Dismissal of the special leave petition in limine does not amount to affirmation of the view taken by the High Court. Unless the judgment of the High Court is affirmed, at least, with short reasoning, the same would not amount to binding precedent.
“The State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose.If the State has accepted the award of the Reference Court in respect of some…
CPC – Order VII R 11 -Merely because there were some inconsistent averments in the plaint, that was not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the cause of action was not disclosed in the plaint. The question was whether the plaint discloses cause of action.
“For dealing with an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint and the documents produced along with the plaint are required…
Mosquito Mats, Coils and Vaporizers, Mortein Insect Killers, Harpic Toilet Cleaner and Lizol Floor Cleaners, are not be classifiable under Entry 44(5) of the 3rd Schedule to the Kerala VAT Act (KVAT), 2003 as ‘insecticides’.
Kerala VAT Act, 2003 Mosquito Mats, Coils and Vaporizers, Mortein Insect Killers, Harpic Toilet Cleaner and Lizol Floor Cleaners, are not be classifiable under Entry 44(5) as ‘insecticides’, observing…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 – Penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – In the armed forces of the Union, including the paramilitary forces, utmost discipline, unity of command et al are the sine qua non – That said, the doctrine of proportionality still holds the field.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH B. S. HARI COMMANDANT — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. R1: UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS R2: DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER…
Waqf Act, 1995 – Section 52 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 27 – Even in regard to a proceeding under the Act be it Section 52 if as on the date the action is taken, the title in the property stood vested with the person in possession by virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation Act then it may not be permissible to ignore the right which had been acquired.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SABIR ALI KHAN — Appellant Vs. SYED MOHD. AHMAD ALI KHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…
HELD Impugned orders passed by the National Commission and that of the State Commission are required to be modified to the extent holding the developer liable to pay compensation under clause 9(c) of the Flat Buyer Agreement to the extent of 70% and 30% liability would be upon the Chandigarh Housing Board.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. — Appellant Vs. GAGANDEEP BRAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
(CrPC) – Section 433A – this is a case of a very brutal offence committed by a group of accused who were armed with deadly weapons – They have killed three persons at a time and injured two – Conviction of the appellant, under the impugned judgments, is upheld – However, the order of sentence is modified – Appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a fixed period of 30 years – Appeal partly allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHIV MANGAL AHIRWAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal…
Acquittal – Identity of the named accused as assailants of the deceased has not been established in the Court beyond a reasonable doubt – Then what remains is the evidence of the alleged recovery of the weapons of assault at the instance of the accused – Conviction cannot be sustained only on the basis of the alleged recovery
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RADHEY SHYAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal…
Kerala Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019 – Section 10 – Overriding effect – Once consent is taken from the Pollution Control Board, the necessity for reading down Section 10 of the Kerala MSME Act, for the purpose of protecting the environment, does not arise.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JOLLY GEORGE AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. GEORGE ELIAS AND ASSOCIATES AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…
Vedanta University case – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4(1) and 6 – Acquisition of lands – it is required to be noted that the lands to be acquired are agricultural lands belonging to 6000 families and their only source of livelihood is on the agricultural lands, which cannot be compensated in terms of money, therefore, the proposal made now has to be rejected outright.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah And Krishna Murari, JJ.…