(CrPC) – Ss 472 and 482 – Wakf Act, 1995 – Ss 3(ee) and 52A – Quashing of criminal complaint – Section 52A cannot cover cases where leases of wakf properties had expired in the past and where the tenant or lessee was, at the time the amendment of 2013 came into force, in physical possession and facing civil proceedings for eviction – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P. V. NIDHISH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar…
HELD that if there is any tax concession, it “can be withdrawn at any time and no time limit should be insisted upon before it was withdrawn” – the respondents shall approach the jurisdictional commissioner, and apply with documentary evidence within six weeks from the date of this judgment. The claim for refund/credit, shall be examined on their merits,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. COSMO FILMS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. )…
(CPC) – Section 151 – Recall of judgment and order – When the law provides a specific remedy, it is not open to a party to take recourse to section 151 – It preserves the inherent powers of the court to do justice in a case where the party has no other remedy under the CPC.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S A.J. INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat…
Service Law – Seniority – Once on re-evaluation, the marks are increased the respective candidates whose marks are increased will have to be placed at appropriate place in the merit list – Non-grant of seniority based on revised marks, thus, would render the process of re-evaluation redundant.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNIL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…
HELD there is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted – 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 – Further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation the accused has not be heard.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Appellant Vs. HEMENDHRA REDDY AND ANOTHER. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala,…
HELD appellants had already got three promotions before they got themselves transferred to Kerala University. The salary drawn by them of the higher post was protected – special class of employees were already drawing salary of the higher post which in terms of the policy for inter-university transfer was protected, though they were placed at the bottom of the seniority at the entry level.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. SASIKALA DEVI. P — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal,…
Enhancement clause clause does not talk about demand of additional price on account of any other factor specially the one raised in the present appeals, namely, on account of enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of land for carving of the plots Held the price as negotiated between the parties is clearly mentioned in the letter of allotment and the same has to be read as part of the lease-cum-sale agreement – Appeal dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE BELGAUM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. DHRUVA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…
HELD a case where the prosecution failed to elevate its case from the realm of “may be true” to the plane of “must be true” as is indispensably required for conviction on a criminal charge – Acquittal
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SANTOSH @ BHURE — Appellant Vs. STATE (G.N.C.T.) OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra and Aravind Kumar, JJ.…
HELD considering that the place of occurrence was an open place and the other circumstances (i.e. motive, disclosure, recovery and extra judicial confession) were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, shifting the burden on the accused to explain the circumstances in which the deceased sustained injuries, or to demonstrate that he parted company of the deceased, would not be justified – Appeal dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. PHOOLCHAND RATHORE — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…
SCOI to constitute a three-judge bench to hear Central government’s application seeking the recall of a top court verdict wherein it had ruled in Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India that an accused will be entitled to default bail if an incomplete charge sheet is filed by the investigating agency .
SCOI to constitute a three-judge bench to hear Central government’s application seeking the recall of a top court verdict wherein it had ruled that an accused will be entitled to…