![[Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, S. 80] | [Civil court jurisdiction barred for disputes concerning public trusts unless specific conditions are met.]](https://i0.wp.com/sclaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Code-of-Civil-Procedure.jpg?resize=150%2C150&ssl=1)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – A plaint cannot be rejected in part
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KUM. GEETHA, D/O LATE KRISHNA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NANJUNDASWAMY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sudhanshu Dhulia,…
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 140 and 166 – Motor accident -Compensation – Fake driving licence – Mere fact that the driving licence was fake, per se, would not absolve the insurer
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. GEETA DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Second petition – Maintainability – A second petition not maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on grounds that were available for challenge even at the time of filing of the first petition
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHISHAM LAL VERMA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar And Sanjay Kumar, JJ. )…
Service Law – Appointment – Post of Village Development Officers – A candidate/applicant has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless extended by the recruiting authority – Advertisement clearly specified the essential qualification was a Course of Computer Concept Certificate – Appellants despite opportunity to appear to show such equivalence, having failed to do so, nothing survives on this count – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. )…
Execution of decree – All questions between the parties can be decided by the executing court – But the important aspect to remember is that these questions are limited to the “execution of the decree” – Executing court can never go behind the decree – Under Section 47, CPC the executing court cannot examine the validity of the order of the court which had allowed the execution of the decree in 2013, unless the court’s order is itself without jurisdiction.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRADEEP MEHRA — Appellant Vs. HARIJIVAN J. JETHWA (SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS.) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu…
Kerala Irrigation Engineering Service Special Rules, 2010 – Challenge to antedating of a seniority list – Not find that any case has been made out for interference in appeal for the reason that appellant has not been able to demonstrate that for the purpose of promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to that of Assistant Executive Engineer, he was likely to be affected by antedating the date of promotion of the private respondents as separate quotas had been prescribed for promotion to the next higher post for the categories of Graduate Engineers and Diploma Holders
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH C. ANIL CHANDRAN — Appellant Vs. M.K. RAGHAVAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
We are not inclined to proceed further with the present writ petition, as it is clear from the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2 – Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) that the cellular mobile telephone number once deactivated for non-usage or disconnected on the request of subscriber, is not allocated to the new subscriber for at least a period of 90 days. It is for the earlier subscriber to take adequate steps to ensure that privacy is maintained.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESWARI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Writ Petition (Civil)…
HELD The affidavit further states that following the practice of the NCLAT, the deponent did not entertain any attempt at mentioning by the counsel and that the order of this Court dated 13 October 2023 was not on the record before the Bench presided by the deponent on 13 October 2023. What the affidavit does not state is that a conscious effort was made by the Bench to prevent the order of this Court being placed on the record despite the fact that the court was apprised of the passing of the order by this Court in the morning session. We censure the conduct of the Member
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ORBIT ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. DEEPAK KISHAN CHHABRIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., J B Pardiwala and…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 389(1) – Appeal for suspension of sentence is pending – Bail Canceled by High Court – Appeal – Under no circumstances, the bail granted to an accused under sub-section 1 of Section 389 can be cancelled without giving a reasonable opportunity to the accused of being heard – Under sub-section 1 of Section 389, while suspending the sentence of the appellant-accused who is in Jail, the Appellate Court has to enlarge the accused on bail till the final disposal of the appeal – Second proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 389 permits the Public Prosecutor to file an application for cancellation of the bail granted under sub-section 1 –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PURUSHOTHAMAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S.Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 3341…
Consumer Complaint – Deficiency of service or defect – Adverse reaction due to administration of vaccine Engerix-B – Non-mentioning of myositis being suffered as an adverse reaction in the literature accompanying the injection or on the vial not amounts to deficiency of service, more particularly when the adverse reaction was minimal only to the extent of 0.02 in one million – If the matter is looked at from its correct perspective it is seen that except for the appellant assuming that he has suffered myositis and the cause for the same was the Engerix-B vaccine being administered, the same has not been established with the minimal required evidence to conclude even on preponderance of probability – Complaint dismissed
(2023) 11 SCALE 325 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASH BANG — Appellant Vs. GLAXO SMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Prashant…