It is settled that the majority decision of a Bench of larger strength would prevail over the decision of a Bench of lesser strength, irrespective of the number of Judges constituting the majority.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S TRIMURTHI FRAGRANCES (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL — Appellant Vs. GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY…
Murder – Acquittal – Circumstantial evidence – circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH RAJU @ RAJENDRA PRASAD — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
HELD – Death in accident – If 25% of Rs. 3,000/- per month is considered towards future prospects and rise in income and thereafter loss of dependency is determined, it can be said to be just compensation
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SUMATHY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BABU AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.…
Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 – Section 34 – Transfer to defraud revenue void – At the time of transfer of immoveable property of the assessee which was for value/consideration, no proceedings under the Act were pending, Section 34 of the Act shall not be applicable.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. — Appellant Vs. M/S RADICO KHETAN LTD. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…
Denial of pension is a continuing wrong – HELD settled law that when financial rules framed by the Government such as Pension Rules are capable of more interpretations than one, one favouring employee be taken.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. O.P. GUPTA — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Special Leave…
IBC, 2016 Ss 7 & 9 – Limitation – HELD It would be absurd to hold that the CIRP could be initiated by filing an application under Section 7 or Section 9 of the IBC, within three years from the date on which an application under those provisions of the IBC could have first been made before the NCLT even though the right to sue may have accrued decades ago.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M/S TECH SHARP ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. SANGHVI MOVERS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. )…
SEBI Act, 1992 Sections 2 (ha), 15 Z – HELD would be that the sale by the respondent, of the shares held by him in company would not fall within the mischief of insider trading, as it was somewhat similar to a distress sale, made before the information could have a positive impact on the price of the shares, the appeal is dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. ABHIJIT RAJAN — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…
Suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction – Opportunity for producing a witness to prove the plaint averments as also other supporting material – State has been denied adequate opportunity by the Courts below and certain material documents have not been taken into consideration – Matter remanded
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M.A. MOHAMAD SANAULLA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath,…
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 HELD 1954 Act, is a special law, dealing with fragmentation, ceiling, and devolution of tenancy rights over agricultural holdings only, whereas the 1956 Act is a general law, providing for succession to a Hindu by religion as stated in Section 2 thereof. The existence or absence of Section 4(2) in the 1956 Act would be immaterial.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH HAR NARAINI DEVI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ.…
Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014 – Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 – Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 – HELD Since the affairs of the Sikh minority in the State are to be managed by the Sikhs alone, therefore, it cannot be said to be violative of any of the fundamental rights conferred under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH HARBHAJAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Writ Petition…