ive
THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023
THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023
THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(901) PRATIBHA MANCHANDA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-07-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 438 - Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120­B - Anticipatory Bail - Forging documents for transferring ownership of land worth crores of rupees - Custodial interrogation - Right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation - Court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and cir
India Law Library Docid # 1603367

(902) SRI LAKSHMANA GOWDA B.N. Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-07-2023
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 173(1) - Enhancement of compensation - Injuries in accident - Claimant has suffered 75% whole body disability - Claimant working as Marketing Executive and earning salary of Rs. 8,000/- p.m. - Tribunal and the High Court fell in error in construing the income of the claimant at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. instead of Rs. 8,000/- p.m. - In the light of the compensation awarded towards 'Loss of Future Income' the sum of Rs. 60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the
India Law Library Docid # 1603368

(903) VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MAU AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-07-2023
National Highways Authority Act, 1956 - Section 3H - Apportionment of compensation amount - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - When it comes to resolving the dispute relating to apportionment of the amount determined towards compensation, it is only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which can do so - Principal Civil Court means the Court of the District Judge
India Law Library Docid # 1603370

(904) SAJJAN SINGH Vs. JASVIR KAUR AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-07-2023
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have taken note that the grievance essentially put forth by the respondents for which an application under Order VII Rule 11 was filed, is that the appellant herein, had not sought for an appropriate prayer to declare the sale deeds dated 03.12.2015 and 26.02.2016 as illegal, null and void and no court fee in that regard was paid.
India Law Library Docid # 1877694

(905) THE MADRAS ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. Vs. THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-07-2023
Electricity Law – Reduction of wattage - Revised agreement - Reduction to 10000 KVA from 23000 KVA - Whether the Appellant-Company is entitled to refund of the amount of difference between the amounts payable for 23000 KVA and 10000 KVA which, have been paid under protest - Acknowledging the financial health of the Appellant, in the 1999 agreement, the Respondent ought to have taken a decision on the Appellant request with a reasonable dispatch and terms which ought to have been within a period
India Law Library Docid # 1603364

(906) MOHD. NAUSHAD Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-07-2023
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - 120B, 124-A, 212, 302, 307, 411 and 436 - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sections 4 and 5 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25 - 1996 Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case - Death of 13 persons and 38 persons suffered injuries - Life imprisonment without remission, extending to natural life of four convicts upheld - Record reveals it is only on the prodding on the part of the judiciary that the trial could be completed after more than a decade - Delay, be it for whatever reason, attri
India Law Library Docid # 1603369

(907) SINGRAULI SUPER THERMAL POWER STATION Vs. ASHWANI KUMAR DUBEY AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-07-2023
He further submitted that Section 19(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for the sake of convenience) categorically states that the Tribunal, though not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall nevertheless be guided by the principles of natural justice.
India Law Library Docid # 1880878

(908) FORD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. M/S. MEDICAL ELEBORATE CONCEPT PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-07-2023
These appeals are directed against the orders dated 17-08-2022, 12-10-2022 and 11-11-2022 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, whereby the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh, Punjab has been broadly upheld.
India Law Library Docid # 1882048

(909) TRUST ESTATE KHIMJI KESHAWJI AND ANOTHER Vs. THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-07-2023
Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 –Sections 238 and 271 – Validity of notice – The Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) issued a notice to the appellant for using water supplied for domestic purposes for non-domestic use without permission, which is a violation of Sections 238 and 271 of the KMC Act - The main issue was the validity of the notice issued by KMC, considering the appellant's claim that there was no supply of unfiltered water in the area, allowing the use of wholesome water for
India Law Library Docid # 1882498

(910) PRITINDER SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-07-2023
Penal Code, 1860 –Section 302 r/w 34 – The case involves a criminal appeal where the appellants were convicted for murder based on circumstantial evidence, including an extra-judicial confession and the 'last seen' theory - The main issue was the credibility of the circumstantial evidence used to convict the appellants, particularly the extra-judicial confession and the failure to examine a Ballistic Expert - The appellants challenged the reliability of the witnesses and the lack of examination
India Law Library Docid # 1882499

