HELD the wish/desire of the child can be ascertained through interaction but then, the question as to ‘what would be in the best interest of the child’ is a matter to be decided by the court taking into account all the relevant circumstances
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH ROHITH THAMMANA GOWDA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil…
Abetment of suicide – An FIR under Section 306 of the IPC cannot even be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH DAXABEN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Appeal against dismissal of writ for certificate Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) at the rate of 4% in respect of payments received by the Appellant from Oil and Natural Gas Company Ltd. towards work done out of India as well as within India. Judges differed matter put before CJI for orders as to bench
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY — Appellant Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before…
Service Law – Caste Verification – Correctness of report – Mere fact that the Caste Verification Committee gave a report of about candidates in a few days cannot be a reason to doubt the correctness of the report.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M. V. CHANDRAKANTH — Appellant Vs. SANGAPPA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J. K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Section 18, West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 HELD the monthly rent due and payable would be Rs. 10,000/- per month which cannot be said to be more than ten thousand rupees as monthly rent, the plaint therefore rightly dismissed invoking Or 7 r 11
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH EIH LIMITED — Appellant Vs. NADIA A VIRJI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. 4797-4799…
CrPC) – Section 205 – Magistrate may dispence with personal appearance of accused – In any event there could be no justification for not dispensing with the personal appearance of the Appellants, when the Company had entered appearance through an authorized officer. HELD all directors summoned on the basis of a statement that they are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, without anything more, does not fulfil the requirements of Section 141 of the NI Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SUNITA PALITA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S PANCHAMI STONE QUARRY — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Criminal…
HELD in a suit praying for putting up a boundary wall/fence filed by the plaintiffs, the High Court in a second appeal could not have given the findings that the defendants were entitled to only 10 cents as kudikidappukars. Trial court order restored
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH RAGHAVAN SASIKUMAR — Appellant Vs. PARAMESWARAN NADAR SATHYANANADHAN NADAR KANAKOTTU PADIPPURA VEEDU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…
IBC – Application under Section 7 not barred if there were an acknowledgement of the debt by the Corporate Debtor before expiry of the period of limitation of three years, in which case the period of limitation would get extended by a further period of three years.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED — Appellant Vs. TULIP STAR HOTELS LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari,…
Selection to post of Safai-Karmis – Reservation – Locomotor disability – Appellants Cannot claim appointment against the post reserved for disabled candidates only for the reason that they are locomotor disabled candidates when such post was not reserved for the Safai-Karmis.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH AJAY KUMAR PANDEY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ.…
There is a distinction between res judicata and issue estoppel – In the case of issue estoppel, a party against whom an issue has been decided would be estopped from raising the same issue again.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DRAGENDRA SINGH JADON — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. )…