Child Custody – During interaction on the video-conferencing platform, “S” son of the Appellant/Respondent indicated his desire to reside with his mother in Singapore – While the child is attached to the respondent, he has indicated, in no uncertain terms, his desire to live with his mother. Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MRS RITIKA SHARAN — Appellant Vs. MR SUJOY GHOSH — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, JJ.…
U P Mining Minerals (Concession) R, 1963 – Rule 40(h) – disruption of mining operations- State of UP states that they are only liable to refund (i) any security deposit; or (ii) advance royalties paid to them, for this obstructed period – the State already consented and recorded in such order .
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh…
Officers under Section 53 of NDPS Act are police; statement under Section 67 is confessional statement: Supreme Court in 2:1 judgment The Court noted that given the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, they have to be construed bearing in mind the fact that the severer the punishment, the greater the care.
The Supreme Court has held by a 2:1 majority that officers under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 are police officers (Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil…
Supreme Court grants custody of child to father in transnational guardianship case, asks for mirror order from Nairobi court The Court noted that though its judgment would not be binding on the Nairobi court, it would have “great persuasive value”.
The Supreme Court, in a 2:1 judgment, granted custody of a child to the father after the 11-year-old expressed his desire to live with that latter. The Court has…
Trivial Procedural Lapses Not A Ground To Nullify SARFAESI Proceedings Initiated By Secured Creditor If No Substantial Prejudice Was Caused To Borrower
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S. L&T HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S. TRISHUL DEVELOPERS AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta…
NDPS Held Recovery of 3kg 100gms charas – Compliance with Section 50 – Safeguards for search of a person would not extend to his bag or other article being carried by them
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAJESH DHIMAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…
HELD total quantity in the instant case is 1 kg 230 gms charas, which exceeds the definition of ‘commercial quantity’ as specified at Sl. No. 23 in Notification S.O. 1055 (E), dated 19.10.2001 – Thus, the sentence accorded by the High Court is clearly already far too charitable
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAVEEN KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…
DEFAULT BAIL – the magistrate ought to inform the accused of the availability of the indefeasible right u/S 167(2) CrPC once it accrues, without any delay.HELD Irrespective of the seriousness of the offence and the reliability of the evidence available, filing additional complaints merely to circumvent the application for default bail is an improper strategy.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M. RAVINDRAN — Appellant Vs. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar…
Service Law – Claim to re-employment – continuation in service – HELD the view in Indu Singh, 2017 SCC Online 1527 dealing with an identical statute, was correctly interpreted – Impugned judgment and orders of the High Court are set aside – Appellants consequently, to continue till the end of the following June on re-employment – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAVIN CHANDRA DHOUNDIYAL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat,…
Tender agreement – Termination of – enquiry report prepared by the M D was conducted ex parte & the M D failed to offer opportunity of hearing before passing the order impugned which terminated agreement for no justifiable reason to hold that the respondent was at fault . Bias therefore, cannot be ruled out, terminating the agreement cannot be sustained in law.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF U.P. — Appellant Vs. SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph,…







