![[Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, S. 80] | [Civil court jurisdiction barred for disputes concerning public trusts unless specific conditions are met.]](https://i0.wp.com/sclaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Code-of-Civil-Procedure.jpg?resize=150%2C150&ssl=1)
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with section 34 – Murder – Common intention – Appeal against acquittal – Common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment and during the occurrence itself –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. JAD BAI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Twin conditions – For lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, namely, (i) the possession is not taken and (ii) the compensation is not tendered/paid are to be satisfied and if one of the conditions is not satisfied there shall not be any lapse or deemed lapse under the Act, 2013.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. RAJENDER SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority to the facts of the case on hand, the High Court has materially erred in declaring that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the entire land i.e., 15 bigha 18 biswa are deemed to have lapsed is unsustainable – Appeal allowed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR — Appellant Vs. JAI PRAKASH TYAGI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil…
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 6 – when the entire acquisition proceedings have been concluded including declaration of the award, passing of the award and the payment of the compensation, the acquisition with respect to the said land which is required for widening of the road ought not to have been quashed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NIRANJAN SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…
An erroneous order may be subjected to appeal before the higher forum but cannot be a subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S. MURALI SUNDARAM — Appellant Vs. JOTHIBAI KANNAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
AIADMK internal conflict – The logic and reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court stand in accord with law as also the facts of the present case – The facts of the case make it abundantly clear that so far as convening of the meeting is concerned, the same had never been in doubt or in any dispute – The said meeting was indeed convened by the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator jointly — When Coordinator and Joint Co-ordinator were shown to be not functioning jointly (for whatsoever reason), a functional deadlock came into existence for the party and a workable solution was required to be found
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THIRU K. PALANISWAMY — Appellant Vs. M. SHANMUGAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Appointment – Post of District and Sessions Judge on Adhoc basis to preside over the Fast Track Courts – HELD such service not to be counted towards elevation as provided in Article 217(2)(a)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH C. YAMINI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMRAVATHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before…
Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 – Section 20(1) – Provisions relating to complaints and preliminary inquiry and investigation – there was no element of bias in conducting a preliminary inquiry in the instant case and the objection raised by the respondents stands overruled – Appeal Allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OFFICE OF THE ODISHA LOKAYUKTA — Appellant Vs. DR. PRADEEP KUMAR PANIGRAHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M.…
Penal Code, 1860 – S 302 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Murder of her five-year-old child – If the accused does not offer an explanation under Section 106 and there is corroborative evidence establishing a chain of circumstances leading to the conclusion of guilt, the accused could be convicted on that basis
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VAHITHA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Service Law – Equal Pay for Equal Work – Though the doctrine “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value – Equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. INDIAN NAVY CIVILIAN DESIGN OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M.…