⚖
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.
1,061–1,080 · Page 54 of 382
Supreme Court of India25 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1199 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1098
investigation – In view of the serious allegations made in the complaint, the High Court should not have made roving inquiry while considering the application filed u/s.482, CrPC – High Court got carried away by the agreement/settlement arrived at between the parties, and recorded finding that the physical relationship…
Supreme Court of India25 Oct 2019Full text
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.
1,061–1,080 · Page 54 of 382
Supreme Court of India25 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1199 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1098
investigation – In view of the serious allegations made in the complaint, the High Court should not have made roving inquiry while considering the application filed u/s.482, CrPC – High Court got carried away by the agreement/settlement arrived at between the parties, and recorded finding that the physical relationship…
Supreme Court of India25 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1198 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1106
‘SN’ did not disclose as to when the envelope containing dasti notice was opened – Further, submission of ‘SN’ that dasti notice from the Supreme Court was considered by him as to be ‘some income tax return documents’ lacked credibility – Dasti notice was served on him on 13.12.2018, which was much prior to his surgery…
Supreme Court of India25 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1197 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1092
– Therefore, what could be corrected was the mistake or the category i.e. from General to any of the reserved category or vice-versa but G not that a candidate who is not eligible in terms of advertisement issued on 18.06.13 becomes eligible under the guise of correction of mistakes – High Court erred in law in shiftin…
Supreme Court of India24 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1193 · [2019] 16 S.C.R. 971
Therefore, that judgment continues to hold the field in this regard. H [Para 12] [985-D-G] MUNICIPAL CORP. OF GREATER MUMBAI v. SUNBEAM 973 HIGH TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 3. This Court does not approve the action of the Municipal A Corporation or its officials in demolishing the structures without following the procedu…
Supreme Court of India24 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1190 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 1047
Shikhil Suri, Adv. (A.C.) Ms. June Chaudhary, Sr. Adv., Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Uzmi Jameel G Husain, Ms. Shilpa Saini, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Advs. for the Appellants. Rahul Kaushik, Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak, Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Advs. for the Respondent. H IMRAT SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 1049 The Judgme…
Supreme Court of India31 Jan 2019Full text
2019 INSC 119 · [2019] 1 S.C.R. 1029
remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration, to decide the criminal revision on its own merit – Penal Code 1860 – ss.143, 147, 323 r/w. 149, 325 – Bombay Police Act – s. 135. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The reason for rejecting the application for leave F to appeal ran contrary to evidence on r…
Supreme Court of India24 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1189 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1056
– Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Since the candidates are not F certified as OBC by Govt. of NCT of Delhi they cannot be considered eligible in the OBC category – They also cannot be considered against unreserved category because there is an express bar under Office Memoranda on migration to unreserved category of tho…
Supreme Court of India24 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1188 · [2019] 16 S.C.R. 993
dated 12.09.2013 was challenged by the appellant before High Court and also sought direction to the Commissioner to take over possession of PPL and to endorse the commencement certificate for residential building upto 56 floors –The Commissioner passed order dated 31.08.2016 deciding the refuge area – Subsequently Noti…
Supreme Court of India24 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1187 · [2019] 16 S.C.R. 672
– Telecom operators again approached TDSAT challenging the demands – TDSAT by the impugned order considered the specific head of items to be included/excluded under the definition of AGR – Held: Contractual definition of gross revenue is binding – Gross G amount, as per the definition, is the gross revenue, without set…
Supreme Court of India24 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1186 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1069
[2019] 13 S.C.R. 1069 1069 SIRDAR K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJ URS. (DEAD) A THROUGH LRS. v. SARAH C. URS & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.6049 of 2007) B OCTOBER 24, 2019 [ARUN MISHRA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.] Estoppel – When not attracted – Suit property let out to plaintiff no.2 by the late father of defendant no.1 and defendant no.…
Supreme Court of India24 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1185 · [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1046
B Civil Appeal Nos. 3279 and 3280 of 2012. Maninder Singh, Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Advs., Sibo Sankar Mishra, Niranjan Sahu, Ashok Kumar Singh, V. Balaji, T. A. Khan, Praveen Gaur, Ms. Priyanshi Agarwal, Aadhya Mishra, B. V. Balram Das, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Ms. Vasundra, Advs. for the appearing C parties. The J…
Supreme Court of India23 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1184 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 1085
No litigant can choose, who should be on the Bench – He cannot say that a Judge who might have decided a case on a particular issue, which may go against his interest subsequently or is part of a larger Bench should not hear his case – Furthermore, if a party or his Counsel can at length argue on the question of recusa…
