U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Sections 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) – Eviction–“Nagar Palika, Almora in the year 1996/1997 stating that the building was in a dilapidated condition and therefore the same is required to be demolished and still even after period of approximately 24 years, the building stands and as the tenants are ready and willing to get the building in question repaired at their own cost and the same is not to be deducted from the rent, This Court is of the opinion that one opportunity is required to be given to the tenants to get the building repaired “
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM PRAKASH AND ANOTHER — Appellant PUTTAN LAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Civil…
Police Act, 1861 – Sections 3 and 4 – Indian High Courts Act, 1861 – Sections 9 and 10 – Government of India Act, 1915 – Section 106 – Government of India Act, 1935 – Section 223 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 154 and 482 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 136, 142 and 226 –Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can appoint a police officer after his superannuation to head a Special Investigation Team (S.I.T.) to carry out investigations and other functions, which can be exercised by a police officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure- This Court conclude that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 can very well direct respondent No.2 to head the Special Investigation Team to carry out investigation and other functions after attaining the age of superannuation.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ELEPHANT G. RAJENDRAN AND OTHERS ETC — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and…
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 – Sections 22 and 24 – Entitlement of the land–we are of the opinion that if the appellants are directed to pay some more reasonable amount considering the fact that number of years have passed and even the price of the land has also increased, it would meet the ends of justice. At the same time, to direct the appellants to pay the present market value/market price would also be unreasonable. Therefore, taking into over all facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that if the appellants are directed to pay Rs. 3,66,30,000/- towards the cost of the land and Rs. 20,00,000/- towards the cost of construction of the existing building, it will meet the ends of justice–we are of the opinion that if the appellants are directed to pay some more reasonable amount considering the fact that number of years have passed and even the price of the land has also increased, it would meet the ends of justice. At the same time, to direct the appellants to pay the present market value/market price would also be unreasonable. Therefore, taking into over all facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that if the appellants are directed to pay Rs. 3,66,30,000/- towards the cost of the land and Rs. 20,00,000/- towards the cost of construction of the existing building, it will meet the ends of justice
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURDEV SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, JJ.…
In the facts and circumstances of the case and after having been satisfied that the original writ petitioner was fulfilling all the eligibility criteria including one year’s experience of translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa and having found that the original writ petitioner ranked 6th in the merit list and therefore otherwise found to be meritorious, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly set aside the action of the FCI in rejecting the case of the original writ petitioner–This Court specifically observed and held that “what is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. RIMJHIM — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and M.R Shah, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
RAFALE CASE — Official Secrets Act, 1923 – Sections 3, 5 and 5(1) – Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 8(1)(a) and 8(2) – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 123 – Rafale case – Publication of documents – There is no provision in the Official Secrets Act and no such provision in any other statute has been brought to our notice by which Parliament has vested any power in the executive arm of the government either to restrain publication of documents marked as secret or from placing such documents before a Court of Law which may have been called upon to adjudicate a legal issue concerning the parties
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YASHWANT SINHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS DIECTOR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ranjan Gogoi and…
Benami Transactions (Prohibition of Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988 – Section 2 – Financial assistance to buy a property cannot be the sole determinative factor/circumstance to hold the transaction as benami in nature.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. P. LEELAVATHI (D) BY LRS — Appellant Vs. V. SHANKARNARAYANA RAO (D) BY LRS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…
The question is whether in case the deceased is a bachelor, a different principle for calculation of the multiplier should be applied by shifting the focus to the age of the claimants? This Court view that the answer to this question should be in the negative. This Court convinced that there is no need to once again take up this issue settled by the aforesaid judgments of three Judge Bench and also relying upon the Constitution Bench that it is the age of the deceased which has to be taken into account and not the age of the dependents.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD — Appellant Vs. MANDALA YADAGARI GOUD AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, Sanjay Kishan…
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) – Section 138–Court cannot insist on a person to lead negative evidence. The observation of the High Court that trial court’s finding that the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity of lending money is perverse cannot be supported.–We are, thus, satisfied that accused has raised a probable defence and the findings of the trial court that complainant failed to prove his financial capacity are based on evidence led by the defence. Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BASALINGAPPA — Appellant Vs. MUDIBASAPPA — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 636 of 2019 (Arising…
Auction Sale—Lease hold property or Free hold property—While interpreting the Sale Deed, the auction notice has to be looked into to find out the nature of transaction—Sale Deed cannot be read divorced to the auction notice or contrary to auction notice Unearned Increase—When the auction was made on the market value of the property, then there was no question of claiming of unearned increase by the development authority
2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 845 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 722 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Honble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph Civil Appeal No. 1533…
“……that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RUPALI DEVI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjay…