Allotments of flats – the entire controversy can be set at rest on the understanding that 844 members of the Respondent-Society shall be provided with apartments, admeasuring about 1800 square feet, as stated by NOIDA in its affidavit filed pursuant to the order dated 23.8.2021 passed by this Court
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA) — Appellant Vs. KENDRIYA KARAMCHARI SEHKARI G.N. SAMITI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit,…
HELD A bare perusal of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act would reveal that if a landlord transfers the property leased out or any part of it, the transferee, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights of the landlord. Landlord by statement able to establish requirement of personal occupation purpose is genuine and that it is not only a ruse for evicting the appellants.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH GOPI @ GOVERDHANNATH (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SRI BALLABH VYAS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and C.T. Ravikumar,…
IN RE: FRAMING GUIDELINES REGARDING POTENTIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE IMPOSING DEATH SENTENCES
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE: FRAMING GUIDELINES REGARDING POTENTIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE IMPOSING DEATH SENTENCES — Appellant Vs. ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit,…
Dishonour of cheque – Offence by company – High Court should not interfere under Section 482 of the Code at the instance of an accused unless it comes across some unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence to indicate that the Director/partner of a firm could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH S.P. MANI AND MOHAN DAIRY — Appellant Vs. DR. SNEHALATHA ELANGOVAN — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. ) Criminal…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 19(1)(g) – Right to establish an educational institution is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and reasonable restrictions on such a right can be imposed only by a law and not by an executive instruction – the validity of such instructionscan always be scrutinized on the touchstone of law.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. RAJEEV COLLEGE OF PHARMACY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha,…
HELD calculate terminal benefits as are payable to the appellants on the basis of the orders passed by the learned CAT dated 26th May 2008 and 7th July, 2010. The order of CAT was never challenged by UOI..
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH R.D. KAUSHAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.…
Disproportionate income in the period between 1974 and 1988, FIR filed after twelve years the charge sheet after 7 years, application for discharge dismissed after decade, SLP decided after 6 years HELD superannuated from service in 2010 – now 72 years – Continuation of the prosecution, unjust – Discharge application allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH KANCHAN KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
HELD It is evident from the report of the medical board that the first respondent was not a juvenile. The entire record which was sought to be relied upon by the first respondent in support of the plea of juvenility was fabricated. The High Court has erred in accepting the plea of juvenility.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH XYZ — Appellant Vs. ABHISHEIK AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal Nos…
Cancellation of Bail – Murder – Land dispute – Prior enmity – at the spot the accused persons named in the FIR attacked them and in the said incident brother of the informant died and other persons were seriously injured – Bail cancelled – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH YASHPAL SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Criminal…
HELD appellants never claimed any interest in the land and the fact that his bona fides are clear when he sought release in favour of 4th respondent i.e. the complainant, in our view, the application seeking discharge as filed by the present appellants deserves acceptance.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH P. VIJAY NATARAJ AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., and S. Ravindra Bhat,…