(911) S. NARAHARI AND OTHERS Vs. S.R. KUMAR AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-07-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 141 - Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts - Ambit of - Where the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn, where no reason was assigned by the Court while dismissing the matter and where leave was not granted in the said Special Leave Petition, the said dismissal would not be considered as laying down law within the ambit of Article 141.
India Law Library Docid # 1603357

(912) HARI PRAKASH SHUKLA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-07-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Concurrent findings of the lower courts are neither perverse, nor the said courts have over stepped their jurisdiction - In such a scenario, wherein neither of the conditions were satisfied, the High Court could not have re-appreciated the evidence in writ jurisdiction and come to a different conclusion.
India Law Library Docid # 1603358

(913) STATE OF U.P. Vs. SONU KUSHWAHA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-07-2023
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Penetrative sexual assault - Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 - POCSO Act was enacted to provide more stringent punishments for the offences of child abuse of various kinds and that is why minimum punishments have been prescribed in Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act for various categories of sexual assaults on children - Hence, Section 6, on its plain language, leaves no discretion to the Court and there is no option but to impose the minimum
India Law Library Docid # 1603359

(914) ABDUL ANSAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-07-2023
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 308 and 338 - Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others - Whether the conviction of the appellant for the offence falls under Section 308 or 338 - The present appellant is accused No. 2. - The accused no.1 was the driver of a stage carriage bus -The appellant-accused No.2 was the conductor, and accused No. 3 was the cleaner - The appellant, as a conductor, had a duty to take care of the passengers on the overcrowded bus - However
India Law Library Docid # 1603360

(915) RAMESH CHAND Vs. MANAGEMENT OF DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-07-2023
Service Law - Removal from Service - Denial of the back wages - Re-instatement - The law is very well settled - Even if Court passes an order of reinstatement in service, an order of payment of back wages is not automatic - It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. Service Law - If an employee is dismissed and claims to be unemployed, the burden of proof lies on the employee to demonstrate this - According to Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it is a negative burden on the employ
India Law Library Docid # 1603361

(916) PRADEEP Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-07-2023
Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 4 and 18 - Child witness - In case of a child witness under 12 years of age, unless satisfaction as required by the said proviso is recorded, an oath cannot be administered to the child witness. Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 4 and 18 - Child witness - The requirement of Section 118 of the Evidence Act, the learned Trial Judge was under a duty to record his opinion that the child is able to understand the questions put to him and that he is able to give rational answ
India Law Library Docid # 1603362

(917) RAHUL GANPATRAO SABLE Vs. LAXMAN MARUTI JADHAV (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-07-2023
Motor Accident Claims - Future prospects should be added with the income depending upon the age of the deceased - If the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years, there should be an addition of 15% towards future prospects.
India Law Library Docid # 1603365

(918) ARUN DEV UPADHYAYA Vs. INTEGRATED SALES SERVICE LTD. AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-07-2023
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Order 47 Rule 1 - Review of judgment - A judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record - An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review - A review petition cannot be allowed to
India Law Library Docid # 1603366

(919) COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE (J AND K) Vs. M/S. SARASWATI AGRO CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-07-2023
We have heard Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned ASG appearing for the petitioner(s) in extenso. He pointed out that this Court in the case of SRD Nutrients (P) Limited vs. CCE reported in (2018) 1 SCC 105, gave a ruling contrary to the judgment previously rendered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Modi Rubber Ltd. And Anr. vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1986) 4 SCC 66. In a subsequent decision namely, M/s Unicorn Industries vs. Union of India reported in (2020) 3 SCC 492
India Law Library Docid # 1877645

(920) GURUDEEP SINGH Vs. REGONDA SRINIVAS AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-07-2023
Civil Contempt - Deliberate Disobedience – The case involves the recruitment of land oustees as Junior Mazdoors by NTPC Ltd. following land acquisition and compensation award - The main issue is whether the appellants (NTPC officials) disobeyed the High Court's order by issuing a new recruitment notification instead of completing the process as per the 2017 notification - The petitioner argued that the appellants willfully disobeyed the High Court's orders by issuing a new notification and cance
India Law Library Docid # 1882496