Show the cases, Nominal/Party Name wise
Show the cases, Date of Decision wise
LATEST CASES
(for last one month)
Total No. of Cases: 20

2015 SCCL.COM 171(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2957 of 2007)
Voltas Ltd. Appellant versus State of Gujarat Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/8/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Roy .
Subject Index: Sales Tax Act, 1969 — section 55A and 69 — tax liability — based on the classification of the determinants of a levy in law seeks judicial scrutiny in the attendant factual conspectus. The appellant being aggrieved by the determination made by the High Court of Gujarat on the issue common to a reference under Section 69 of the Sales Tax Act, 1969 — being Sales Tax Reference No.1/2004 and its appeal, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 12508/2002, against it, seeks redress against the judgment and order dated 4.09.2006 to that effect — the appellant’s works contract for fabrication and installation of water chilling plant at the factory of Anupam Colours and Chemicals at Vapi would fall under Entry 5 of the Schedule to the Notification dated 18.10.1993 issued under Section 55A of the Act and would be taxable at the rate of 5% as prescribed thereby — the impugned decision dated 4.9.2006 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Sales Tax Reference No.1/2004 and Special Civil Appeal No.12508/2002 and other determinations as are contrary to the views expressed herein are set aside.

2015 SCCL.COM 177(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3348 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18683 of 2004) with Civil Appeal No. 3349 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8330 of 2005))
Secretary Minor Irrigation Deptt. & R.E.S. Appellant versus Narendra Kumar Tripathi Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/7/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel .
Subject Index: Public Service Commission (Second Amendment) Rule 1989 — Uttar Pradesh Regulations of Ad Hoc Appointments — ad hoc appointment — counting for the purpose of Seniority — whether the writ petitioner is entitled to count his service as Assistant Engineer from 12th June, 1985, the date of his initial appointment on an ‘ad hoc’ basis, for purposes of seniority or his service will be counted only from 14th December, 1989, the date on which approval to his appointment was given by the State Government under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (“1979 Rules”) as amended on 7th August, 1989 by the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) (Second Amendment) Rules, 1989.

2015 SCCL.COM 176(Case No: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 of 2015 with Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 14, 18, 23, 24,70, 83, 108 & 124 of 2015 with Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 391 of 2015)
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another Petitioners versus Union of India Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/7/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur .
Subject Index: Constitution Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 — validity of — the challenge is on the ground that by virtue of the aforestated amendment and enactment of the Act, basic structure of the Constitution of India has been altered and therefore, they should be set aside — these petitions involve substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India and therefore, court directs the Registry to place all the matters of this group before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India so that they can be placed before a larger Bench for its consideration.

2015 SCCL.COM 175(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 554 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8663 of 2014))
Jasbir Singh @ Javri @ Jabbar Singh Appellant versus State of Haryana Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/6/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 399 and 402 and Arms Act — section 25 — conviction under — affirmed by Punjab and Haryana High Court — appeal — the sentence awarded by the trial court to the appellant under Section 399 IPC has been reduced to the period of imprisonment for five years — held both the courts below have erred in law in holding that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 IPC, and one punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act against appellant Jasbir Singh @ Javri @ Jabbar Singh, beyond reasonable doubt — it is a fit case where the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt, and deserves to be acquitted.

2015 SCCL.COM 169(Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 564-565 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6380-6381 of 2014])
Shamima Farooqui Appellant versus Shahid Khan Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/6/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant .
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, Section 125 — application under — adjudication of appeals — when substantial justice has been done, there was no reason to interfere. There may be a shelter over her head in the parental house, but other real expenses cannot be ignored. Solely because the husband had retired, there was no justification to reduce the maintenance by 50%. It is not a huge fortune that was showered on the wife that it deserved reduction. It only reflects the non-application of mind and, therefore, supreme court is unable to sustain the said order.

