Revised agreement – Reduction to 10000 KVA from 23000 KVA – Appellant neither sought for nor consumed the electricity more than the maximum demand of 10000 KVA – This Court directs the Respondent to return the amount as may be calculated and verified, paid by the Appellant to it for 13000 KVA, in excess to its request of maximum sanctioned demand of 10000 KVA (23000-10000 = 13000 KVA)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE MADRAS ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol…
1996 Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case – Death of 13 persons and 38 persons suffered injuries – Life imprisonment without remission, extending to natural life of four convicts upheld –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MOHD. NAUSHAD — Appellant Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 141 – where no reason was assigned by the Court while dismissing the matter and where leave was not granted in the said Special Leave Petition, the said dismissal would not be considered as laying down law within the ambit of Article 141 – such dismissal of Special Leave Petition by way of a non-speaking order does not attract the doctrine of merger.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S. NARAHARI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. S.R. KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil…
POCSO Act – Sections 4 6 8 &10 – Penetrative sexual assault – Phraseology – “Shall not be less than…” – When a penal provision uses the phraseology “shall not be less than….”, the Courts cannot do offence to the Section and impose a lesser sentence.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. — Appellant Vs. SONU KUSHWAHA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
(IPC) – Sections 308 and 338 – The appellant, as a conductor, had a duty to take care of the passengers on the overcrowded bus – However, he failed to verify if all passengers had safely boarded the bus before signaling the driver to start – Despite knowing that many students were waiting at the bus stop, he neglected his duty and acted recklessly – As a result, PW-1 suffered a fractured pelvis, putting human life in danger
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABDUL ANSAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Re-instatement – Back wages – The appellant established unemployment at least until August 1997 – Based on the salary figures provided, the appellant’s gross salary on the date of reinstatement was Rs. 18,830, while it was approximately Rs. 4,000 per month at the time of removal – An amount of Rs.3 lakhs is ordered to be paid to the appellant in lieu of back wages.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMESH CHAND — Appellant Vs. MANAGEMENT OF DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil…
Evidence Act, 1872 – Ss 4 and 18 – Testimony of a child witness – Before taking the testimony of a minor, it is the responsibility of the Judicial Officer to ask preliminary questions to ensure that the minor can comprehend and respond rationally & record the preliminary questions and answers for review by the Appellate Court to assess the Trial Court’s opinion accurately.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRADEEP — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
The right to enjoy possession of any land notified under Section 4 is not only limited to Adivasi communities and other forest dwelling communities, but is also based on proof of residence, date of original possession, etc – If the right to inhabit the said lands is not restricted only to certain communities, how can the right to be heard on such claims be restricted to the same.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARI PRAKASH SHUKLA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin…
Motor Accident Claims – Future prospects should be added with the income depending upon the age of the deceased – If the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years, there should be an addition of 15% towards future prospects.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAHUL GANPATRAO SABLE — Appellant Vs. LAXMAN MARUTI JADHAV (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath,…
An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARUN DEV UPADHYAYA — Appellant Vs. INTEGRATED SALES SERVICE LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath, JJ. )…








