⚖
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.
3,841–3,860 · Page 193 of 382
Supreme Court of India29 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 368 · [2015] 5 S.C.R. 141
2. It is trite that the letter of law has to be accorded F utmost respect and strictly adhered to especially while interpreting a taxing statute. There ought not exist any scope for impregnating the interpretation by reading equity into taxing statutes. [para 17) [150-G-H] G CIT v. V MR. P Firm Muar(1965) 1 SCR 815; CI…
Supreme Court of India28 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 365 · [2015] 5 S.C.R. 525
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.
3,841–3,860 · Page 193 of 382
Supreme Court of India29 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 368 · [2015] 5 S.C.R. 141
2. It is trite that the letter of law has to be accorded F utmost respect and strictly adhered to especially while interpreting a taxing statute. There ought not exist any scope for impregnating the interpretation by reading equity into taxing statutes. [para 17) [150-G-H] G CIT v. V MR. P Firm Muar(1965) 1 SCR 815; CI…
Supreme Court of India28 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 365 · [2015] 5 S.C.R. 525
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [.2015] 5 S.C.R. A Sengupta, fortheAppellants. Kartika Sahay, Corporate Law Group, V. K. Jain, F. I. Choudhury, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Respondents. \ The Judgment of th~ Court was delivered byB PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants against the judgment …
Supreme Court of India28 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 364 · [2015] 5 S.C.R. 342
Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The presumption mandated by Section F 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. In the present case since th…
Supreme Court of India28 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 363 · [2015] 5 S.C.R. 200
2. There is no reason why the Joint Memo, which F states compromise arrived at between the appellant-Bank and the principal debtors, would not bind first respondent when under Clause (2) she has admitted that any judgment or award obtained by the Bank against the principal debtor would bind the parties. The G responden…
Supreme Court of India28 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 362 · [2015] 5 S.C.R. 214
- SS. 7(a), 15. Allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1. In case there are two views which can be culled out from the perusal of evidence and application of law, the view which favours the accused should be taken. The view which favours the accused/ H 214 UPENDRA PRADHAN v. STATE OF ORISSA 215 appellant has to be cons…
Supreme Court of India28 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 361 · [2015] 5 S.C.R. 228
Dr. J. N. Dubey,Anurag Dubey, Meenesh Dubey,Anu Dubey, S. R. Seti a for the Appellant. Ratnakar Dash, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad for the H 230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. A Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J, 1. This criminal appeal arises from the final order and j…
Supreme Court of India14 Jan 2015Full text
2015 INSC 36 · [2015] 1 S.C.R. 689
D.P. Singh, Sonam Gupta, Rajkiran Vats, Vallari Bhardwaj, Sanjay Jain for the Appellant. B Manjit Singh, AAG, Nupur Choudhary, Vevekta Singh, Akshay Vasishtha, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. This appeal C is directed against the judgme…
Supreme Court of India27 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 359 · [2015] 5 S.C.R. 534
- The said offensive conduct is reasonably connected with F the performance of the official duty of the appellant -Therefore, the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the case without the previous sanction of the State Government - High Court missed this crucial point in the G impugned order- Impugned order by…
Supreme Court of India24 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 357 · [2015] 4 S.C.R. 563
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: In the present case, neither in the courts below, the plea that weapon was not dangerous was raised nor any evidence was led, in absence of which the finding of the courts below on the nature of charge 8 is not interfered with nor it i…
Supreme Court of India24 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 356 · [2015] 6 S.C.R. 389
- On facts, averment by the plaintiff that the last and final cause of action accrued and arose to them after 1991 when the defendants succeeded in hiding themselves and started avoiding the plaintiffs, cannot be accepted - Thus, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the trial F court is restored-…
Supreme Court of India24 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 355 · [2015] 5 S.C.R. 153
Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In view of the factual position in the F present matter, evidence had commenced, as envisaged by Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in terms of the clarification recorded in *Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case viz., the proceedings initiated prior to the renderi…
Supreme Court of India24 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 354 · [2015] 5 S.C.R. 800
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. H 5511-5512 of 2014 800 VINOD KUMAR SUBBIAH v. SARASWATHI 801 PALANIAPPAN From the Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2013 of the A Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in C.M.A. (MD) No. 210 & 211 of 2012. lndu Malhotra, Eesha Mohpatra, Vikas Mehta for the Appellant. B Shadan …
