PW3 (the accomplice) which was given soon after his arrest. It had also come on record that PW3 became approver. Though the manne.r in which he became approver was challenged before the Trial Court as well as t…
Supreme Court of India1 Dec 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1085 · [2016] 9 S.C.R. 742
744 ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R. A of Madhya Pradesh;-Bench at Gwalior, in Second Appeal No .. 374.of 1998. ., . ,., •. , . . . . .. l Pune~t Jain; Manu M'atieshwari, Ms. Chhay~ Kirti, Abhinav Gupta I and Ms. Pratibha, Advs. for the appellants. Raj esh, A.dv. for the· respo1ident: · ·.. B ''-··-···,•,.--.: -~…
Supreme Court of India30 Nov 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1084 · [2016] 8 S.C.R. 557
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R. A examination leaves a margin of about two years on either side even if ossification test of multiple joints is conducted. [Para 10) [563-A-B) 1.2 From a reading of Section 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, it is clear that it B provides th…
Supreme Court of India29 Nov 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1083 · [2016] 12 S.C.R. 131
Constitution of India - Constitutional Scheme - Principle of separation of powers - Discussed. Allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1.1 In the present case, the High Court could not have issued such directions some of which were in the field of exclusive domain of the Legislature. [Para 10] [139-F] 1.2 The High Court…
Supreme Court of India29 Nov 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1079 · [2016] 9 S.C.R. 897
WITH D C. A. Nos. 10832, 10833, 10834, 10835, 10836, 10838, 10839, · 10840, 10843, 10844, 10845, 10846, 10847, 10848, 10849, 10850of2016. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Dev Prakash Bhardwaj, Advs. for the Appellants. R. Balasubramaniam, Ananya Mishra, Santosh Kumar, Ms. Aarti E Sharma, Shadman Ali, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, M. K. M…
Supreme Court of India29 Nov 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1078 · [2016] 8 S.C.R. 729
WITH F Civil Appeal No. 11827of2016. P. S. Narasimha,ASG, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Mahabir Singh, Ravinder Sethi, Amrender Saran, Anoop Baghi, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, P.P. Malhotra, A. K. Sanghi, Sr. Advs., Praneet Pranav, Ms. Binu Tamta, G Shadman Ali, Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Vibhu Shanker Mishra, R. S. Nagar, Raj Bahadur Yadav,…
Supreme Court of India29 Nov 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1076 · [2016] 9 S.C.R. 227
SAHA AND ANOTHER proceedings into the report given by the Committee cannot be A treated as 'judicial proceedings'. It cannot be said that the departmental proceedings, which were initiated against the delinquent doctors and in which five of the appellants constituted Inquiry Committee, evidence could be or would have b…
Supreme Court of India29 Nov 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1075 · [2016] 9 S.C.R. 373
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 373 RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE A v. INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 11307 of2016) NOVEMBER 29, 2016 B [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956: s.305 - Rapid Transport System - BRTS corridor scheme for improvement of public transp…
Supreme Court of India29 Nov 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1074 · [2016] 7 S.C.R. 813
- High Court overlooked the facts that the Firm was held to be the tenant whereas defendant no.J was Firm's employee; and that defendant no.l was held to be in possession of the suit house as F 'trespasser' and not as 'tenant' - Thus, order of the High Court set aside and that of the first appellate court restored. All…
Supreme Court of India29 Nov 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1073 · [2016] 8 S.C.R. 719
Allowing the appeals, the Court F HELD: 1.1 Though by virtue of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the tenant is estopped from challenging the title of his landlord during continuance of the tenancy, yet the tenant/lessee is entitled to challenge the derivative title of an Assignee/Vendee of the original landlord (…
Supreme Court of India29 Nov 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1072 · [2016] 8 S.C.R. 459
State of Tamil Nadu v. RamalinKa SamiK(ll Madam, 1985 (1) Suppl. SCR63 : (1985) 4 SCC J - relied on. 4. It is also not correct to say that the claim raised by the appellant was barred by limitation. It was never in dispute between G the parties, that the appellant was in possession of the land. Only that, respondent No…
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis
437 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R. A considers an order passed by a court as voidable or non est, ll(USI approach the court of competent jurisdiction for setting aside the said order - Injunction ordained that while dealing with the hotel unit the rights of the applicant be disclosed - However, the financial…
Supreme Court of India6 Dec 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1105 · [2016] 11 S.C.R. 219
Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. On facts, it is clear that the High Court has gone wrong in holding that the Labour Court did not follow the procedure. It is seen from the award that the management had H 219 / 220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20161 11 S.C.R. A not sought for an opportunity for leading evidence. And d…
Supreme Court of India5 Dec 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1099 · [2016] 11 S.C.R. 193
Interpretation of Statutes: Rule of interpretation - If two Statutes dealing with the same subject use different language then it is not permissible to apply the language of one Statute to other while interpreting such Statutes - Likewise, once assesseejuljills F the conditions specified in section for claiming exe111p…
Supreme Court of India2 Dec 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1092 · [2016] 8 S.C.R. 741
convict a personH GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 743 under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit ·A an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option. The assessment of the evidence on record does not demonstrate any…
Supreme Court of India2 Dec 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1090 · [2016] 8 S.C.R. 139
