Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 41 Rule 27 – Production of additional evidence – – HELD true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY KUMAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Contempt is a matter which is between the Court passing the order of which contempt is alleged and the contemnor; questions as to executability of such order is a question which concerns the parties inter-se – Power of the Court to invoke contempt jurisdiction, is not, in any way, altered
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE REAL ESTATE FUND — Appellant Vs. DHARMESH S. JAIN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 18 – Determination of compensation – HELD High Court has mechanically held that the claimants shall be entitled to the compensation considering the price/sale consideration mentioned in the Sale Deed – Impugned orders passed by High Court are hereby quashed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAMINA DEVI (DEAD) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 243Q(2) – Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 – Section 5 – Public notification – Declaration of Gram Panchayat as a Municipal Board – HELD State Government had exercised powers to establish Municipality in terms of Section 5 of the Municipalities Act – Order of High Court is clearly erroneous and unsustainable in law – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Appellant Vs. ASHOK KHETOLIYA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 6 – Compensation – Deduction – Held, Location of the lands acquired and that part of the acquired land abuts the National Highway and at the same time, the sale instances pertain to comparatively smaller plots as compared to the acquired lands
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAI PARKASH ETC ETC. — Appellant Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ETC ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…
Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955 – Rule 35(aa) – Seniority being consequential has been rightly assigned to the compassionate appointees, visavis, direct recruits as reflected in the seniority list which is in conformity with Rule 35(aa) of Rules 1955:
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. KENDRA DEVI — Appellant Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka,…
(CrPC) – Section 319 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Summoning as accused — crucial test to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAGAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Promotion to a post should only be granted from the date of promotion and not from the date on which vacancy has arisen.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MANPREET SINGH POONAM ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…
Service Law – ACP benefit – Some employees could have benefitted more under the ACP benefits, if the MACP scheme had not been introduced from an earlier date, is no ground to hold so and compel an executive agency to grant the claimed benefits.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE VICE CHAIRMAN DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. NARENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindrabhat and…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 148 and 302 – Murder – Merely because the witnesses were the relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded – Order of acquittal cannot be sustained.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. NAGESWARA REDDY — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…