2015 SCCL.COM 174(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3272 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.15900 of 2013))
Excel Dealcomm Private Limited Appellant versus Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/1/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose .
Subject Index: Jurisdiction — specific performance — suit for land — appeal has been preferred against the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on March 8, 2013 in A.P.O. No.180 of 2012 whereby the High Court while holding that the Calcutta High Court does not have jurisdiction to try civil suit, assumed jurisdiction for non-suiting the appellant and also held that the Agreement dated 13.2.2007 is not concluded and thus not enforceable, and dismissed Civil Suit No.299 of 2007 filed by the appellant — Clause 5 of the Agreement entered into between the parties reads as under: “The payment/cheque shall be drawn and made payable in Mumbai. The jurisdiction shall be Courts of Mumbai — the intention of the parties to the Agreement was to restrict limitation to the forums/courts of Mumbai only — the Courts of Mumbai were granted exclusive jurisdiction as per the Agreement and there is no reason to create any exception to the intention of the parties — the present suit is a suit for land, and that the parties had granted exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Mumbai, the jurisdiction of the Court at Calcutta is clearly ousted as per law — the plaint will have to be returned by the Calcutta High Court as it does not have the jurisdiction — the question of jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal need not be answered.

2015 SCCL.COM 173(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 8912 of 2003)
Jeyar Consultant & Iinvestment Pvt. Ltd. Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/1/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman .
Subject Index: Income Tax Act, 1961 — section 80HHC(3) — what is the correct method of computation of deductions under Section 80HHC(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the given facts and circumstances, is the question which needs an answer in the present appeal.

2015 SCCL.COM 172(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 7377 of 2008 with Civil Appeal Nos. 8635-8638 of 2014 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6184-6185 of 2010)
Bhupal Singh and others Appellants versus State of Haryana Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/1/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre .
Subject Index: Lands acquisition — compensation — whether the High Court was justified in partly allowing the appeals filed by the claimants/landowners by awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq. yard for their lands which were acquired by the State or the rate should have been more than Rs.50/- per sq. yard? — the appeals filed by the appellants-landowners deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed in part. The impugned judgment and orders are accordingly modified — the concerned LAO is directed to calculate the compensation payable to the appellants (land owners) for their acquired lands pursuant to notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 04.11.1977 “at the rate of Rs.63/- per sq. yard” and accordingly calculate all statutory compensation such as solatium, interest etc. payable under the Act to every land owner.

2015 SCCL.COM 170(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 9363 of 2011 with C.A.No.9147 of 2011)
Balasaheb Arjun Torbole & others Appellants versus The Administrator & Divisional Commissioner & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/1/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh .
Subject Index: Redevelopment of Slum — the impugned judgment of the High Court also records in paragraph 25 that out of a total of 443 slum dwellers, 82% slum dwellers had already given consent for redevelopment of the slum and redevelopment is going on by allotment of permanent alternative accommodation to the slum dwellers. Majority of occupants of the municipal plot as noted in the High Court judgment had vacated their structures long back — redevelopment activity is going on and permanent structures have come up on a large area — non statutory provisions can hardly be treated as mandatory unless their non observance is shown to have caused legal injury by affecting some valuable rights of the writ petitioners — no such case could be made out by the appellants so as to require interference on account of alleged shortcomings in preparation or verification of Annexure II — in the light of statutory provisions brought about through amendments in the 1966 Act and in the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and in the light of provisions of 1971 Act, the SRA was competent to approve the Scheme by taking the required ancillary decisions.

2015 SCCL.COM 186(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2015 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5825 of 2014])
State of Punjab Appellant versus Saurabh Bakshi Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/30/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 304A — conviction under — adequacy of quantem of sentence imposed by the High Court — the purpose of just punishment is designed so that the individuals in the society which ultimately constitute the collective do not suffer time and again for such crimes. It serves as a deterrent — in the instant case the factum of rash and negligent driving has been established. This court has been constantly noticing the increase in number of road accidents and has also noticed how the vehicle drivers have been totally rash and negligent — driving in a drunken state, in a rash and negligent manner or driving with youthful adventurous enthusiasm as if there are no traffic rules or no discipline of law has come to the centre stage — the principle of sentencing recognizes the corrective measures but there are occasions when the deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon the facts of the case — it is a fit case where court is constrained to say that the High Court has been swayed away by the passion of mercy in applying the principle that payment of compensation is a factor for reduction of sentence to 24 days. It is absolutely in the realm of misplaced sympathy — the sentence of one year as imposed by the trial Magistrate which has been affirmed by the appellate court should be reduced to six months — india has a disreputable record of road accidents. There is a non-challant attitude among the drivers. They feel that they are the “Emperors of all they survey”. Drunkenness contributes to careless driving where the other people become their prey. The poor feel that their lives are not safe, the pedestrians think of uncertainty and the civilized persons drive in constant fear but still apprehensive about the obnoxious attitude of the people who project themselves as “larger than life” — the lawmakers should scrutinize, re-look and re-visit the sentencing policy in Section 304A, IPC.

2015 SCCL.COM 184(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 3211-3212 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) NOS. 1668-1669 of 2014))
Asha Verman & others Appellants versus Maharaj Singh & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/27/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan .
Subject Index: Enforcement of Compensation — entitlement — determination — a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was filed on 06.01.2007 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Jabalpur, M.P. by the appellant No.1 - wife of the deceased, appellant Nos.2 & 3 - minor children of the deceased, appellant Nos. 4 & 5-parents of the deceased, claiming Rs.31,70,000/- as compensation for loss caused due to the death of Jhambu Verman — the Tribunal after considering the facts, circumstances and evidence on record of the case on hand, passed an Award dated 08.10.2007 by awarding a total compensation of Rs.3,75,500/- at an interest rate of 6.5% per annum to the appellants — the total compensation payable to the appellants by the respondent-Insurance Company will be Rs. 16,58,600/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

2015 SCCL.COM 183(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 2009)
Ranbeer Singh (dead) by L.R. Appellant versus State of U.P. and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/27/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 302 along with section 25 of the Arms Act — conviction under by trial court — acquittal of 3 accused by High Court — the present appeal has been filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the three accused by the High Court — whether, in the given facts and circumstances the case, the role attributed to the present three Accused-respondents lead to their implication under Section 34 of IPC — held there is indeed enough material to infer the common and shared intention of the present accused-respondents with that of Shyamu. Although, the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that they had not thrown the deceased down to the drain with intention of killing him but merely assaulting him. According to him, the shooting by Shyamu was an independent act. However, the court findes that firstly, there was no justifiable reason for the 4 accused persons to go 100-150 yards inside the field of the complainant. Second, the fact that they carried a weapon being 315 bore country-made pistol with them clearly shows that they had all the wrong intentions — the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court is restored.

2015 SCCL.COM 182(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos.3209-3210 of 2015 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos.7105-7106 of 2014))
Umrala Gram Panchayat Appellant versus The Secretary, Municipal Employees Union & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/27/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.Nagappan .
Subject Index: Safai Kamdars of the Appellant Panchayat some of whom are now deceased and are being represented by their legal heirs, were appointed to the post of safai kamdars of the appellant-Panchayat and have served for many years, varying from 18 years, 16 years, 8 years, 5 years etc — were however, considered as daily wage workers and were therefore, not being paid benefits such as pay and allowances etc. as are being paid to the permanent safai kamdars of the appellant- Panchayat — on 23.07.1987, the workmen raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer at Bhavnagar, through the respondent no.1, Municipal Employees Union stating therein that after rendering services for a number of years, the workmen are entitled to the benefit of permanency — the services of the concerned workmen are permanent in nature, since they have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year from the date of their initial appointment, which is clear from the evidence on record. Therefore, not making their services permanent by the appellant-Panchayat is erroneous and also amounts to error in law. Hence, the same cannot be allowed to sustain in law — court directs the appellants to treat the services of the concerned workmen as permanent employees, after five years of their initial appointment as daily wage workmen till they attain the age of superannuation for the purpose of granting terminal benefits to them.

