HELD Home Guards shall be entitled to the periodical rise which may be available to the Police personnel of the State and the DCA to be paid to the Home Guards be periodically increased taking into consideration the minimum of the pay to which the Police personnel of the State are entitled considering periodical increase from time to time. The present appeals stand disposed in terms of the above.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASH KUMAR JENA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh,…
HELD the learned Single Judge, therefore, exceeded in its jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act quashing and setting aside the well-reasoned award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal on rejecting Claim Nos.33 and 34, which the Division Bench of the High Court has wrongly affirmed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDIAN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh,…
HELD High Court has committed a very serious error in setting aside the consent award on the aforesaid ground. The consent award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 ought not to have been set aside in the manner in which it is set aside. The High Court has not at all properly appreciated and considered the conduct on the part of the land owner
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JAYANTIBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil…
HELD that on approval of a scheme by the BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the unsecured creditors has an option not to accept the scaling down value of its dues and to wait till the rehabilitation scheme of the sick company has worked itself out with an option to recover the debt with interest post such rehabilitation is erroneous and contrary to the scheme of SICA, 1985
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MODI RUBBER LIMITED — Appellant Vs. CONTINENTAL CARBON INDIA LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
No case is made out against the appellant at this stage for summoning an additional accused merely because he once had supplied a copy of the statement of account to the complainant which was either dim or mis-printed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MEENU PRAKASH BHANTU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.…
If an application is filed by an individual, there is a specific requirement of furnishing permanent address of the applicant as per Form-A. If an application is to be filed by a group of persons all the applicants are required to furnish their addresses as per Form-B annexed to Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules 1937.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. CREATIVE GARMENTS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. KASHIRAM VERMA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Murder – Acquittal – Cardinal principles in the administration of criminal justice in cases where heavy reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence, is that where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the one which is favourable to the accused must be adopted
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRADEEP KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1304…
Criminal Trial – Evidence of hostile witness – Corroborated part of the evidence of a hostile witness regarding the commission of offence is admissible – Merely because there is deviation from the statement in the FIR, the witness’s statements cannot be termed totally unreliable.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAVASAHEB @ RAVASAHEBGOUDA ETC. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, JJ. )…
HELD in the impugned judgement, there is neither any reasoning, nor any appreciation of evidence on record. We cannot convict the accused on the basis of the principles of preponderance of probability. It is our duty to make sure that miscarriage of justice is avoided at all costs and the benefit of doubt, if any, given to the accused.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UDAYAKUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1741…
Acquittal HELD save and except for the confessional statement of the accused, the Prosecution is not able to link the weapon with the accused. There was no scientific evidence, or the marks of his fingerprints, other identification marks or any tell-tale signs of the blood found on body of the deceased, linking it to the metal pellets of the bullet fired from the weapon recovered during investigation.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NARENDRASINH KESHUBHAI ZALA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal…