Assam Rifles – Order of discharge passed against the appellant herein is hereby set aside – Appellant shall be treated to have been in service till the time he would have completed the qualifying service for grant of pension.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH AMARENDRA KUMAR PANDEY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. ) Civil…
Expression “falsely charges” in Section 221 IPC cannot mean giving false evidence as a prosecution witness against an accused person during the course of a criminal trial – An investigation may be transferred to the CBI only in “rare and exceptional cases”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH HIMANSHU KUMAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. )…
Parens patriae – Habeas Corpus proceeding brought by one parent against the other for the custody of their child, the court has before it the question of the rights of the parties as between themselves, and also has before it
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH RAJESWARI CHANDRASEKAR GANESH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.…
Dying declaration – An oral dying declaration – Whole idea of accepting a statement in the name of dying declaration comes from a maxim “Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire” which means that a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH KAMAL KHUDAL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ASSAM — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 470…
IBC – when admission is opposed on the ground of existence of an award or a decree in favour of the Corporate Debtor, and the Awarded/decretal amount exceeds the amount of the debt, the Adjudicating Authority would have to exercise its discretion under Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC to keep the admission of the application of the Financial Creditor in abeyance
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH VIDARBHA INDUSTRIES POWER LIMITED — Appellant Vs. AXIS BANK LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
HELD all the three appellants are in jail and have undergone several years of incarceration. We accordingly award the sentence for the period already undergone by all the three appellants.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH AJMAL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1838…
Matter remanded back – High Court fell in error in not taking into consideration the relevant material and instead relying upon inadmissible evidence or evidence which had no bearing to the findings. Even the burden had been wrongly placed on the defendant-appellant.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH FAROOQI BEGUM (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath,…
HELD in a suit challenging revocation of the respective licenses, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to challenge the respective mortgages / charges created on the entire premises as void ab-initio. the amendment of plaint and addition of parties by original plaintiffs disallowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ALOK KUMAR LODHA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – Section 9A(2) – Partition – Preliminary decree for partition granted in the suit of the year 1929 was never given effect to – There was no evidence to show who among the two namely, ‘S’ and ‘R’ died first, the Deputy Director of Consolidation righty found it equitable to distribute ‘S’ 1/3rd share equally between the branches of ‘R’ and ‘J’.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SARJU MISHRA (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JANGI (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and…
Insurance Claim – Deficiency in service – Delay in processing the claim and delay in repudiation could be one of the several factors for holding an insurer guilty of deficiency in service – But it cannot be the only factor – There was no categorical evidence of any deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M/S THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHASHIKALA J. AYACHI — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V.…