2015 SCCL.COM 181(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3213 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5840 of 2012) with Civil Appeal No. 3214 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.10852 of 2013))
P.R. Yelumalai Appellant versus N.M. Ravi Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/27/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose .
Subject Index: Suit for Specific Performance — the Trial Court rightly held that the decree-holder did not make the deposit within the time stipulated by the Court nor the deposit of the balance consideration was made through the mode as stipulated by the Court, and that being the case, the suit will have to be deemed as dismissed. The Trial Court further held that the decree-holder is not entitled to seek execution of decree, which does not exist in the eye of law and consequently the Trial Court dismissed the execution petition — since the Plaintiff-Buyer failed to comply with the terms of the decree, the suit stood dismissed as the order passing the decree was a peremptory order — the contention that the acceptance of deposit made by the Plaintiff-Buyer on 29.05.2007 is an implied grant of extension of time is a misplaced one — the question as to whether the Plaintiff-Buyer was required to give notice of the amount deposited also need not be answered, although the court believes that had the Plaintiff-Buyer, irrespective of any obligation under law, given notice of the deposit made to the Defendant-Seller it would have helped the case of the Plaintiff- Buyer — the Plaintiff-Buyer has clearly defaulted on time of depositing as well as the mode of payment. The decree was self-operative and the suit stood dismissed for non-compliance of the decree. Further, the Plaintiff-Buyer also failed to make out a case for condonation of delay — the questions formulated by the High Court in the order of remand are not required to be answered by the Trial Court. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Plaintiff-Buyer is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Defendant-Seller is allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 185(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 9043 of 2003)
Agricultural Income Tax officer & another Appellants versus Goodricke Group Ltd. & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/25/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. F. Nariman .
Subject Index: West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act 1976 and West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973 — return of cess with interest — that for the period prior to the Amendment Act of 1989, the respondent herein is entitled to a refund of the cess paid by it together with interest at 12 per cent per annum, and has further found that insofar as interest is payable after the Amendment Act is concerned, such interest would only be payable after assessment orders are passed — in the present case, the 1989 amendment Act expressly seeks to remove the basis of Buxa dooars’s judgment by retrospectively changing the basis of the levy of the cesses — in the present case, what is done away with by the Amending Act of 1989 is a declaratory judgment holding the cesses to be invalid. On all these grounds also the judgment in Madan Mohan Pathak’s case is distinguishable — the impugned judgment is right in holding that with regard to the payment of interest by the petitioner on the amount of cess payable by virtue of the Goodricke Group Ltd.'s case, interest would only be payable from the respective dates of assessment for the various relevant periods till recovery — on facts here, no question arises as to whether interest would become payable from the date of demand or from the date of the assessments inasmuch as counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment on this score and is not aggrieved thereby — the respondents here have made payment of interest from time to time to the State. These payments will be adjusted against any sum that would become payable as a result of this judgment.

2015 SCCL.COM 163(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos.4684-4685 of 2005 with Special Leave Petition (C) No.19226 of 2013 & Special Leave Petition (C) No.20235 of 2013)
Dashmesh Educational Society Appellants versus Punjab Urban Development Authority & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/25/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana .
Subject Index: Notifications — delay in challenging the notifications issued — the short contention of the petitioners in the SLP is that the Notifications issued under Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation (Chos) Act, 1900 which were challenged before the High Court were issued under the provisions of Section 3 of the 1900 Act prior to the amendments made to the said Section 3 in 1914 and the somewhat comprehensive amendment of the entire 1900 Act effected in the year 1942 — the High Court declined to go into the pleas raised in the writ petition on the ground that the writ petitions are highly belated and in any case a dispute pertaining to the land is pending before this Court. The said dispute, arose in Civil Appeal Nos. 4682-4683 of 2005 which has since been remanded to the High Court and have also been redecided/ reanswered by the High Court — the last of the Notifications under challenge is of the year 2004. The petitioner apparently came into possession of the property much earlier i.e. in the year 1988. If that be so, it was necessary for the petitioner to bring his challenge before the High Court well in time; instead the writ petitions were filed in the year 2013 — the view taken by the High Court on account of delay therefore cannot be faulted though the High Court appears to have computed such delay from the date of first Notification issued under Section 3 of the 1900 Act overlooking the subsequent Notifications issued which were also under challenge. Even if the subsequent Notifications (of the year 2004) are taken into account, the eventual conclusion of the High Court cannot be faulted.

