Order of High Court Granting Interim Relief – Quashing of -High Court has as such made the proceedings before the DRAT infructuous, as after the impugned judgment and order nothing further is required to be decided by the DRAT – Therefore, the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction by passing the impugned judgment and order
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRS ADVERTISING & MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MR. KAMAL GARG AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 – Rule 107(14)(i) – Setting aside of auction sale – No sale shall be set aside on the ground of material irregularity, mistake or fraud unless the Recovery Officer is satisfied that the applicant had sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity, mistake or fraud.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEENADAYAL NAGARI SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MUNJAJI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…
ESI – Doctor has clearly stated that the appellant has suffered from functional loss of 100% of the right upper limb – Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was right in holding that the disability of the appellant will have to be treated as 100% disability – High Court committed an error holding that the disability ought to have been assessed as 70% partial permanent disability instead of 100% – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARJUN S/O. RAMANNA @ RAMU — Appellant Vs. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and…
Amazon vs Reliance – Resumption of NCLT Proceedings – Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, to consider all the contentions raised by both the parties in this regard and pass appropriate order as to continuation of the NCLT proceedings beyond the stage mentioned at serial no. 8 and other regulatory approvals expeditiously, uninfluenced by any observations made herein.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH FUTURE COUPONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI,…
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) – Divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by wife – From June 2009 wife left the matrimonial home with all her personal belongings and consistently refused to consummate the marriage, thereby causing mental agony to the husband – – From the evidence on record, an inference can be drawn that there was animus deserendi on the part of the wife
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEBANANDA TAMULI — Appellant Vs. SMTI KAKUMONI KATAKY — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
Cancellation of lease – A person who misleads the Development Authority in obtaining allotment of a plot is not entitled to any relief – HELD Cancellation of lease – A person who misleads the Development Authority in obtaining allotment of a plot is not entitled to any relief -Cancellation of lease – – Filing of a false affidavit disentitles the plaintiff for any equitable relief – any irregularity in the process of cancellation stands cured with Chief Executive Officer granting permission.
RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGHVI (DEAD) THR. LRS. — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 382 of 2012 Decided on : 15-02-2022 Cancellation of…
Plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner. If the reliance is on a document to seek juvenility which is not reliable or dubious in nature, the appellant cannot be treated to be juvenile keeping in view that the Act is a beneficial legislation – Appellant cannot be given benefit of juvenility – HELD birth certificate issued by corporation or municipal authority or a panchayat is a relevant document to prove the juvenility -Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOJ @ MONU @ VISHAL CHAUDHARY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian,…
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67 – Onerous condition of payment of 50% of the amount awarded will not be applicable to the complaints filed prior to the commencement of the 2019 Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ECGC LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MOKUL SHRIRAM EPC JV — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) I.A. No. 99210…
Murder – Acquittal – Circumstantial evidence – Burden of proof — Prosecution having failed to prove the basic facts as alleged against the accused, the burden could not be shifted on the accused by pressing into section 106 of the Evidence Act HELD gross error of law in convicting the accused for the alleged crime, merely on the basis of the suspicion, conjectures and surmises – Accused are acquitted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SATYE SINGH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Belam. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
IMP – Commercial Suits – Time limit for filing written statement – in the ordinary circumstances, the mandates of Rule 1(1) of Order V, Rule 1 of Order VIII as also Rule 10 of Order VIII, as applicable to the Commercial dispute of a Specified Value, do operate in the manner that after expiry of 120th day from the date of service of summons, the defendant forfeits the right to submit his written statement and the Court cannot allow the same to be taken on record but
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASH CORPORATES — Appellant Vs. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s).…