Supreme Court of India Judgements

46755 Judgements hosted as on 29/03/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

In a case involving cross-FIRs (alleging offences u/s 294(b), 323, 506(1) IPC) arising from a dispute between two practicing advocates pending since 2017, the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the FIR against the appellants and also quashed the connected proceedings Conviction under Section 302 requires proof of premeditation or intention to kill; absence of such elements may lead to reduced charges, such as under Section 304 IPC, with sentencing considerations potentially based on time already served Mere presence at a crime scene, without evidence of an overt act or specific role, is insufficient to convict an individual as a member of an unlawful assembly, especially in cases involving large crowds and public disturbances Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Extension of period of limitation in certain circumstances — Courts may liberally condone delays in appeals, especially by the State Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 154 — Registration of FIR — Mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC if information discloses commission of a cognizable offense; no preliminary inquiry permissible in such cases.
In a case involving cross-FIRs (alleging offences u/s 294(b), 323, 506(1) IPC) arising from a dispute between two practicing advocates pending since 2017, the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the FIR against the appellants and also quashed the connected proceedings
Cr P C
In a case involving cross-FIRs (alleging offences u/s 294(b), 323, 506(1) IPC) arising from a dispute between two practicing advocates pending since 2017, the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the FIR against the appellants and also quashed the connected proceedings
Conviction under Section 302 requires proof of premeditation or intention to kill; absence of such elements may lead to reduced charges, such as under Section 304 IPC, with sentencing considerations potentially based on time already served
I P C
Conviction under Section 302 requires proof of premeditation or intention to kill; absence of such elements may lead to reduced charges, such as under Section 304 IPC, with sentencing considerations potentially based on time already served
Mere presence at a crime scene, without evidence of an overt act or specific role, is insufficient to convict an individual as a member of an unlawful assembly, especially in cases involving large crowds and public disturbances
I P C
Mere presence at a crime scene, without evidence of an overt act or specific role, is insufficient to convict an individual as a member of an unlawful assembly, especially in cases involving large crowds and public disturbances
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Extension of period of limitation in certain circumstances — Courts may liberally condone delays in appeals, especially by the State
Limitation
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Extension of period of limitation in certain circumstances — Courts may liberally condone delays in appeals, especially by the State
C P C

Rejection of Plaint–That if the plaint does not contain necessary averments relating to limitation, the same is liable to be rejected. Rejection of Plaint–While deciding the application, few lines or passage should not be read in isolation and the pleadings have to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import.

Jun 21, 2017 sclaw

     2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 3264 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Jusitce Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Jusitce P. Sathasivam Civil Appeal No. 4626 of…

Evidence Act

Sections 33 or 35 are not concerned with any copy of the instrument and party can only be allowed to rely on the document which is an instrument within the meaning of Section 2(14). There is no scope for the inclusion of the copy of the document for the purposes of the Stamp Act. Copy of the instrument cannot be validated by impounding and this cannot be admitted as secondary evidence under the Stamp Act, 1899.

Jun 21, 2017 sclaw

2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 3239 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal The Hon’ble Mr. Jusitce P.P. Naolekar The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam…

Property Matters

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section – 16(c) – Specific performance of a contract – Appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka decreeing the suit filed by the Respondents for specific performance of contract for sale of the suit land executed by the Appellant-Defendant in favour of the Respondents- Plaintiffs

Jun 19, 2017 sclaw

  (2000) 8 JT 13 : (2000) 9 SCC 214 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA BORAMMA — Appellant Vs. KRISHNA GOWDA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Shivaraj V. Patil,…

You missed

Cr P C

In a case involving cross-FIRs (alleging offences u/s 294(b), 323, 506(1) IPC) arising from a dispute between two practicing advocates pending since 2017, the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the FIR against the appellants and also quashed the connected proceedings

Mar 29, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Conviction under Section 302 requires proof of premeditation or intention to kill; absence of such elements may lead to reduced charges, such as under Section 304 IPC, with sentencing considerations potentially based on time already served

Mar 25, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Mere presence at a crime scene, without evidence of an overt act or specific role, is insufficient to convict an individual as a member of an unlawful assembly, especially in cases involving large crowds and public disturbances

Mar 25, 2025 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Extension of period of limitation in certain circumstances — Courts may liberally condone delays in appeals, especially by the State

Mar 25, 2025 sclaw