Orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are therefore not affected by the bar of Section 397 (2) of CrPC.HELD that the trial court while considering the discharge application is not to act as a mere post office.
The correct position of law as laid down in Madhu Limaye (supra), thus, is that orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are…
ECI Case – Media has right to reporting over oral observations made by judges – No Question Of Expunging Judges’ Oral Remarks Which Are Not Part Of Judicial Record : Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. M.R. VIJAYABHASKAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R.…
Election Laws – Declaration of results – State Government through learned counsel as well as the State Election Commission, Uttar Pradesh that necessary measures have been put in place in terms of the guidelines issued from time to time, including the recent Notifications dated 29.04.2021 and 30.04.2021 issued by the State Election Commission – No interference.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SACHIN YADAV — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Special Leave…
Contract load/sanctioned load – Reduction of – Fresh agreements may have been executed at the stage of enhancement of load of the same electricity connection, the same cannot be treated as anything but an extension/amendment or modification of the initial agreement granting the electricity connection
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S RAMKRISHNA FORGING LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran,…
Land Acquisition – Specific performance – Power to award compensation-Decree for compensation is passed as an alternate decree and in lieu of the decree for specific performance – High Court has rightly observed and held that the plaintiff shall be entitled to the entire amount of compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act together with interest and solatium.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUKHBIR — Appellant Vs. AJIT SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 1653…
Termination – Back wages -The High Court in fact set aside the direction of the Tribunal to reinstate by creating a supernumerary post – This is not challenged by Respondent No. 1 – It directed only that the appointment of the Respondent No. 1 be made in the vacancy – Therefore, the claim of Respondent No. 1 for back wages from the date of termination is at any rate clearly untenable.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KAMALINI KHILAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and K.M. Joseph, JJ.…
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 80-IA(5) – is limited to determination of quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of Section 80-IA of the Act by treating ‘eligible business’ as the ‘only source of income’ – Sub-section (5) cannot be pressed into service for reading a limitation of the deduction under sub-section (1) only to ‘business income’.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I — Appellant Vs. M/S. RELIANCE ENERGY LIMITED (FORMERLY BSES LIMITED) THROUGH ITS M.D — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara…
(IPC) – Section 302 read with 34 – Murder – Common intention – Evidence of injured witnesses cannot be brushed aside without assigning cogent reasons – Evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted – His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KALABHAI HAMIRBHAI KACHHOT — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Recall of judgment – There is no provision in the Supreme Court Rules for filing any application for recall of the judgment of own Court – Application dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RESERVE BANK OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran, JJ.…
Implementation of MACPS for civilian employees – Whether the Government of India is justified in implementing the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (‘MACPS’) – This Court find force in the submission made by the learned Additional Solicitor General that uniform implementation of MACPS for civilian employees w.e.f. 01.01.2006 would result in large scale recoveries of amounts paid in excess.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. R.K. SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran, JJ. ) Civil…