Since the appeal arises out of conviction of Accused No. 2, the applicant herein who was accused No. 3 and was acquitted, is not a necessary party. Hence, the application for deletion of respondent no. 2 is allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH GOPI RAM — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian, J. ) I.A. No. 124145 of…
HELD that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act has no overriding effect over the right of residence of a woman in a shared household within the meaning of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be deployed to over-ride and nullify other protections in law, particularly that of a woman’s right to a “shared household‟ under…
HELD – for substitution to bring on record the lrs. of deceased respondent no.2 & I.A.No.186338/2019 for condonation of delay of 5792 days in filing substitution application are dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD — Appellant Vs. TARSEM LAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian, J. ) I.A. No. 186336 of 2019…
No State run university can afford to have a laidback attitude, when their own performance is being measured by international standards – Therefore, the power of the universities to prescribe enhanced norms and standards, cannot be doubted – While universities cannot dilute the standards prescribed by AICTE, they certainly have the power to stipulate enhanced norms and standards.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JAI BHARATH COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…
(IPC) – Sections 148 and 307 – ideal that independent witnesses come forward to substantiate the prosecution case but it would be unfair to expect the presence of third parties in every case at the time of incident, for most violent crimes are seldom anticipated. Any adverse inference against the non – examination of independent witnesses thus needs to be assessed upon the facts and circumstances of each case
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ROHTAS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal…
Respondent could not be treated to be part of Category ‘C’ from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 1.8.1985 as he was neither a graduate nor a trained teacher when he was appointed. Also, Respondent was not even a trained teacher on the date of his appointment and thus cannot claim seniority on such ground from the date of his initial appointment – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MADHAVI — Appellant Vs. CHAGAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 8(3) – Disqualification- petitioner was disqualified from contesting the elections in terms of Section 8(3) of the Act. In such circumstances, she could not have maintained an election petition as “a candidate at such election” in terms of Section 81(1). Therefore, the High Court was right in not venturing into an exercise in futility, by taking up the election petition for trial, though the High Court was wrong in rejecting the election petition on the ground of existence of incurable of defects – Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SARITHA S. NAIR — Appellant Vs. HIBI EDEN — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI., A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Special…
Possession of Indian Flap Shell Turtle — the Turtle which has been seized is not that which is included in Part II of Schedule I. In the facts of the present case, on the face of it, the Turtle seized is not included in Schedule I Part II and the Turtle having already been freed on the second day of its seizure, the High Court did not commit any error in quashing the criminal proceedings
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TITTY ALIAS GEORGE KURIAN — Appellant Vs. THE DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Indu Malhotra, JJ. )…
Prior environmental clearance – It is not necessary for the Central Government or for that matter, NHAI, to apply for prior environmental/forest clearances or permissions, as the case may be, at the stage of planning or taking an in principle decision to formalize the Project of constructing a new national highway manifested in notification under Section 2(2), including until the stage of issuing notification under Section 3A of the 1956 Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT — Appellant Vs. P.V. KRISHNAMOORTHY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, B.R. Gavai and Krishna…
Temporary custody of son – Mother shall be allowed every year, one more trip for a week financed by the father, coinciding with the Birthday of son (which falls on 2nd of December) – Thus, the Mother will have the benefit of two trips to Kenya in a year, out of which one will be with her mother as well.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA — Appellant Vs. PERRY KANSAGRA — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Miscellaneous…