2015 SCCL.COM 159(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 10091-10093 of 2010)
PVR Limited and another Appellants versus State of Karnataka & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/25/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana  .
Subject Index: Karnataka Cinemas Regulation Act, 1994 and Karnataka Cinemas (Regulations) Rules 1971 — Rule 35C — communication dated 2nd April 2005 challenged — an endorsement dated 28th May, 2005 requiring the appellant to obtain “Compulsory Certificate from Films Division” under the aforesaid Act and the Rules was also put to challenge in the writ petition filed — the writ petition was dismissed by a learned single judge of the High Court against which order the appellant had instituted Writ Appeal No.979 of 2006 (Cinema). The aforesaid writ appeal, on the grounds and reasons recorded in the order dated 16th November, 2006, was allowed — however, on 18th November, 2006, the matter was reconsidered by the Bench once again — the initial order passed by the Division Bench allowing the Writ Appeal and setting aside the impugned notice was perfectly justified — the subsequent order passed on 18th November, 2006 virtually reverses the relief granted in the Writ Appeal and once again imposes the requirement on the appellant to exhibit documentary films produced by and procured from the Films Division only. In fact, the said requirement was directed to be made an express condition of the licence to be granted to theater owners including the appellant — court does not find any authority or sanction in any provisions of the Act/Rules to sustain the said later direction of the High Court.

2015 SCCL.COM 154(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011) with Civil Appeal Nos.3179-3180 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 26779-26780 of 2011) with Civil Appeal No.3181 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.13124 of 2012) and Civil Appeal No.3182 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.17407 of 2012) )
Mohan Singh Gill & others Etc. Appellants versus State of Punjab & others Etc. Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/25/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri .
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated April 29, 2011 passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby number of writ petitions which were filed challenging the acquisition of land measuring 192.75 acres vide two notifications, both dated 10.08.2009, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were dismissed — validity of the notifications has been upheld, holding that acquisition for public purpose for development of Missing Link-II from Dhandra Road to Sidhwan Canal via Malerkotla Road, Ludhiana as well as for development of residential urban estate along proposed road from Dhandra Road to Sidhwan Canal via Malerkotla Road, Ludhiana, is just and proper — two notifications both dated 10.08.2009 under Section 6 of the Act were issued and consequent thereupon, Award No.4 dated 07.08.2010 pertaining to the first notification and Award No.3 dated 07.08.2010 pertaining to the second notification were passed. Validity of all these notifications was the subject matter of the writ petitions — while affording this opportunity to the appellants to make a representation, court is not providing fresh cause of action to the appellants, though, court expects the respondents to consider the representation with open mind.

2015 SCCL.COM 157(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 782 of 2011)
Kedari Lal Appellant versus State of M.P. and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/23/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Dipak Misra Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit .
Subject Index: Prevention of Corruption Act — judgment of conviction — recorded under — challenged — the money was treated in the hands of the wife of the public servant and that she was assessed by the Income Tax Department was taken note of while accepting the explanation given by the public servant — there is no violation of Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.

2015 SCCL.COM 156(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 2009)
Deepa @ Deep Chand & another Appellants versus State of Haryana Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/23/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit .
Subject Index: Offence of murder — conviction under — the eye-witness account in the present case is truthful and has been accepted by both the courts below — nothing on record to take a view different from the one which weighed with the courts below.

go top | go back

Home | Membership form | Journals & Books | Services | About Us | Register with us | Supreme Court Caselaw |Consumer Caselaw | Latest Cases | Food Laws | Drug Laws | Labour Laws | Consumer Laws | Municipal Laws | Law Links | Suggestions/Complaints
For any query or help, mail us