Theft of passenger belongings – Railways cannot be held responsible – Order of reimburse the stolen amount of cash to the passenger set aside
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATION SUPERINTENDENT AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SURENDER BHOLA — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.7116…
Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1934 – Rule 3.26(d) – Punjab Police Rules, 1934 – Rule 8.18 – Compulsory retirement – Personnel having such remarks being compulsorily retired as per the statutory provisions under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1934, in the instant facts, is not an action this Court would like to interdict.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AISH MOHAMMAD — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent; R1: STATE OF HARYANA; R2: DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (HARYANA), PANCHKULA; R3:…
Once the Division Bench had granted liberty to the parties to approach for appointment of fresh arbitrator, and the Court having exercised its powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, no fault can be found in the same.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S.REVATHI ENTERPRISES REP. BY ITS PARTNER MR. R. SRINIVASAN — Appellant Vs. M/S. GOEL INDUSTRIES REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. RAM NIVAS GOEL —…
Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Acquittal – In a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain has to be complete in all respects so as to indicate the guilt of the accused and also exclude any other theory of the crime
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAXMAN PRASAD @ LAXMAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. )…
Bike taxi operations in Delhi – Stayed – Without proper licence or permit and plying of such nontransport vehicles for hire or reward is in violation of registration condition
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. — Appellant Vs. ROPPEN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose…
Transfer Petition – Order of the Single Judge was by the present Acting Chief Justice, and one of the Members of the Division Bench having recused from hearing the appeal, the difficulty has arisen as the third Judge alone cannot hear the appeal – Allowed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NG. SUBHACHANDRA SINGH — Appellant Vs. N. JASOBANTA SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Transfer…
Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 24(1) – Rule framed by BCI requiring a candidate for enrolment as an Advocate to have completed his law course from a college recognized/ approved by BCI cannot be said to be invalid
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. RABI SAHU AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Civil…
(CrPC) – Section 438 – Bail – Bank Guarantee – A pre-condition of furnishing Bank Guarantee was held to be unsustainable for granting bail.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KARANDEEP SINGH — Appellant Vs. CBI — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal Nos. 1711-1712 of 2023…
Direction to petitioners’ advocate should be allowed to be present during the interrogation of the petitioners but that he should be made to sit at a distance beyond hearing range, but within visible range
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIRENDRA KUMAR PANDEY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.…
Constitution Bench had saved the appointments and their promotion to be considered in accordance with appropriate service rules, nothing further survives in this appeal. The same is rendered infructuous as it would stand covered by the judgment of the Constitution Bench Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2021) 11 SCC 401
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M LUCY RANI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SIDDABLOINA LAXMINARAYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. )…