Land Acquisition – Determination of market value – When the different items of property in the different survey number were acquired for the same purpose of establishing the market yard and as observed by the High Court since all the lands had the road passing beside it, a common determination of the market value was the appropriate course – Observation of High Court is justified – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANMOHAN LAL GUPTA (DEAD) THRU LRS. — Appellant Vs. MARKET COMMITTEE BHIKHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna,…
(CrPC) – S 357 – (IPC) – S 326 – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons – Assault with the sword and chopping of right leg and right forearm below the elbow and the brutality is apparent on the face of record – Compromise HELD the leg and arm of the victim are amputated in the alleged incident dated 13th December, 1993 and since then he has been fighting for life and is pursuing his daily chores with a prosthetic arm and leg and has lost his vital organs of his body and became permanently disabled and such act of the appellant is unpardonable – This Court not inclined to give any benefit of the alleged compromise for interfering in the sentence awarded by the High Court in the impugned judgment which at least does not call for interference of this Court.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHAGWAN NARAYAN GAIKWAD — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…
Judicial Review – Tender jurisdiction – Purpose is to check whether the choice of decision is made lawfully and not to check whether the choice of decision is sound. In evaluating tenders and awarding contracts, the parties are to be governed by principles of commercial prudence – To that extent, principles of equity and natural justice have to stay at a distance.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UFLEX LIMITED — Appellant Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…
The subject-matter of the aforementioned Appeals is the judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 07.11.2013 as well as a subsequent decision of the Delhi High Court dated 08.09.2014, which ruled on the issue of interest under Section 234B in favour of the Revenue, relying on the Division Bench judgement dated 07.11.2013. The point that arises for consideration in these Appeals is covered by our judgement in Civil Appeal No. 1262 of 2016.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI — Appellant Vs. M/S. MITSUBISHI CORPORATION — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…
Service Law – Where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ANIL KANWARIYA — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…
(IPC) – Sections 107 and 306 – ‘Abetment’ involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be convicted for offence under Section 306, IPC. To proceed against any person for the offence under Section 306 IPC it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. There is nothing on record to show that appellant was maintaining relation with the deceased and further there is absolutely no material to allege that appellant abetted for suicide of the deceased within the meaning of Section 306, IPC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANCHAN SHARMA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…
(IPC) – Sections 299, 302 and 304 – Murder – Appeal against conviction and sentence -it is held that the accused conviction under Section 302 IPC was not appropriate – Section 304 IPC Code provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (under Section 299 IPC). In the facts of the present case, this court is of the opinion that the accused should be convicted for the offence punishable under the first part of Section 304 IPC, as he had the intention of causing such bodily harm, to the deceased, as was likely to result in his death, as it did.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD. RAFIQ @ KALLU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.…
C P C – Order XI Rule 1 (4) and Order XI Rule 1 (5) applicable to the commercial suit shall be applicable only with respect to the documents which were in plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint. Therefore, the rigour of establishing the reasonable cause in non disclosure along with plaint may not arise in the case where the additional documents sought to be produced/relied upon are discovered subsequent to the filing of the plaint.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN — Appellant Vs. VINAY KUMAR G.B. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil…
N G T – It is the authorities who recommended approval in respect of only 24 hectares – Insofar as the mandatory distance from the water body is concerned, the authorities upon survey had found that the mandatory distance of 0.25 km is maintained – Tribunal has grossly erred in arriving at a finding that the appellant had reduced the area to 24 hectares only in order to avoid the rigours of public hearing and further that there was no distance of 0.25 km between the proposed mining area and the Singotham Lake – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DHRUVA ENTERPRISES — Appellant Vs. C. SRINIVASULU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 12A – Withdrawal of application admitted under section 7, 9 or 10 – Adjudicating Authority is entitled to withdraw the application admitted under Section 7 or Section 9 or Section 10, on an application made by the applicant with the approval of 90% voting share of the CoC.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH K.N. RAJAKUMAR — Appellant Vs. V. NAGARAJAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…










