Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act 1999 – Section 2(1)(d) – Illegal gambling – Organized crime – It is settled law that more than one charge sheet is required to be filed in respect of the organized crime syndicate and not in respect of each person who is alleged to be a member of such a syndicate.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH ZAKIR ABDUL MIRAJKAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant,…
Power Purchase Agreement – Compounded interest – Change in Law – Adani Power is justified in stating that if the banks have charged it interest on monthly rest basis for giving loans to purchase the FGD, any restitution will be incomplete, if it is not fully compensated for the interest paid by it to the banks on compounding basis
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ADANI POWER (MUNDRA) LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana,…
Discharge – Illegal gratification or disproportionate assets – Ingredients of alleged offences cannot be prima-facie established against the Appellant as neither had he been entrusted with funds
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PUSHPENDRA KUMAR SINHA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., J.K. Maheshwari and Hima Kohli, JJ. )…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – High Courts cannot entertain plea of executing award passed by arbitral tribunal
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. SHEETAL JAIDEV VADE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 – Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 – Rule 3(3) – Whether Rule 3(3) was rightly struck down as arbitrary – High Court manifestly erred in striking down the Rule 3(3) of the Pension Rules,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SMT. ANJANA BHATTACHARJEE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…
Service tax – Amounts collected by a company during post clearing activities were not liable to be computed for service tax
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE VADODARA – I — Appellant Vs. M/S JYOTI LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M. R.…
Specific performance – There is no doubt that the claim of purchaser is hit by delay and laches on their part as they did not take appropriate measures within the stipulated time and filing of the suit was delayed by almost five years – It is not an appropriate case for granting relief to the purchaser in terms of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the claim of the purchaser is barred by delay, laches and limitation.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SMT. KATTA SUJATHA REDDY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., Krishna…
Service Law – candidates have been appointed and are working for almost 2 years by this time, it will be unjust for this Court to now permit the Government to take a UTurn in compliance of the impugned judgment, and nonsuit the candidates who are working for sufficiently long time.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH BARUN KUMAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
Ingredients of Section 120B IPC – it is not necessary that there must be a clear, categorical and express agreement between the accused – An implied agreement must manifest upon relying on principles established in the cases of circumstantial evidence.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH RAM SHARAN CHATURVEDI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. )…
It is deemed appropriate to direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4/Corporation to return the land acquired by it to the appellants within four weeks. Once the possession is restored, the appellants shall be permitted to use it for residential purposes. Further, the respondents are directed to compensate the appellants @ Rs.1 crore per year for the loss caused
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH RAJHAN NARENDRA ROUT AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…








