Title Suit – Dismissal of – Plaintiffs were not owners of the property on the date they had filed the present suit for title and possession on 5th August,1967 – Trial court dismissing the suit is correct.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAKESH BHUSHAN PRASAD ALIAS RAMESH PRASAD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RADHA DEVI (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M.…
Murder – Cancellation of bail – Giving threats to the complainant side and the other witnesses and the offences under Sections 504 & 506 IPC can be said to be a very serious offence – Therefore, the aforesaid conduct ought not to have been taken by the High Court very lightly – High Court has committed a grave error in releasing the accused on bail pending appeals against the judgment and order of conviction for the offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAKUNTALA SHUKLA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.…
Consumer fora under the Act would not have jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaints on the ground of deficiency in service related to transfer of title of the immovable property – It is not a case of the deficiency in service as contemplated by Consumer Act but definitely a case of exercise of jurisdiction in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Direct the Chandigarh Administration to decide the claim of conversion as on the date when consumer complaints were filed – Such action shall be taken within 3 months.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ESTATE OFFICER AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. CHARANJIT KAUR — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
Service Law – Manipulated appointment – Fraudulent selection process – Fraudulent practice to gain public employment cannot be countenanced to be permitted by a Court of law – Workmen here, having hoodwinked the Government Undertaking in a fraudulent manner, must be prevented from enjoying the fruits of their illgotten advantage
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF BHALGORA AREA (NOW KUSTORE AREA) OF M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED — Appellant Vs. WORKMEN BEING REPRESENTED…
Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 2007 – Sections 57, 158 and 159 – Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 – Sections 108, 114 and 258 – Pujari is only to perform puja and to maintain the properties of the deity – Circulars issued by Madhya Pradesh Government to delete the names of Pujari from revenue record so as to protect the temple properties from unauthorized sale by the Pujaris upheld.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PUJARI UTTHAN AVAM KALYAN SAMITI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta…
Abkari Shops Departmental Management Rules, 1972 – Rule 13 – New rule or amendment – Retrospectivity cannot be presumed – No indication that Rule 13 applied retrospectively – There is profusion of judicial authority on the proposition that a rule or law cannot be construed as retrospective unless it expresses a clear or manifest intention, to the contrary.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ESTHAPPAN CHERIAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra…
Royalty – Benefit or privilege – Expression ‘Royalty’ has consistently been construed to be compensation paid for rights and privileges enjoyed by the grantee and normally has its genesis in the agreement entered into between the grantor and the grantee-Controlled release of water made available to INDSIL and CUMI, has always gone a long way in helping them in generation of electricity – For such benefit or privilege conferred upon them, the Agreements arrived at between the parties contemplated payment of charges for such conferral of advantage – Such charges were perfectly justified.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. INDSIL HYDRO POWER AND MANGANESE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and…
On the facts of the case the High Court noted that there was absence of common object–What was to be expected was an assault–It was held that A-2 to A-7 were guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC–Trial Court and the High Court rightly found the appellant guilty–Reasoning given by the High Court finding appellant guilty does not suffer from any infirmity–Penal Code, 1860, Section 304 Part II.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 797 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 1249…
Appeal against decision of High Court–At very initial stage it was contended by A2 that accident caused before the bus arrived at the scene–Later it was contended that bus driver was negligent therefore, accident was caused–A2 had not come forward to be examined as to how the accident had actually taken place–Reversal of award of MACT cannot be held to be preserve–Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 167.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 795 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Civil Appeal No. 1104 Of 2009…
Relation witness–Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 781 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly Criminal Appeal No. 203 of…