Quashing of FIR – Held, In the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused-appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna…
HELD In the event, the appellant-Society is required to replace the present developer, while entering into a development agreement with the new developer, a clause shall be added therein incorporating an undertaking of the new developer that he shall abide by the directions contained in this Order.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMGAR SWA SADAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MR. VIJAYKUMAR VITTHALRAO SARVADE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 – Wakf Act, 1995 – Section 32(2)(n) read with Section 40 – Land dedicated for pious and religious purpose is not immune from its vesting with the State
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF TELANGANA) — Appellant Vs. A.P. STATE WAKF BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta…
Benefit of parity or equality – A principle, axiomatic in this country’s constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality – In other words, if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality – Candidates could not claim the benefit of parity
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH R. MUTHUKUMAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR TANGEDCO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S.…
HELD keeping in view the paramount consideration not to disrupt the academic and research work of a senior Professor when his turn arises and if he has shown unwillingness, his seniority has to be given its predominance and opportunity is available to him to serve when the next rotation becomes due
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. JAGATHY RAJ V.P. — Appellant Vs. DR. RAJITHA KUMAR S. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka,…
Default Bail — Filing of charge-sheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of proviso (a) to Section 167(2), CrPC and that taking of cognizance is not material to Section 167.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE — Appellant Vs. RAHUL MODI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. )…
Banking Law – Post office/bank can be held liable for the fraud or wrongs committed by its employees
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PRADEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. POST MASTER GENERAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R.…
(CPC) – Sections 152 and 153 read with Section 151 – – Court in exercise of its inherent power may rectify the consent decree to ensure that it is free from clerical or arithmetical errors so as to bring it in conformity with the terms of the compromise.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJANTA LLP — Appellant Vs. CASIO KEISANKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA D/B/A CASIO COMPUTER CO. LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao…
HELD – Direction issued to release of the appellant from jail on suspension of sentence on appropriate terms and conditions as may be fixed by the trial court – State of West Bengal shall consider and decide the request for premature release/remission within a period of two months.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAGAR BEHERA @ BANAMALI @DAYANIDHI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL — Respondent ( Before : Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.…
HELD refusal of the High Court to grant compensation for the injurious affection sustained by the appellant to one set of movable property, namely, rails and sleepers forming the trolley line for a distance of 28 kms., is clearly unsustainable
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. )…