Supreme Court of India24 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 353 · [2015] 6 S.C.R. 107
WITH C.A Nos. 7066, 9909 & 9908 of 2011, 3150, 2488, 5162 & 7373 of 2012, 686, 4069 & 6158 of 2013, 5661 & F 10586 of 2014 and 3913 & 3914 of 2015 Parag Tripathi, Parag P. Tripathi, lndu Malhotra, Madhu Sweta, Paula Ghose, Monisha Handa, Mahima Gupta, Sawabh Bindal, K. C. Dua, Momota Devi Oinam, Tavinder G Pal Sidhu, G…
Supreme Court of India24 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 352 · [2015] 4 S.C.R. 750
VUTUKURU LAKSHMAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA 751 PRADESH upheld - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 32. A Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 On a perusal of the evidence on record, it is found that the facts and circumstances clearly bring 8out that there was an unlawful assembly. Each of the accused person was very well awar…
Supreme Court of India23 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 350 · [2015] 5 S.C.R. 759
4. Since the land of all the appellants was more or G less similar in nature and no evidence was adduced by the appellants to prove any significant improvement/ addition or/dissimilarity in the land or its quality, th…
Supreme Court of India14 Jan 2015Full text
2015 INSC 35 · [2015] 11 S.C.R. 1034
- Sanction of new courses led to the increase of work load F and the services of respondent nos. 1 to 7 utilised by the Bth respondent-management - Resppndent nos. 1 to 7 appointed against sanctioned posts of teachers - Proposal forwarded by Bth respondent-management for approval of the appointment of respondent nos. 1…
Supreme Court of India23 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 349 · [2015] 4 S.C.R. 335
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A limitation set aside - Imposition of penalty also set aside -Central Excise Tariff Act - Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 - rr. 6(b)(i) & (ii). CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. B 7642 of 2004. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2004 of the Customs, Exci…
Supreme Court of India23 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 348 · [2015] 4 S.C.R. 211
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A dated 11.06.2004 of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No. E/3072/02-MUM V. Lakshmikumaran, M. P. Devanath, Vivek Sharma, L. Charanaya, Aditya Bhattacharya, R. Ramachandran, B Hemant Bajaj, Amb…
Supreme Court of India23 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 347 · [2015] 6 S.C.R. 716
Allowing the appeal, the Court H 716 COMMNR., CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, 717 AURANGABAD v. ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD. HELD: 1.1 It is to be seen as to what point of time A sale is effected namely whether it is on factory gate or at a later point of time i.e. when the delivery of the goods is effected to the buyer at his pre…
Supreme Court of India23 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 346 · [2015] 7 S.C.R. 291
291 292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 7 S.C.R. A applicable in the facts of the present'case - Held: Periods of limitatiog~ are procedural in nature and would ordinarily be applied retrospectively- In the facts of the case, limitation period, as provided under pre-amended s. 128, would apply. - B Allowing the appeal, th…
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [.2015] 5 S.C.R. A Sengupta, fortheAppellants. Kartika Sahay, Corporate Law Group, V. K. Jain, F. I. Choudhury, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Respondents. \ The Judgment of th~ Court was delivered byB PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants against the judgment …
Supreme Court of India28 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 364 · [2015] 5 S.C.R. 342
Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The presumption mandated by Section F 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. In the present case since th…
Supreme Court of India28 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 363 · [2015] 5 S.C.R. 200
2. There is no reason why the Joint Memo, which F states compromise arrived at between the appellant-Bank and the principal debtors, would not bind first respondent when under Clause (2) she has admitted that any judgment or award obtained by the Bank against the principal debtor would bind the parties. The G responden…
Supreme Court of India28 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 362 · [2015] 5 S.C.R. 214
- SS. 7(a), 15. Allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1. In case there are two views which can be culled out from the perusal of evidence and application of law, the view which favours the accused should be taken. The view which favours the accused/ H 214 UPENDRA PRADHAN v. STATE OF ORISSA 215 appellant has to be cons…
Supreme Court of India28 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 361 · [2015] 5 S.C.R. 228
Dr. J. N. Dubey,Anurag Dubey, Meenesh Dubey,Anu Dubey, S. R. Seti a for the Appellant. Ratnakar Dash, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad for the H 230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. A Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J, 1. This criminal appeal arises from the final order and j…
Supreme Court of India14 Jan 2015Full text
2015 INSC 36 · [2015] 1 S.C.R. 689
D.P. Singh, Sonam Gupta, Rajkiran Vats, Vallari Bhardwaj, Sanjay Jain for the Appellant. B Manjit Singh, AAG, Nupur Choudhary, Vevekta Singh, Akshay Vasishtha, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. This appeal C is directed against the judgme…
