High Court held that no substantial question of law arises warranting interference in the matter and dismissed the RSA being devoid of any merit. HELD Appeal dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH AMAN SHARMA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UMESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 31 leaves full discretion with the court to order sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently, having regard to the nature of offences and attendant aggravating or mitigating circumstances – If the court does not order the sentence to be concurrent, one sentence may run after the other,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH MALKEET SINGH GILL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
(CPC) – Section 25 – Transfer Petition – – HELD cannot be extended to determine the question of territorial jurisdiction of the proceedings before it as the plea of jurisdiction or the lack of it can be prompted before the Court in which the proceedings are pending.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH NEILAN INTERNATIONAL CO. LIMITED — Appellant Vs. POWERICA LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari, J. ) Transfer Petition (Civil) No.…
(CPC) – Or 21 R 102 – Rules not applicable to transferee pendent lite – Rule 102 clarifies that Rule 98 and Rule 100 shall not apply in a case where resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property is offered by ‘transferee pendentelite’
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SRIRAM HOUSING FINANCE AND INVESTMENT INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. OMESH MISHRA MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K.…
Post-accident agony for whole life – HELD under the head “pain, shock and suffering”, amount of compensation deserves to be granted
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH ABHIMANYU PARTAP SINGH — Appellant Vs. NAMITA SEKHON AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proof – in a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then such a response in itself becomes an additional link in the chain of events.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SABITRI SAMANTARAY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ODISHA — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Criminal…
Bail Canceled – (CrPC) – S 439 – Cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances – Inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DEEPAK YADAV — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Criminal…
Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force – HELD The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AGRA — Appellant Vs. ANEK SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…
Provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force – HELD The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RAM NEWAJ AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…
Bihar Government Servant Contributory Pension Scheme, 2005 – No government employee appointed after 31.08.2005 shall be entitled to any other benefit except under the New Contributory Pension Scheme.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAJMATI DEVI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…







