Consumer complaint – Loss or damage of JCB Excavator – Compensation – HELD due to the collapsing of the road, which resulted in the vehicle falling into a deep ditch in a hilly terrain of the State of Uttarakhand – Direction issued to Insurer to pay a sum of Rs 13.50 lakh to the appellant, together with interest.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SHARDA ASSOCIATES — Appellant Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A S Bopanna, JJ.…
Service Law – Rejection of candidature – RPF Constable – Candidate has used different language for filling up of the application form and the OMR answer book, therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MAHENDRA SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
GST – HELD mega notification only exempts service provided by way of conduct of any religious ceremony – Service haj group organiser to the Haj pilgrims does not form that no part of the package offered by haj group organiser involves a service by way of conduct of any religious ceremony –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ALL INDIA HAJ UMRAH TOUR ORGANIZER ASSOCIATION MUMBAI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Abhay…
Where a higher charge is not framed for which there is evidence, the accused is entitled to assume that he is called upon to defend himself only with regard to the lesser offence for which he has been charged
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GHULAM HASSAN BEIGH — Appellant Vs. MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL MAGREY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and J.B. Pardiwala,…
Prevention of Money – Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 5, 8(4), 15, 17 and 19 – Constitutional validity of Sections 5, 8(4), 15, 17 and 19 of the Prevention of Money – Laundering Act, 2002 is upheld – Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has powers to arrest, attachment, search and seizure – At the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T.…
Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 HELD a. that the structure in question was a pucca structure; and b. that the Act of 1981 was not operative in relation to the property in question because of the stay order passed by the High Court.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH NEMAI CHANDRA KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MANI SQUARE LIMITED. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and…
SARFAESI Act – Expression “District Magistrate” and the “Chief Metropolitan Magistrate” as appearing in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act shall deem to mean and include Additional District Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M/S R.D. JAIN AND CO. — Appellant Vs. CAPITAL FIRST LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Once an arbitrator is not appointed as per the agreed procedure within stipulated time, right of the party concerned to appoint an arbitrator is forfeited.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M/S CONTINENTAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…
Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 – Section 8A – – are only intended to ensure that the vehicle owner/permit-holder does not remain in arrears of either the welfare fund contribution or the vehicle tax both payable under the State enactments. These provisions are in no way in conflict with the law made by the Parliament
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION, KOTTAYAM UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…
Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 – Section 33(2) – HELD effect that initiation of proceedings for acquisition invoking the power under Section 33(2) of the KHB Act without the housing scheme being in existence or the housing scheme not having been sanctioned under Section 24(2) thereof, would not render such proceedings null and void- unless sanction is obtained from the State Government for execution of any scheme therein, in terms of Section 24(2) of KHB Act, the actual act to complete the process, viz., execution shall not be effected thereon.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and…