Category: Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 13(2) – Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Section 6A – the declaration made by the Constitution Bench in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2014) 8 SCC 682, will have retrospective operation – Section 6A of the DSPE Act is held to be not in force from the date of its insertion i.e. 11.09.2003.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CBI — Appellant Vs. R.R. KISHORE — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath and J.K. Maheshwari,…

Delhi Development Act, 1957 – Section 57 – Claim for interest – the court finds that the circumstances of the deposit did not involve any loss due to the “Act of Court” and that the notification was in force when the deposit was made – Therefore, the court rejects the claim for interest – The appellants are advised to pursue remedies for their subsequent losses separately.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Prashant…

HELD where a legislature merely seeks to validate the acts carried out under a previous legislation which has been struck down or rendered inoperative by a Court, by a subsequent legislation without curing the defects in such legislation, the subsequent legislation would also be ultra-vires,”

where a legislature merely seeks to validate the acts carried out under a previous legislation which has been struck down or rendered inoperative  by a Court, by a subsequent legislation…

Remarks by a court should at all times be governed by the principles of justice, fair play and restraint – Words employed should reflect sobriety, moderation and reserve – It should not be lost sight of and per contra, always be remembered that such remarks, “due to the great power vested in our robes, have the ability to jeopardize and compromise independence of judges”

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S. SHIKHA TRADING COMPANY — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…

An accused is under an obligation to stand for identification parade – An accused cannot resist subjecting himself to the TIP on the ground that he cannot be forced or coerced for the same – Conduct of Test Identification Parade not violates the fundamental right of an accused under Article 20(3) of the Constitution

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUKESH SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : M.M. Sundresh and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

HELD the bidder was advised to inspect and satisfy itself regarding the mining area before participating in the bidding process. As to what would be the effect of that clause on the relief claimed by the original petitioner is a matter which requires consideration. But there appears no discussion in that regard in the orders impugned. That apart, there is no determination of the area, if any, which falls in the disputed territory i.e., within the State of M.P. There is also no discussion on the plea of the appellants that the amount of which refund was sought was far in excess of the amount paid by the original petitioner – Remanded

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF U.P AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VINAY KUMAR SINGH @ RESPONDENT ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., J B Pardiwala…

HELD the construction of the disputed building on the land earmarked/reserved as a playground is illegal and contrary to the Panchayats proposal, technical sanction and the financial sanction, as well as the work order and hence, the same, has to be demolished at the cost and responsibility of the respondent No.2 Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Longewala and respondent No.4 Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Longewala

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE SARPANCH, GRAM PANCHAYAT, LONGWALA PANCHAYAT SAMITI, PILIBANGA, DISTRICT HANUMANGARH, RAJASTHAN — Appellant Vs. MANVEER SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 141 – Law of Precedents – Doctrine of Merger and Res judicata – Dismissal of appeal without any reasons being recorded would not attract Article 141 of the Constitution of India as no law was declared by the Supreme Court, which will have a binding effect on all courts and tribunals in India – The logic behind the doctrine of merger is that there cannot be more than one decree or operative orders governing the same subject matter at a given point of time

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH EXPERION DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. HIMANSHU DEWAN AND SONALI DEWAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna, Bela M. Trivedi…

Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 4 – – the public authorities owe a duty to disseminate the information widely suo motu to the public so as to make it easily accessible to the public. In regard to information enumerated or required to be enumerated under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) of the RTI Act, necessarily and naturally, the competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to act in a proactive manner so as to ensure accountability and ensure that the fight against corruption goes on relentlessly

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KISHAN CHAND JAIN — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

You missed