Supreme Court of India23 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1183 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1044
specified in the 2004 Rules may not be considered as expression of opinion on the merits of the matter – Arbitrator to proceed with the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law – CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Dismissing the appeal, the Court C HELD: 1.1 Clause 12 provides for reference of dispute to an Arbitrat…
Supreme Court of India22 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1182 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 565
– Held: Appellants preferred the appeal at first instance on F15.6.2017 before the District Judge – But since this was before the wrong forum and it was filed after a delay of about eleven months and there was no explanation for the time taken by the State between 18.7.2016 and 15.6.2017, the delay in the RFA before th…
Supreme Court of India22 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1181 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1028
C With Civil Appeal No. 7850 of 2019. Anip Sachthey, Sr. Adv., Anando Mukherjee, Ms. Anjali Chauhan, Ms. Ria Sachthey, Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Advs. for the Appellants. D Pranab Kumar Mullick, Ms. Soma Mullick, Seba Kumar Deuria, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J. E 1. Th…
Supreme Court of India22 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1178 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 1051
– Thereafter, appellant claimed allotment of 43.7 standard acres against balance of verified claim – The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) allotted the land measuring 19.26 standard acres – The questions which were required to be examined E were as to whether the Central Government having transferred lan…
Supreme Court of India22 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1177 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 1
BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 3 AMIT KUMAR With A C.A. Nos. 8220/2019, 8221/2019, 8222/2019. Gaurav Agrawal, Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Rajiv Tyagi, Neeraj Shekhar, Animesh Kumar, Sumit Kumar, Ashutosh Thakur, Ms. Ekta Bharati, Advs. for the appearing parties. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DEE…
Supreme Court of India22 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1175 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 976
crime is of 2008 and the respondents were only ordered to undergo 4 days of jail term with fine of Rs.1,500/- – Same needs to be enhanced to commensurate with the guilt of the respondents – For offence u/s.326, IPC r/with s.34, IPC, the respondent nos.1-3 to serve rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and pay fine of H 97…
Supreme Court of India22 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1174 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1006
1006 SUPREME COURT[2019]REPORTS13 S.C.R. 1006 [2019] 13 S.C.R. A MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF GREATER MUMBAI v. HARISH LAMBA OF BOMBAY, INDIAN INHABITANT & ORS. B (Civil Appeal No.142 of 2009) OCTOBER 22, 2019 [A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.] Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: C ss. 139, 140, 141 and 169 – Water ta…
Supreme Court of India21 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1172 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 961
[2019] 13 S.C.R. 961 961 M. SRIKANTH A v. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1586 of 2019) B OCTOBER 21, 2019 [NAVIN SINHA AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 –s.482 –Exercise of jurisdiction under – Respondent no.2-complainant filed complaint against nine persons including accused no.1…
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis
2019 INSC 1198 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1106
‘SN’ did not disclose as to when the envelope containing dasti notice was opened – Further, submission of ‘SN’ that dasti notice from the Supreme Court was considered by him as to be ‘some income tax return documents’ lacked credibility – Dasti notice was served on him on 13.12.2018, which was much prior to his surgery…
Supreme Court of India25 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1197 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1092
– Therefore, what could be corrected was the mistake or the category i.e. from General to any of the reserved category or vice-versa but G not that a candidate who is not eligible in terms of advertisement issued on 18.06.13 becomes eligible under the guise of correction of mistakes – High Court erred in law in shiftin…
Supreme Court of India24 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1193 · [2019] 16 S.C.R. 971
Therefore, that judgment continues to hold the field in this regard. H [Para 12] [985-D-G] MUNICIPAL CORP. OF GREATER MUMBAI v. SUNBEAM 973 HIGH TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 3. This Court does not approve the action of the Municipal A Corporation or its officials in demolishing the structures without following the procedu…
Supreme Court of India24 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1190 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 1047
Shikhil Suri, Adv. (A.C.) Ms. June Chaudhary, Sr. Adv., Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Uzmi Jameel G Husain, Ms. Shilpa Saini, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Advs. for the Appellants. Rahul Kaushik, Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak, Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Advs. for the Respondent. H IMRAT SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 1049 The Judgme…
Supreme Court of India31 Jan 2019Full text
2019 INSC 119 · [2019] 1 S.C.R. 1029
remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration, to decide the criminal revision on its own merit – Penal Code 1860 – ss.143, 147, 323 r/w. 149, 325 – Bombay Police Act – s. 135. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The reason for rejecting the application for leave F to appeal ran contrary to evidence on r…
Supreme Court of India24 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1189 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1056
– Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Since the candidates are not F certified as OBC by Govt. of NCT of Delhi they cannot be considered eligible in the OBC category – They also cannot be considered against unreserved category because there is an express bar under Office Memoranda on migration to unreserved category of tho…
Supreme Court of India24 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1188 · [2019] 16 S.C.R. 993
dated 12.09.2013 was challenged by the appellant before High Court and also sought direction to the Commissioner to take over possession of PPL and to endorse the commencement certificate for residential building upto 56 floors –The Commissioner passed order dated 31.08.2016 deciding the refuge area – Subsequently Noti…
Supreme Court of India24 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1187 · [2019] 16 S.C.R. 672
– Telecom operators again approached TDSAT challenging the demands – TDSAT by the impugned order considered the specific head of items to be included/excluded under the definition of AGR – Held: Contractual definition of gross revenue is binding – Gross G amount, as per the definition, is the gross revenue, without set…
Supreme Court of India24 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1186 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1069
[2019] 13 S.C.R. 1069 1069 SIRDAR K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJ URS. (DEAD) A THROUGH LRS. v. SARAH C. URS & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.6049 of 2007) B OCTOBER 24, 2019 [ARUN MISHRA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.] Estoppel – When not attracted – Suit property let out to plaintiff no.2 by the late father of defendant no.1 and defendant no.…
Supreme Court of India24 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1185 · [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1046
B Civil Appeal Nos. 3279 and 3280 of 2012. Maninder Singh, Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Advs., Sibo Sankar Mishra, Niranjan Sahu, Ashok Kumar Singh, V. Balaji, T. A. Khan, Praveen Gaur, Ms. Priyanshi Agarwal, Aadhya Mishra, B. V. Balram Das, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Ms. Vasundra, Advs. for the appearing C parties. The J…
Supreme Court of India23 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1184 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 1085
No litigant can choose, who should be on the Bench – He cannot say that a Judge who might have decided a case on a particular issue, which may go against his interest subsequently or is part of a larger Bench should not hear his case – Furthermore, if a party or his Counsel can at length argue on the question of recusa…
Supreme Court of India23 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1183 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1044
specified in the 2004 Rules may not be considered as expression of opinion on the merits of the matter – Arbitrator to proceed with the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law – CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Dismissing the appeal, the Court C HELD: 1.1 Clause 12 provides for reference of dispute to an Arbitrat…
Supreme Court of India22 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1182 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 565
– Held: Appellants preferred the appeal at first instance on F15.6.2017 before the District Judge – But since this was before the wrong forum and it was filed after a delay of about eleven months and there was no explanation for the time taken by the State between 18.7.2016 and 15.6.2017, the delay in the RFA before th…
Supreme Court of India22 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1181 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1028
C With Civil Appeal No. 7850 of 2019. Anip Sachthey, Sr. Adv., Anando Mukherjee, Ms. Anjali Chauhan, Ms. Ria Sachthey, Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Advs. for the Appellants. D Pranab Kumar Mullick, Ms. Soma Mullick, Seba Kumar Deuria, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J. E 1. Th…
Supreme Court of India22 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1178 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 1051
– Thereafter, appellant claimed allotment of 43.7 standard acres against balance of verified claim – The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) allotted the land measuring 19.26 standard acres – The questions which were required to be examined E were as to whether the Central Government having transferred lan…
Supreme Court of India22 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1177 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 1
BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 3 AMIT KUMAR With A C.A. Nos. 8220/2019, 8221/2019, 8222/2019. Gaurav Agrawal, Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Rajiv Tyagi, Neeraj Shekhar, Animesh Kumar, Sumit Kumar, Ashutosh Thakur, Ms. Ekta Bharati, Advs. for the appearing parties. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DEE…
Supreme Court of India22 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1175 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 976
crime is of 2008 and the respondents were only ordered to undergo 4 days of jail term with fine of Rs.1,500/- – Same needs to be enhanced to commensurate with the guilt of the respondents – For offence u/s.326, IPC r/with s.34, IPC, the respondent nos.1-3 to serve rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and pay fine of H 97…
Supreme Court of India22 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1174 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1006
1006 SUPREME COURT[2019]REPORTS13 S.C.R. 1006 [2019] 13 S.C.R. A MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF GREATER MUMBAI v. HARISH LAMBA OF BOMBAY, INDIAN INHABITANT & ORS. B (Civil Appeal No.142 of 2009) OCTOBER 22, 2019 [A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.] Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: C ss. 139, 140, 141 and 169 – Water ta…
Supreme Court of India21 Oct 2019Full text
2019 INSC 1172 · [2019] 13 S.C.R. 961
[2019] 13 S.C.R. 961 961 M. SRIKANTH A v. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1586 of 2019) B OCTOBER 21, 2019 [NAVIN SINHA AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 –s.482 –Exercise of jurisdiction under – Respondent no.2-complainant filed complaint against nine persons including accused no.1…
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis