Even in a case where the final report of the police under Section 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ZUNAID — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
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…
In any event, from the very details furnished by the respondents, the instance of myositis being minimal to the extent of 0.02 in a million, to contend that there was negligence on the part of the respondent is also not acceptable.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASH BANG — Appellant Vs. GLAXO SMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. )…
An order of detention under section 3(1) of the Act can only be issued against a detenu to prevent him “from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”. “Public order” is defined in the Explanation to section 2(a) of the Act as encompassing situations that cause “harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave wide-spread danger to life or public health” – Order of detention quashed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMEENA BEGUM — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal…
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – Section 30 – An appeal from an order of Commissioner can be entertained only if there exists a substantial question of law to be considered.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FULMATI DHRAMDEV YADAV AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and…
It can be seen that 39 years have passed since the date of offence and both the other accused persons have come to be acquitted – There are no criminal antecedents of accused-appellant that have been brought on record – Further, from the record, it cannot be said that the accused-appellant acted in a premeditated manner, whatsoever – Sentence reduced to 3 years from 5 years
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal…
Dispute over the allocation of a residential plot to Mr. ‘K’ and subsequent attempts to cancel the sale deed – Arbitration -‘K’ successors challenged this decision in a writ petition, and the High Court ruled in their favor, finding that the society had failed to provide evidence of the alleged violations – The society appealed this decision, but this Court concluded that their appeal lacked merit and dismissed it.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PURUSHOTTAM BAGH SAHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD. — Appellant Vs. SRI SHOBHAN PAL SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…
Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Offices Ministerial Group “C” Posts of the Lowest Grade (Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2001 – Rule 5 – An affidavit revealed vacancies, and in light of this, This Court directed the promotion of four candidates based on their education qualifications – This decision was not to set a precedent, and the appeal was allowed without any cost orders.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA PRASAD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal,…
Section 162 of the CrPC which prevents a Trial Judge from independently examining the contents of a chargesheet suo motu and himself using the statement of a person examined by the police recorded therein for the purpose of contradicting such person when he gives evidence in favour of the State as a prosecution witness
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MUNNA PANDEY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, J.B. Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal…
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to do complete justice, the appellant will be entitled to all the service benefits including seniority, consequential promotions and pensionary benefits at par with his juniors, though notionally, since he superannuated on 30.06.2007 and has not worked on the promoted post.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH L.R. PATIL — Appellant Vs. GULBARGA UNIVERSITY, GULBARGA — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 3254…







