“Renaming Commission” – For achieving the sublime goals which are enshrined in Part IV – that is the Directive Principles, but bearing in mind the fundamental rights also guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution, which have been described as the two wheels of the chariot of the State, both of which are indispensable, for the smooth progress of the nation, actions must be taken which bond all sections of the society together – Writ petition is dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Writ…
held The expression ‘for the period for which resignation was in force’ cannot be stretched to a date after the resignation had been withdrawn before it came into force.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BHARTIBEN CHANDRAKANTBHAI THAKOR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…
(CPC) – Or 41 R 23 – Evidence Act, 1872 – S 114 – HELD merely because a particular evidence which ought to have been adduced but had not been adduced, the Appellate Court cannot adopt the soft course of remanding the matter – provision is inapplicable because the suit in question had not been disposed of on a preliminary point.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SIRAJUDHEEN — Appellant Vs. ZEENATH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 1491 of…
HELD Refund of price of idustrial plot – cheque issued to him was returned and HSIDC had the benefit of those monies all these years. In these circumstances, HSIDC is directed to refund the sum of Rs. 1,66,425/- with interest at 6% p.a. from 18.09.1998 till date. The amounts shall be paid to the appellant, within six weeks
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMAN SEMI-CONDUCTORS (PVT.) LTD. — Appellant Vs. HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and…
Power under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act is discretionary and the Court has to pass an order as the justice may require – Application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to rescind the agreement to sell deserves to be allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P. SHYAMALA — Appellant Vs. GUNDLUR MASTHAN — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. 1363-1364 of…
Taking over the physical possession by drawing the punchnama/possession proceedings can be said to be sufficient compliance – the acquisition with respect to the entire lands in question could not have been declared as deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. AMIT JAIN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
HELD the decision of this court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 – Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T.…
If the order is passed in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 136 & 142 of the Constitution, the same can be said to be just and proper and doing the complete justice between the parties.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAJIV AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
(CrPC) – Section 173(8) – Endeavor of the Court should be to have the fair investigation and fair trial only – mere filing of the chargesheet and framing of the charges cannot be an impediment in ordering further investigation / re-investigation / de novo investigation, if the facts so warrant
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANANT THANUR KARMUSE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
HELD where a reversal of acquittal is sought, the courts must keep in mind that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused – mother of the deceased, an interested witness evidence was not reliable – F S L Report, no blood was present on the weapons recovered except for traces of blood on one lathi, and even that could not be linked with the blood of the deceased – Order of acquittal is upheld
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ROOPWANTI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…