![[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)
Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 itself has been abrogated in the year 2001, with a new statute coming into force, i.e. The Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, which does not create any similar bar – Decree of eviction favour of the appellant-landlord – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAVI KHANDELWAL — Appellant Vs. M/S. TALUKA STORES — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
It is not at the sweet-will of the Government that the extensions can be granted to the incumbents in the office of the Director of CBI/Director of Enforcement – It is only on the basis of the recommendations of the Committees which are constituted to recommend their appointment and that too when it is found in public interest and when the reasons are recorded in writing, such an extension can be granted by the Government.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DR. JAYA THAKUR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…
(CrPC) – Section 438 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B – Anticipatory Bail – – land scams not only result in financial losses for individuals and investors but also disrupt development projects, erode public trust, and hinder socioeconomic progress – – Order granting anticipatory bail is set-aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRATIBHA MANCHANDA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
Tribunal and the High Court fell in error in construing the income of the claimant at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. instead of Rs. 8,000/- p.m. – In the light of the compensation awarded towards ‘Loss of Future Income’ the sum of Rs. 60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘Permanent Disability’ and ‘Loss of Amenities in Future Life’ would not arise – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 15,94,812 – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI LAKSHMANA GOWDA B.N. — Appellant Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and…
National Highways Authority Act, 1956 – Section 3H – When it comes to resolving the dispute relating to apportionment of the amount determined towards compensation, it is only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which can do so – Principal Civil Court means the Court of the District Judge.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MAU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. )…
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.…