GURPAL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 141 Yatinder Singh, Sr. Adv.( AC), Arijeet Singh, Ms. Apraj ita A Anvita, Ad vs. for the Appellant. SaurabhAjay Gupta, AAG., Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Saurabh Singhal, Nishant Bishnoi, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B AMITAVA ROY, J. 1. The subject matter o…
Supreme Court of India29 Jan 2016Full text
2016 INSC 109 · [2016] 1 S.C.R. 447
[2016] I S.C.R. 44 7 SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER & ORS. A v. S.C.R. CArERERS, DRY FRUITS, FRUIT JUICE STALLS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 618-620of2016) B JANUARY 29, 2016 (V. GO PALA GOWDA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.) Licence - Renewal of- Under Catering Policy, 2010 of Indian Railways - To the pre-…
Supreme Court of India2 Dec 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1089 · [2016] 8 S.C.R. 101
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, while respondent company was the acquirer, UBL was the person acting in concert. This is evident from the letter of offer (public announcement) dated 15'h February, 2005. The embargo under Regulation 22(7) of the G Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares …
Supreme Court of India1 Dec 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1087 · [2016] 11 S.C.R. 99
DW-5/4; Courts below held that Mark A clearly shows that the same related to property bearing Khasra No. 267 and in that way the same can not be connected to the suit land. Based on oral H 99 100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 11 S.C.R. A and documentary evidence, the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fac…
Supreme Court of India1 Dec 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1086 · [2016] 9 S.C.R. 759
Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The prosecution heavily relied upon the Gconfessional statement of PW3 (the accomplice) which was given soon after his arrest. It had also come on record that PW3 became approver. Though the manne.r in which he became approver was challenged before the Trial Court as well as t…
Supreme Court of India1 Dec 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1085 · [2016] 9 S.C.R. 742
744 ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R. A of Madhya Pradesh;-Bench at Gwalior, in Second Appeal No .. 374.of 1998. ., . ,., •. , . . . . .. l Pune~t Jain; Manu M'atieshwari, Ms. Chhay~ Kirti, Abhinav Gupta I and Ms. Pratibha, Advs. for the appellants. Raj esh, A.dv. for the· respo1ident: · ·.. B ''-··-···,•,.--.: -~…
Supreme Court of India30 Nov 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1084 · [2016] 8 S.C.R. 557
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R. A examination leaves a margin of about two years on either side even if ossification test of multiple joints is conducted. [Para 10) [563-A-B) 1.2 From a reading of Section 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, it is clear that it B provides th…
Supreme Court of India29 Nov 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1083 · [2016] 12 S.C.R. 131
Constitution of India - Constitutional Scheme - Principle of separation of powers - Discussed. Allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1.1 In the present case, the High Court could not have issued such directions some of which were in the field of exclusive domain of the Legislature. [Para 10] [139-F] 1.2 The High Court…
Supreme Court of India29 Nov 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1079 · [2016] 9 S.C.R. 897
WITH D C. A. Nos. 10832, 10833, 10834, 10835, 10836, 10838, 10839, · 10840, 10843, 10844, 10845, 10846, 10847, 10848, 10849, 10850of2016. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Dev Prakash Bhardwaj, Advs. for the Appellants. R. Balasubramaniam, Ananya Mishra, Santosh Kumar, Ms. Aarti E Sharma, Shadman Ali, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, M. K. M…
Supreme Court of India29 Nov 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1078 · [2016] 8 S.C.R. 729
WITH F Civil Appeal No. 11827of2016. P. S. Narasimha,ASG, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Mahabir Singh, Ravinder Sethi, Amrender Saran, Anoop Baghi, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, P.P. Malhotra, A. K. Sanghi, Sr. Advs., Praneet Pranav, Ms. Binu Tamta, G Shadman Ali, Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Vibhu Shanker Mishra, R. S. Nagar, Raj Bahadur Yadav,…
Supreme Court of India29 Nov 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1076 · [2016] 9 S.C.R. 227
SAHA AND ANOTHER proceedings into the report given by the Committee cannot be A treated as 'judicial proceedings'. It cannot be said that the departmental proceedings, which were initiated against the delinquent doctors and in which five of the appellants constituted Inquiry Committee, evidence could be or would have b…
Supreme Court of India29 Nov 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1075 · [2016] 9 S.C.R. 373
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 373 RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE A v. INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 11307 of2016) NOVEMBER 29, 2016 B [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956: s.305 - Rapid Transport System - BRTS corridor scheme for improvement of public transp…
Supreme Court of India29 Nov 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1074 · [2016] 7 S.C.R. 813
- High Court overlooked the facts that the Firm was held to be the tenant whereas defendant no.J was Firm's employee; and that defendant no.l was held to be in possession of the suit house as F 'trespasser' and not as 'tenant' - Thus, order of the High Court set aside and that of the first appellate court restored. All…
Supreme Court of India29 Nov 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1073 · [2016] 8 S.C.R. 719
Allowing the appeals, the Court F HELD: 1.1 Though by virtue of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the tenant is estopped from challenging the title of his landlord during continuance of the tenancy, yet the tenant/lessee is entitled to challenge the derivative title of an Assignee/Vendee of the original landlord (…
Supreme Court of India29 Nov 2016Full text
2016 INSC 1072 · [2016] 8 S.C.R. 459
State of Tamil Nadu v. RamalinKa SamiK(ll Madam, 1985 (1) Suppl. SCR63 : (1985) 4 SCC J - relied on. 4. It is also not correct to say that the claim raised by the appellant was barred by limitation. It was never in dispute between G the parties, that the appellant was in possession of the land. Only that, respondent No…
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis