Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 13(1) and 13(1A) – Grant of Decree of divorce – Denial of – The parties in question have been living apart for fifteen years -there is no reason to prolong the distress of maintaining a marital status when they are not living together – In light of the mentioned reasons, the judgment of the Trial Court and the subsequent confirmation by the High Court is hereby overturned – As a result, the appeal is accepted, and a divorce decree is granted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. ROOPA SONI — Appellant Vs. KAMALNARAYAN SONI — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and M. M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
Land Acquisition – Compensation – If any individual is to be divested or deprived of the said right by the State, it ought not be done without giving compensation in accordance with law for the land so acquired for public purpose
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LOONKARAN GANDHI (D) THR. LR. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.…
Punjab Police Rules, 1934 – Rule 12.21 and 16.24 – Discharge of Inefficients – Case involving the discharge of a constable from the Punjab Police force – The constable, ‘J’, was discharged during his probation period due to prolonged absence without any intimation – The Supreme Court examined the relevant rules and held that ‘J’ discharge was justified as he was found unlikely to become an efficient police officer.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JASWANT SINGH — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil…
Penal Code, 1860 – 120B, 409, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 – Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 – Sections 4, 5, and 6 – Interlocutory applications filed by accused individuals seeking bail – the court agrees with the prosecution that the applicants should approach jurisdictional courts rather than seeking relief from the higher court – However, the court extends the interim bail granted to the applicants for three months to enable them to seek bail from the concerned courts.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PACL — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Respondent ( Before : A. S. Bopanna and M. M. Sundresh, JJ. ) IA. No.…
NEET PG – Rejection of candidature to Post Graduate Medical Seat – Petitioner is a U.S. National holds an Overseas Citizen of India card by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) – Eligibility to claim the benefit of Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card holder is undeniable
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PALLAVI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Writ Petition…
Incident is of the year 1995, almost 28 years old, awarding death sentence would not be appropriate and as such we award imprisonment for life to respondent no.2 under Section 302 IPC along with fine of Rs.20 lacs.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HARENDRA RAI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka and Vikram…
Even in a case where the final report of the police under Section 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ZUNAID — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Delhi Development Act, 1957 – Section 57 – Claim for interest – the court finds that the circumstances of the deposit did not involve any loss due to the “Act of Court” and that the notification was in force when the deposit was made – Therefore, the court rejects the claim for interest – The appellants are advised to pursue remedies for their subsequent losses separately.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Prashant…
In any event, from the very details furnished by the respondents, the instance of myositis being minimal to the extent of 0.02 in a million, to contend that there was negligence on the part of the respondent is also not acceptable.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASH BANG — Appellant Vs. GLAXO SMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. )…
An order of detention under section 3(1) of the Act can only be issued against a detenu to prevent him “from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”. “Public order” is defined in the Explanation to section 2(a) of the Act as encompassing situations that cause “harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave wide-spread danger to life or public health” – Order of detention quashed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMEENA BEGUM — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal…