There is a special equity in favour of the appellant – The reason being that the appellant has continued to work as a Full Time Teacher for 25 long years and has now been superannuated from service – denial of pension to the appellant would incur lot of hardship to the appellant, the appellant shall be given pension along with the arrears.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GEETA — Appellant Vs. THE PRINCIPAL, RAMNAGAR BHARAT VIDYALYA, RAMNAGAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. )…
Review Petition – There was a total delay of 868 days in preferring the petition for review of order – No explanation for long delay in filing – Review Petition dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DEVIKA KALPESHKUMAR CHAUHAN — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil…
Rape – There is absolutely no reason as to why the son of PW4, who is incidentally the brother of PW6, has not been examined being the sole eye-witness – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DAVINDER SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and M. M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of discharging its primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt – It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof would lie upon the accused
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF PUNJAB — Appellant Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 2128…
Held that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator without the consent of the other party would be non-est in law
Arbitration Application No.32 of 2019 Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd. 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.32 OF…
Compassionate appointment – – the gross total income of the family per month comes to Rs. 10,323/- and the net income is Rs. 7,618/- per month – Monthly income so arrived at is not less than 60% of the total emoluments and thus, the case of the respondent cannot be considered on compassionate basis on that score – Order of compassionate appointment set-aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BALJIT SINGH — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Conduct of free and fair elections – Central forces would act in an appropriate manner bearing in mind the emerging situations and for aiding in a free and fair conduct of election in the State
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SUVENDU ADHIKARI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra,…
Opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make submissions – It open for the Division Bench to ensure giving appropriate opportunity and time to the appellants to make submissions before the Division Bench and thereafter appropriate orders may be passed as the Division Bench may deem fit after hearing learned counsel for the appellants – Appeal allowed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GREATER MALWA PARAMEDICAL COLLEGE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,…
Summoning as additional accused – – Once it is conceded that the appellant is a sibling of one of the named assailants, the material for forming the requisite satisfaction cannot be said to be non-existent — Special Court formed the requisite satisfaction prior to summoning the appellant to face trial with “D” —
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: Dipankar Datta & Pankaj Mithal, JJ. Criminal Appeal No. 978 of 2022 Decided on: 02.06.2023 Jitendra Nath Mishra – Appellant Versus State of U.P. &…
Double jeopardy – Hearing to accused – Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed – court is not obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: Surya Kant & J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. SLP (Crl.) Nos. 7628-7630 of 2017 Decided on: 28.04.2023 State Through Central Bureau of Investigation – Appellant Versus Hemendhra…