Supreme Court of India27 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 359 · [2015] 5 S.C.R. 534
- The said offensive conduct is reasonably connected with F the performance of the official duty of the appellant -Therefore, the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the case without the previous sanction of the State Government - High Court missed this crucial point in the G impugned order- Impugned order by…
Supreme Court of India24 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 357 · [2015] 4 S.C.R. 563
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: In the present case, neither in the courts below, the plea that weapon was not dangerous was raised nor any evidence was led, in absence of which the finding of the courts below on the nature of charge 8 is not interfered with nor it i…
Supreme Court of India24 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 356 · [2015] 6 S.C.R. 389
- On facts, averment by the plaintiff that the last and final cause of action accrued and arose to them after 1991 when the defendants succeeded in hiding themselves and started avoiding the plaintiffs, cannot be accepted - Thus, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the trial F court is restored-…
Supreme Court of India24 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 355 · [2015] 5 S.C.R. 153
Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In view of the factual position in the F present matter, evidence had commenced, as envisaged by Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in terms of the clarification recorded in *Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case viz., the proceedings initiated prior to the renderi…
Supreme Court of India24 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 354 · [2015] 5 S.C.R. 800
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. H 5511-5512 of 2014 800 VINOD KUMAR SUBBIAH v. SARASWATHI 801 PALANIAPPAN From the Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2013 of the A Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in C.M.A. (MD) No. 210 & 211 of 2012. lndu Malhotra, Eesha Mohpatra, Vikas Mehta for the Appellant. B Shadan …
Supreme Court of India24 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 353 · [2015] 6 S.C.R. 107
WITH C.A Nos. 7066, 9909 & 9908 of 2011, 3150, 2488, 5162 & 7373 of 2012, 686, 4069 & 6158 of 2013, 5661 & F 10586 of 2014 and 3913 & 3914 of 2015 Parag Tripathi, Parag P. Tripathi, lndu Malhotra, Madhu Sweta, Paula Ghose, Monisha Handa, Mahima Gupta, Sawabh Bindal, K. C. Dua, Momota Devi Oinam, Tavinder G Pal Sidhu, G…
Supreme Court of India24 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 352 · [2015] 4 S.C.R. 750
VUTUKURU LAKSHMAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA 751 PRADESH upheld - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 32. A Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 On a perusal of the evidence on record, it is found that the facts and circumstances clearly bring 8out that there was an unlawful assembly. Each of the accused person was very well awar…
Supreme Court of India23 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 350 · [2015] 5 S.C.R. 759
4. Since the land of all the appellants was more or G less similar in nature and no evidence was adduced by the appellants to prove any significant improvement/ addition or/dissimilarity in the land or its quality, th…
Supreme Court of India14 Jan 2015Full text
2015 INSC 35 · [2015] 11 S.C.R. 1034
- Sanction of new courses led to the increase of work load F and the services of respondent nos. 1 to 7 utilised by the Bth respondent-management - Resppndent nos. 1 to 7 appointed against sanctioned posts of teachers - Proposal forwarded by Bth respondent-management for approval of the appointment of respondent nos. 1…
Supreme Court of India23 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 349 · [2015] 4 S.C.R. 335
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A limitation set aside - Imposition of penalty also set aside -Central Excise Tariff Act - Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 - rr. 6(b)(i) & (ii). CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. B 7642 of 2004. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2004 of the Customs, Exci…
Supreme Court of India23 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 348 · [2015] 4 S.C.R. 211
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A dated 11.06.2004 of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No. E/3072/02-MUM V. Lakshmikumaran, M. P. Devanath, Vivek Sharma, L. Charanaya, Aditya Bhattacharya, R. Ramachandran, B Hemant Bajaj, Amb…
Supreme Court of India23 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 347 · [2015] 6 S.C.R. 716
Allowing the appeal, the Court H 716 COMMNR., CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, 717 AURANGABAD v. ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD. HELD: 1.1 It is to be seen as to what point of time A sale is effected namely whether it is on factory gate or at a later point of time i.e. when the delivery of the goods is effected to the buyer at his pre…
Supreme Court of India23 Apr 2015Full text
2015 INSC 346 · [2015] 7 S.C.R. 291
291 292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 7 S.C.R. A applicable in the facts of the present'case - Held: Periods of limitatiog~ are procedural in nature and would ordinarily be applied retrospectively- In the facts of the case, limitation period, as provided under pre-amended s. 128, would apply. - B Allowing the appeal, th…
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis