Judgments- Supreme Court Of India & High Courts Of Indian States-I | Hello Counsel
High Court Judgments.jpg

Supreme Court Of India, Pan India High Court Judgments Archive No.1

Archive 1 | Archive 2

Abati Bezbaruuah Vs. Deputy Director General [Full PDF Judgment]- Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools Vs. Directorate Of   [Full PDF Judgment] [Full PDF Judgment]- Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. B. K. Jha and another [Full PDF Judgment]- Abdulla Versus State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi) [Full PDF Judgment]– Abdulrahim Abdulmiya Pirzada & 1 Other Versus State Of Gujarat [Full PDF Judgment]- Abhiram Singh Vs. C.D. Commachen (Dead) [Full PDF Judgment]- Abhishek Shukla Vs. High Court Of Judicature, Allahabad [Full PDF Judgment]- Abrar Ali [Central Industrial Security Force Vs. Abrar Ali [Full PDF Judgment]- Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari Vs. State of Maharashtra [Full PDF Judgment]- Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal [Full PDF Judgments]- Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors. [Full PDF Judgment]- Adarsh Raj Singh Vs. Bar Council Of India [Full PDF Judgment]- Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar Vs. Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi [Full PDF Judgment]- Adil Vs. State [Full PDF Judgment]- ADM [Additional District Magistrate], Jabalpur Vs. S. S. Shukla [Full PDF Judgments]. 

A G C R Co-Op Housing Building Society Ltd Vs. Pankaj Kumar- FAO 426 of 2016- DelHC-08.01.2018-Commissioner under Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923- Held, the employment must be a contributory cause (solely or in addition to a disease) or acceleratory cause of injury or death, Cases referred,-Jyothi Ademma Vs. Plant Engineer, Nellore- 2006 (5) SCC 513 [Full PDF Judgment]

Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing Cum-Processing Service Society Limited, ______, (1999) 6 SCC 82- Issue, period of limitation in ID Act/ Labo es.” [Full PDF Judgment].

A Jayachandra Vs. Aneel Kaur- Appeal-Civil-7763-7764 of 2004-SC-02.12.2004-Citation- 2005-2-SCC-22- AIR 2005 SC 534- Divorce- HMA- S-13(1)(a)- Held, mplained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law.” [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Ajay Bansal Versus Anup Mehra & Others, Civil Appeal No.230 of 2007, Judgment Dated-16.01.2007, Bench: S B Sinha & Markandey Katju, JJ, Supreme Court Of India AIR 2007 SC 909 [Full PDF Judgment]- Application U/A-227 of Constitution against the Or urt to convert the instant Petition into Appeal to avoid further multiplicity of litigation [Full PDF Judgment].

Ajay Bhardwaj Vs. Jyotsna and others – Crl. Revision No. -F- 166 of 2015 -O&M- P&HHC – 23.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Ajay Maken-Vs.- UOI-10.08.2016-W.P.(C) No.6681/2015- (2015) 7 SCC 1- Kejriwal Ads-Government Advertisement Guidelines, 2014 [PDF Judgment]

Ajaysingh Kuvarsingh Dahiya Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.- Criminal Writ Petition NO. 5301 OF 2017- BomHC- 18.06.2018- Issue, Prison Conditions in  82 Prisons – (2017) 10 SCC 658 [Full PDF Judgment].

A K Balaji [Bar Council Of India [BCI] Vs. A K Balaji]- Foreign law firms/companies or foreign lawyers- Cannot practice profession of law in India either in the li al issues. We hold that the expression “fly in and fly out” will only cover a casual visit not amounting to “practice” [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Akshay Chaudhary & Anr. Versus University Of Delhi & Anr.- W.P.(C) No.1897 of 2010- DelHC-08.09.2010- School & College- Ragging- Rustication [Full PDF Judgment].

A.L.A. FIRM Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS- Civil Appeal No. 570 of 1976- SC-21.02.1991- Citation-1989-189-ITR-285-SC=1991-SCR – ntinued then stock-in-trade has to be valued at market price only [Full PDF Judgment].

Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj & Others Versus Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly & Another, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 455 OF 2015, Judgment Dated: 12.02.2016, Bench: J. Chelameswar & Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Sought a writ of order de    ue at hand involves the rights of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g).” [Full PDF Judgment].

A L Agarwal Versus Delhi University, CIC/RM/A/2014/000313­SA, Judgment Dated: 09.12.2015, Bench: Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), IC-  FAESI Act 2002 [Full PDF Judgment].

Allokam Peddabbayya And Another Vs. Allahabad Bank And Others – Civil Appeal        Nos. 2763-2764 Of 2008 – SC – 19.06.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Alok Kumar Jain  Vs. Purnima Jain- CM(M) No.367 Of 2007- DHC- 17.04.2007- 2007(96) DRJ 115- Matrimonial- maintenance, pendentelite- What factors to be taken in account [Full PDF Judgment].

Amandeep Singh Johar Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr- W.P.-C- 7608 Of 2017 – DelHC- 07.02.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]

Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur- SC- 12.09.2017- Civil Appeal No. 11158 Of 2017- Issue, whether the minimum period of six months stipulated under Section-1  reason as may satisfy the Court, to advance the interest of justice.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Amarmani Tripathi-State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi- Appeal – Crl.- 1248 of 2005-SC-26.09.2005-Citation- 2005- 8- SCC-21- Bail [Full PDF Judgments].

Amarsang Nathaji As Himself And As Karta And Manager Vs. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel And Others – Civil Appeal No. 11120 Of 2016 – SC- 23.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State Of Gujarat- Civil Appeal Nos. 4250-4251 of 1986-SC-11.12.1986-1987 AIR 1073-1987 SCC (1) 213- Interpretation of Statutes- In t logically follows from it [Full PDF Judgment].

Ambrish Kumar Shukla Versus Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No. 97 Of 2016, Judgment Dated: 07.10.2016, Bench: D.K. Jain, President, V.K. Jain, Dr. B.C. Gupta, JJ, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- Consumer Protection Act- Consumer Complaint under Section 12(1)(c).- Maintainability of Class Action Suits.

Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   1407 OF 2012-SC-13.09.2012-Citation-2012-9-SCC-460- Framing of charge- S-227, g that there is ground to proceed against the accused and frame the charge accordingly [Full PDF Judgments].

Amit Kumar Vs. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi- Bail Application No.848 Of 2014, Order Dated-14.10.2014, Bench- Sunita Gupta, J, High Court Of Delhi [Full PDF Judgment].

Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors.- Criminal Appeal Nos. 1171 Of 2016-SC-02.02.2017- S-173(8) CrPC [Full PDF Judgment].

Ananthesh Bhakta Represented By Mother Usha A.Bhakta Vs. Nayana S. Bhakta & Ors.- Civil Appeal No.10837 Of 2016 – Sc – 15.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraja- Civil Appeal No. 5387 OF 2014- SC-07.05.2014- (2014) 7 SCC 547- The cruel and torturous practice of “Jallikattu”, held to be illegal and unconstitutional [Full PDF Judgment].

Anil Grover, Dr. Medical Council Of India Vs.  Dr Anil Grover & Ors .- LPA 577 Of  2017-DelHC-27.10.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Anil Kumar Shrivastava Versus Shaurya Sunil, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.718 of 2016, Judgment Dated- 20.01.2016, I. A. Ansari, ACJ., & Chakradhari Sharan Sin , in a suit, by a Single Bench? [Full PDF Judgment].

Anil Sharma [State Rep. By The C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma- SC-03.09.1997- Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das – Transfer Petition-Civil-No. 191 Of 2005-SC-29.08.2005 [Full PDF Judgment].

Anju Choudhary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh- SC-13.12.2012- Criminal Appeal No. 2039 OF 2012- 2013- Cr.L.J. 776- S-156(3)-CrPC-Applicability of the Rule of Audi Alteram Partem- Accused is not entitled to hearing prior to registration of the FIR [Full PDF Judgment].

Ankathil Ajayakumar [State Of Kerala Vs. Ankathil Ajayakumar]- WA Nos. – 2012, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018 & 2163 Of 2016 – KelHC-30.08.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Ankit Sharma Versus Versus
Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar and another, Civil Writ Petition No.11226 of 2005, Judgment Dated: 01.08.2016, Bench: G.S.Sand ial Training, Chandigarh and others 2001(2) S.C.T. 726.- Finding of this Case: Refund denied.

Annie Nagaraja And Ors. Versus Union Of India & Ors., W.P(C) 7336/2010, Judgment Dated- 04.09.2015, Kailash Gambhir & Najmi Waziri, Delhi High Court- Constitution of India- Art-15- A Case Of sexiest bias against Navy women Officers [Full PDF Judgment].

Anokha (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (2004) 1 SCC 382- – Adoption- CARA- HAMA [Full PDF Judgment].

Anoop Singh [State Of MP Vs. Anoop Singh]- CrlA- 442 Of 2010- SC-03.07.2015- POSCO- Ocular Evidence, Medical Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Documentary Evidence, Police Investigation- Age Determination [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Ansari Vs. Shiji- Crl.MC.No. 6784 of 2017- KerHC-18.06.2018- DV Act, 2005- S-19 & S-23 [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. P. Versus M. P., Mat.App. 7/2014, Judgment Dated; 05.01.2016, Bench: Vipin Sanghi, J, Delhi High Court- The Act Of The Husband In Living And Begetting A Child With An d The Appeal Of The Husband Subject To An Examplinary Cost Of Five [5] Lac.

A.R. Antulay Vs. Ramadas Sriniwas Nayak- SC-16.02.1984-1984 (2) SCC 500= 1984 AIR 718- Quashing- Order of summoning- Private Complaint- Criminal Proced n, doctrine applied. [Full PDF Judgments]. 

Arial I Kumar Vs Shikha Kumar- FAM No. 103 of 2015- CHHHC- 07.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Arjun Mallik vs. State of Bihar- Criminal Appeal No. 367 of 1992-SC-02.03.1994-Citation-1994 Supp-2-SCC-372=JT 1994-2-627=1994-SCALE-  1-821- Criminal Law- Mo  to show that within all human probability the crime must have been committed by the accused.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Arnesh Kumar Vs. State Of Bihar– SC-02.07.2014- Criminal Appeal No. 1277  OF 2014- (2014) 8 SCC 273- Anticipatory Bail- U/S-438 CrPC- Offence- IPC-S-498A- S-4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961- Observed as follows: “There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial   ble for departmental action by the appropriate High Court [Full PDF Judgments].

Arti Gujar Vs. State Of  U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home And Anr. – Misc. Bench No. – 22997 Of 2016 – High Court Of Judicature At AllHC-23.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Arun Kumar Agrawal Versus CPIO, SEBI, F.No. L [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Aruna Rodrigues Vs. Union of India-Writ [Full PDF Judgment].

Arun Jaitley Vs. Arvind Kejriwal-DelHC-29.04.2016-CPC-O-VI-R-16- Striking Out Of Pleadings [Full PDF Judgment]

Arun Jaitley Vs. Arvind Kejriwal-DelHC-08.02.2016-CPC-O-VII-R-11- Rejection Of Plaint [Full PDF Judgment]

Arun Jaitley Vs. State Of U.P.,  nd sets aside Mahoba Judicial Magistrate’s order summoning Finance Minister  Arun Jaitley in a sedition case [Full PDF Judgment].

Arushi Talwar-Nupur Talwar-Rajesh Talwar-AllHC-12.10.2017-Crl. Appeal No.-293 of 2014-IPC-S-302-Acquittal.

Arvind Kejriwal-Case No.-No.- 6779 of 2016-Lucknow HC-21.10.2016- Quashing of FIR [Full PDF Judgment].

Arvind Kejriwal & Ors Versus Amit Sibal & Anr, Crl.M.C. 5245/2013,   t seek any adjournment.” [Full PDF Judgments]

Arvind Kejriwal Vs Arun Jaitley- DelHC-19.10.2016- Crl.M.C. 2417 of 2016-Quashing- Judicial Order- Interlocutory Order- Defamation Case [Full PDF Judgments]

Arvind Kejriwal Versus The State Of U.P  er.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Arun Jaitley Vs. Arvind Kejriwal- DelHC- 12.12.2017- CS-(OS)- 236 Of 2017-O-6, R-16, CPC- Striking out of pleadings- Abuse Of The Process Of The Court- Unnecessary, Scanda ay The Fair Trial [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. Satyanarayana Reddy And Others Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Others- Civil Appeal No. 3053 Of 2008-SC-29.04.2008 [Full PDF Judgment].

Asgar Yusuf Mukada and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another [Full PDF Judgment]

Ashik Muhammad Mohiyudheen A.M. Vs. State Of Kerala- Bail Appl. No. 2150 of 2018- KerHC-29.05.2018- Bail- Anticipatory Bail- POCSO [Full PDF Judgment].

Ashok Vs State of Maharashtra- Criminal Appeal No.216 OF 2013-BomHC-14.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh-SC-05or prosecution [Full PDF Judgment]

Ashok Chaturvedi Vs.Shitul H Chanchani-  rPC [Full PDF Judgments].

Ashok Chawla Vs. Ram Chander Garvan, Inspector CBI- – W g [Full PDF Judgment].

Ashok Kumar Vs. Mona – Mat. A. – F.C.- 59 Of 2015-DelHC- 16.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Ashok Kumar Vs. State Of Bihar & Ors – Civil Appeal No. 9092 Of 2012 – SC -21.10.2016- Quashing-Selection Process  [Full PDF Judgment]

Ashok Shankarrao Chavan Vs. His Excellency Shri. Ch. Vidyasagar Rao, The Hon’ble Governor Of Maharashtra–Writ Petition No. 776 Of 2016- BomHC-22.12.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Ashok Sharma Vs UOI- DelHC- 02.12.2016- W.P.-C-11130 of 2016-Quashing-Administrative Order-Demonetisation [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. Vs. Director Of Income Tax, ITA ed as equipment under Explanation 2 clause (iva) to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? [Full PDF Judgments].

Asian Resurfacing Of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation-  ths. [Full PDF Judgment].

Asraf Ali Vs. State of Assam, (2008) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 174 OF 2001-SC-17.07.2008-Citation-16-SCC-328-Cr.PC-S-313 [Full PDF Judgements].

Atanu Chattopadhyay Vs. Debangsu Basak, The Hon’ble Justice Of High Court At Calcutta & Ors.- W.P. 28879(W) Of 2017 -CalHC-04.01.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Atlas Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (126 (2006)  [Full PDF Judgment]

ATV Projects (India) Ltd Vs. Union Of India & Ors.- W.P.- C – 4340 Of 2017 – DelHC – 05.12.2017-Quashing-Legislation-SICA-S-4 [Full PDF Judgment].

Avinash Kumar Vs. State- Crl.A. 74 Of 2001-DelHC-14.12.2017- Custody- Custodial Death [Full PDF Judgment].

AVINDER SINGH ETC.Vs.STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. ETC.-    [Full PDF Judgments].

Aveek Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal- Criminal Appeal No.902 Of 2004-SC-03.02.2014- Quashing of FIR- Obscenity Case-Boris Becker Case [Full PDF Judgment]

Azadi Bachao Andolan [Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan]-  ted [Full PDF Judgment]   

Judgments-Index

Babloo Chauhan Alias Dabloo  Vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi- DelHC- 30.11.2017- Crl.A. 157/2013-  S-389 (1) & (3) CrPC- Suspension of sentence- Fines- Default sentences- Remedies for wrongful incarceration  [Full PDF Judgment].

Babubhai Versus State of Gujarat-   interfere’ [Full PDF Judgments].

Baij Nath Prasad Vs. Madan Mohan Das, AIR 1952  arity with the presiding Magistrate  [Full PDF Judgment].

Balbir Singh Vs. UOI And Ors.- W.P.(C) 2925 of 20 mber of family members to support etc. [Full PDF Judgment].

Baldev Singh- State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172- Seminal constitution bench judgment on S-50 of NDPS [Full PDF Judgment].

Baljeet Singh (Dr.) Vs. State NCT Of Delhi & Anr.-W.P.- Crl.- 482 of CrPC.- The FIR U/S- 498-A/406/34 IPC  [Full PDF Judgments].

Balkrishna Porwal v. PIO, Department of Posts- CIC-POST bition and Redressal) Act 2013 [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Balwant Singh And Another V. State Of Punjab’ Air 1995 Sc 1785- Bail- S-121-A IPC- Waging Of War Against The State [Full Pdf Judgment].

Balmukund Singh Gautam Vs. Smt. Neena   the doctrine of constructive knowledge. [Full PDF Judgment].

(The) Bar Association, Dhamtari Vs. The High Court Of Chhattisgarh – Writ Petition -C -No.3385 Of 2017 – ChHC – 05.01.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Bilquis Zakiuddin Bandookwala Vs. Shehnaz Shabbir Bandukwala- REVIEW PETITION NO. 41 OF 2010- BomHC-16.12.2010- Defendant Had A Right To Begin” The Evidence [Full PDF Judgment].

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. R. Rajappa-  d [Full PDF Judgment].

Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana, 1978 Cri LJ 472 at p. 477 (P & H) [Full PDF Judgment].

BCI [Bar Council Of India] Vs. A K Balaji-  ” [Full PDF Judgment].

Basavaraj R. Patil and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others- ering in the Court by his physical presence [Full PDF Judgment]

Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.- 2148 of 1977-SC-11.09.1978-Citations-1979-AIR-262=1979-SCR-1-590=1979-SCC-2-88- Notwithstanding any laws to the contrary- Non-Obstante Clause- “23…..“Inconsistent”, according to Black’s Legal Dictionary, means “mutually repugnant or contradictory; contrary, the one to the other so that both cannot stand, but the acceptance or establishment of the one implies the abrogation or abandonment of the other”. “…These social projections and operational limitations of the two statutory provisions must be grasped to resolve the legal conundrum………”  [Full PDF Judgment].

Bela Kapoor & Ors Vs. Vandana Kapoor & Ors.- Cs – Os – 1375 Of 2010 Ia No.8887 Of 2010 – Delhc-21.03.2013 [Full PDF Judgment].

BEST Worker’s Union Vs. Union of India- Writ Petition No.  2334   OF  2014 – BomHC- 14.10.2016-Quashing-Legislation [Full PDF Judgment].

Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State Of Gujarat & Another nal  ard [Full PDF Judgment].

Bhajan Lal: State of Haryana and Others Versus. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others–   rivate and personal grudge.”. [Full PDF Judgments].

Bharat Aluminium Co. Versus Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service,  t [Full PDF Judgments].

Bhartiben Bipinbhai Tamboli Vs. State Of Gujarat & 3.- Special Criminal Application -Domestic Violance – No. 5672 Of 2016 – AhdHC-08.01.2018- [Full PDF Judgment].

Bharat Sales Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India- (1998)-Case No.– SC-05.02.1998-Citation-3-SCC-1- Sub-letting and its Attributes [Full PDF Judgments]

Bharati Press Vs. Chief Secretary- PatHC-13.10.1950- 1951 CriLJ 309-  ns [Full PDF Judgments].

Bharwada Bhogin Bhai Harji Bhai Vs. State of  Gujrat – 1983 CrLJ 1096= AIR 1983 SC 753- Ulterior motive- Discrepancies not amounting to contradiction  [Full PDF Judgment].

Bher Chand Tikaji Bora [Enforcement Officer, Ted, Bombay Vs Bher Chand Tikaji Bora And Anr.-SC-09.04.1999- (1999) 5 SCC 720 – Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. Himmatlal Agrawal Vs. Competition Commission Of India & Anr.- Civil Appeal No. 5029 Of 2018- SC-18.05.2018- Competition Commission of India- CCI- Pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal [Full PDF Judgment].

Bhupendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh- Criminal would attract S-304B IPC [Full PDF Judgment].

Bimal Gurung Vs. Union Of India & Ors.- Writ Petition -Criminal- No. 182 Of 2017 – SC-16.03.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Bimolangshu Roy (Dead) Through Lrs Vs. State Of Assam &  9 Of 2006-SC-26.07.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Bina K. Ramani Versus State- DelHC-5.2.2010-M.C. No.3605 Of 2009 [Full PDF Judgments].

Bimal Krishna Kundu [The State Of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bimal Krishna Kundu & Anr.- SC-03.10.1997- Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail [Full PDF Judgment].

Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar, Crl. Appeal No.  5(1) JCC 664  [Full PDF Judgment].

Binoy Viswam Vs. Union Of India & Ors.- SC-09.06.2017- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 247 Of 2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

B Karunakar [Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar]-  ” [Full PDF Judgment].

Board of Auqaf, West Bengal  Vs Golam Mustapha- MAT 901 of 2016- CalHC- 15.06.2018- Waqf tribunal has no supervisory jurisdiction on waqf boards State of West Bengal [Full PDF Judgment].

Board Of Control For Cricket Versus Cricket Association Of Bihar, Civil SC-21.10.2016-Appeal No.4235 Of 2014 [Full PDF Judgment].

Bobbili Ramakrishna Raju Yadav & Ors. Versus State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr,  C [Full Bench PDF Judgment].

Bobby Art International etc. Vs. Om Pal Singh Hoon & Others- Civil Appeal Nos. 7523-7525-27 AND 7524-SC-01.05.1996-Citation-AIR 1996 SC-1846-Central Board of Film Certification-Film Certification Appellate Tribunal [FCAT] [Full PDF Judgment].

Bodhisattwa Gautam Vs Subhra Chakraborty- Writ Petition(Criminal) 2675 Of 1995 – SC-15.12.1995- AIR 1996 SC 922- right of survivor of compensation- Survivor- Right to compensation [Full PDF Judgment]

BPTP Ltd. Vs. CPI India Limited- Arb.A. No.8/2015 & OMP No.79 of 2015,   [Full PDF Judgment].

Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Inderpal Singh- Criminal Appeal No.1557 Of 2015-SC-24.11.2015, Bench- Jagdish Singh Khehar, J & R. Banumathi, Supreme Court Of India- Territorial Jurisdiction Of Courts [Full PDF Judgment].

B.S. Joshi & Ors. State of Haryana & Anr., Appeal (Crl.)  C [Full Bench PDF Judgment].

Budhia Auto Associate-Corporate-Co.-Winding Up Company Petition [Full PDF Judgment].

Calcutta Discount Company Limited Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Companies District, And Another- Civil Appeal No.-197 Of 1954-Sc-01.11.1960-Citation-1961-AIR-372=1961-SCR-2-241- Income Tax Act- Assessment- Reassessment- “omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. [Full PDF Judgments].

Cardamom Marketing Corporation & Anr. Vs. State Of Kerala & Ors.- Civil Appeal No. 4453 Of 2008 – Sc – 01.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

C.C.E. v Raghuvar (India) Ltd-(2000) 5 SCC 299- Issue, period of limitation in ID Act/ Labour Cases- Held, “Any law or stipulation prescribing a period of limitation to do or not to do a thing after the expiry of period so stipulated has the consequence of creation and destruction of rights and, therefore, must be specifically enacted and prescribed therefor. It is not for the courts to import any specific period of limitation by implication, where there is really none, though courts may always hold when any such exercise of power had the effect of disturbing rights of a citizen that it should be exercised within a reasonable period.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Central Bank of India SC ST Employees Welfare Association [Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India Vs. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association- Civil Appeal No.-209 Of 2015-SC-08.01.2016- Citation-2015-12-SCC-308- Review Petition- A request for a revisit of Order cannot be entertained ad nauseam [Full PDF Judgments].

Central Board Of Trustee Vs. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal [EPFAT]- W.P (C) No. 4312 Of 2004- DelHC-04.01.2018- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner [RPFC]- Employees‟ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal- Employees‟ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Full PDF Judgment

Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr (1986 SCR (2) 278)- – Corporate, Business & Commercial Law-  Commercial Contracts- Determinable Clauses- Termination Clause- Principle of “just, fair and devoid of arbitrariness”.

Central Secretariat Club Vs. Geetam Singh- W.P –C- No. 17474 of 2004-DelHC-02.11.2017- Minimum Wages Act, 1948 [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Centre for Environment Law, WWF-I Versus Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337/1995, Judgment Dated: 15.04.2013, Bench: K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.: Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J., Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 2013(8) SCC 234- 2013(7) JT 450- 2013(5) SCALE 710- 2013(5) SLT 697- Environmental Law- Environment- Convention biology, What is?- Held, Convention biology is the science that studies bio-diversity and the dynamics of extinction (Para 51)- HELD: No specie can survive on the brink of extinction indefinitely and the probabilities associated with a critically endangered specie make their extinction a matter of time. Convention biology is the science that studies bio-diversity and the dynamics of extinction. Eco-system approach to protecting endangered species emphasises on recovery, and complement and support eco-system based conservation approach. Reintroduction of an animal or plant into the habitat from where it has become extinct is also known as ex-situ conservation (Para 51) [Full PDF Judgment

Centre For PIL Vs. Union Of India & Ors. , Writ Petition (Civil) 171 Of 2003, Date Of Judgment: 16/09/2003, Bench: S. Rajendra Babu & G.P.Mathur, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Challenge to Government of India (GOI) policy decision in regard to selling of majority shares of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) to private parties without Parliamentary approval or sanction as being contrary to and violative of the provisions of the ESSO (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1974, the Burma Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1976 and Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining India Limited and all the Undertakings in India for Caltex India Limited) Act, 1977.- Oil & Natural Gas [Full PDF Judgment].

Centre For PIL Vs. Union Of India & Ors., Appeal (Civil) 2485 Of 1999, Date Of Judgment: 19.10.2000  , Bench: S.N.Hegde, S.S.M.Quadri, S.P.Bharucha,JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Challenge to Government of India (GOI) policy decision in regard to offering of its oil fields on joint venture- Agencies involved-  Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) & the Oil India Limited (OIL).- Oil & Natural Gas [Full PDF Judgment]

Centre for PIL & Anr. Versus Union of India & Anr., Writ Petition (C) No. 348 OF 2010,, Civil Appeal NO.733 OF 2012, Judgment Dated- 03.03.2011, Bench-  S.H. KAPADIA, CJI, K.S. Panikar Radhakrishnan, J, & Swatanter Kumar, J, Supreme Court Of India- (2011) 4 SCC 1- Quashing- Judicial Review- Appointment- the Post, Central Vigilance Commissioner [CVC]-  Challenge to policy decision of the Govt.- Institution- Institution is more important than an individual- The decision to recommend has got to be an informed decision- Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India giving rise to a substantial question of law of public importance as to the legality of the appointment of Shri P.J. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner under Section 4(1) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003- The said appointment of Shri P.J. Thomas quashed [Full PDF Judgment].

Centre For PIL Vs. Union Of India- Appeal (Civil) 681 Of 2004, Date Of Judgment: 22.10.2013, Bench: K. S. Radhakrishnan, Dipak Misra,,JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Writ petition seeking constitution of an independent Expert/Technical Committee to evaluate the harmful effects of soft drinks on human health, particularly on the health of the children [Full PDF Judgment].

Challapalli Sugars Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1975) 98 ITR 167, Held, the ICAI was a recognized authority on accounting principles and executive instructions had to be viewed from that perspective.

Chamoli District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Raghunath Singh Rana & Ors.- Civil Appeal No.2265 Of 2011- SC-17.05.2016- Labour Industrial Relations Laws- observance of principles of natural justice was not a mere formality in disciplinary proceedings [Full PDF Judgment].

Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai, Criminal Appeal No. 1627 Of 2007, Date Of Judgment: 27/11/2007, Bench-Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Aftab Alam, Supreme Court Of India-Citation-(2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 316= 2008 AIR 530= 2007(12 )SCR 577=  2007(13)SCALE 402=2008(1) JT 78 [Full PDF Judgments].

Chand Devi Daga Versus Manju K. Humatani-SC-03.09.2017- Criminal Appeal No. 1860 OF 2017-SC-03.11.2014- S-247, 249, 256 CrPC- Legal heirs- Right to prosecute Criminal Complaint- Locus and competence of Legal heir to be able to prosecute the criminal complaint [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Chander Bhan versus State, in Bail Application No.1627/2008-  (2008) 151 DLT 691-Section 498-A- rampant misuse [Full PDF Judgments].

Chander Sen- [Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Kanpur Vs. Chander Sen]- Civil Appeal Nos. 166870 of 1974- SC- 16.07-1986- (1986) 3 SCC 567- 1986 AIR 1753- HUF- Hindu Succession Act 1956- Property of father who dies intestate-Whether devolves on son, who separated by partition from his father, in individual capacity or Karta of his HUF- After the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, property which devolves on an individual from a paternal ancestor does not become HUF property but the inheritance is in the nature of self-acquired property unless an HUF exists at the time of the devolution- Merely on account of inheritance of ancestral property an HUF does not come into existence [Full PDF Judgment].

Chhatravas, Chandra Arya Vidya Mandir  Vs. The Director, Deptt Of Women And Child Dev. & ANR.- WP(C) 9590 of 2009-DelHC-03.03.2014- Statutory Compliance- Orphanage, Children‟s Home, Observation Home, Special Home, Shelter Home- Orphanages and other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Act, 1960- Women and Children Institutions Licensing Act, 1956- Children Act, 1960- Juvenile Justice Act, 1986- Registration of Orphanages envisaged by Section 34(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000- [Full PDF Judgment].

Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P., (1963) 3 SCR 412- Appeal, Review, Revision- Held, “It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of s. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial, when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may however indicate some cases of this kind, which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be : where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished of produce, or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; and in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of s. 439(4).” [Full PDF Judgments].

Chitra Sharma Versus Airline Allied Services Ltd, DelHC-30.10.2017- LPA 142 of 2017- Service Matter Writ- Termination of a sick employee of an Airline [Full PDF Judgment].

Chrisomar Corporation Vs. Mjr Steels Private Limited – Civil Appeal No. 1930 Of 2008 – SC- 14.09.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors. Versus Union Of India And Ors., T.C.(C) No.98 Of 2012, Judgment Dated: 18.07.2013, Bench: Altamas Kabir, CJI, Vikramajit Sen, Anil R. Dave, JJ, Supreme Court Of India (2014) 2 SCC 305- The major areas of challenge to the various state govt. notifications concerning NEET are: (i) The powers of the Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India to regulate the process of admissions into medical colleges and institutions run by the State Governments, private individuals (aided and unaided), educational institutions run by religious and linguistic minorities, in the guise of laying down minimum standards of medical education, as provided for in Section 19A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. (ii) Whether the introduction of one National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) offends the fundamental right guaranteed to any citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business? (iii)Whether NEET violates the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, as guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution? (iv) Whether subordinate legislation, such as the right to frame Regulations, flowing from a power given under a statute, can have an overriding effect over the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution? (v) Whether the exclusion of Entry 11 from the State List and the introduction of Entry 25 in the Concurrent List by the Constitution Forty Second (Amendment) Act, 1976, makes any difference as far as the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India under Section 33 of the 1956 Act and those framed by the Dental Council of India under Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948, are concerned, and whether such Regulations would have primacy over State legislation on the same subject? (vi) Whether the aforesaid questions have been adequately answered in T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka [(2002) 8 SCC 481], and in the subsequent decisions in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka [(2003) 6 SCC 697], P.A. Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 6 SCC 537] and Indian Medical Association Vs. Union of India [(2011) 7 SCC 179]? and (vii)Whether the views expressed by the Constitution Bench comprised of Five Judges in Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of M.P. [(1999) 7 SCC 120] have any impact on the issues raised in this batch of matters?- Held, “23. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, in my opinion, it cannot be said that introduction of the NEET would either violate any of the fundamental or legal rights of the petitioners or even adversely affect the medical profession. In my opinion, introduction of the NEET would ensure more transparency and less hardship to the students eager to join the medical profession.”. This judgment was recalled vide the judgment, “Medical Council Of India Versus. Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors., Review Petition (C)Nos.2159-2268 Of 2013 And Review Petition (C) NOS.2048-2157 OF 2013 IN TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NOS.98-105, 107-108,110-139, 142, 144-145 OF 2012 & 1-5, 7-25, 28-49, 53, 58-73, 75-76 & 107-108 OF 2013, Judgment Dated: 11.04.2016, Bench: Anil R. Dave, A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal, Adarsh Kumar Goel, R.Banumathi, JJ, Supreme Court Of India” [Full PDF Judgment].

Cipla Ltd.- Union Of India & Ors. M/S. Cipla Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 329 Of 2005, Judgment Dated: 21.10.2016, Bench: Madan B. Lokur & R.K. Agrawal, JJ, Supreme Court Of India: Quashing Of Central Govt. Notification, Fixing Retail Price Of Drug Formulations- Pharma Companies [Full PDF Judgment].

CJAR-Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms Vs. Union of India- Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169 Of 2017-3JBSC-01.12.2017- Sought a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction of similar nature to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired Chief Justice of India to investigate in the matter of alleged conspiracy and payment of bribes for procuring favourable order in a matter pending before Supreme Court- Held, “8) The petition is not only wholly frivolous, but contemptuous, unwarranted, aims at scandalizing the highest judicial system of the country, without any reasonable basis and filed in an irresponsible manner, that too by a body of persons professing to espouse the cause of accountability. What an irony of fate, the petitioner has itself forgotten its accountability and filing of such petition may entail in ultimate debarment of such petitioners from filing so-called public interest litigation which in fact has caused more injury to cause of public than sub serving it.- In the end, the Petition dismissed with a Cost of Rs.25,00,000/-. [Full PDF Judgment].

CJ Karira [CPIO CBI Vs. CJ Karira – W.P. – C -7439 Of 2012 – DelHC 07.09.2017] [Full PDF Judgment].

C.K. Sasankan Vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd.- (2009) 11 SCC 60- Rate of Interest- S-24 CPC- The principles and factors to be kept in mind by the adjudicating court while awarding interest under S-24 CPC- It was also held that in ascertaining the rate of interest the courts of law can take judicial notice of both inflation as also a fall in the bank rate of interest [Full PDF Judgment].

Clerks’ Association of Advocates- WP PIL No.-200 of 2016- Cases relied upon: Akhil Bhartiya Adhivakta Clerks Association & others Vs. UOI, Writ Petition No.430 of 2003- Held: “The advocates’ clerks are the integral part of the justice delivery system… It is the need of the hour that effective steps should be taken by the State Government to ameliorate their grievances” [Full PDF Judgment].

Comed Chemicals Ltd. Versus C.N. Ramchand, Arbitration Petition No. 17/2007, Judgment Dated: 06/11/2008, Bench: C.K. Thakker, J., Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 2009(1) R.A.J. 310: 2009 AIR(SC) 494: 2008(15) SCR 567: 2009(1) SCC 91: 2008(11) JT 547: 2008(13) SCALE 717: 2008(9) SLT 17: 2008(4) ArbLR 207- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- Sections 11(9), 2(1)(f), (1)(b) & 10- International commercial arbitration- What is; appointment of arbitrator by court, when permissible; existence of arbitration clause, scope- Applicant-company doing business in chemicals in the field of bio-technology- To expand the business it entered into a MOU with respondent for development of products in the field of bio-industries and manufacturing and marketing such products- Respondent appointed as Director (Technical) and allotted 40% equity shares in the subsidiary Company- Over and above that, he was to be paid salary and other benefits in lieu of services rendered by him- MOU providing that respondent will work full time with the company at least for next eight years from the date of signing of agreement- Allegation of company that respondent did not take interest in work and failed to attend Board Meetings and ultimately resigned before completion of work assigned to him in violation of agreement and also instigated other subordinate staff workers to leave the organization- In view of large investment by company, it refused to accept the resignation of respondent- Clause 12 of agreement provides that if there be any dispute pertaining to meaning of this MoU or of any nature, will be solved and decided by appointing an independent Arbitrator acceptable to all the parties and if not solved by him can be referred to court of law and for which the jurisdiction will be Vadodara- Failure of parties to agree on a name of arbitrator- Whether arbitration clause is existing and application for appointment of arbitrator by applicant-company before court is maintainable- Held, on facts, yes- If respondent is engaged by applicant Company to perform functions which are inextricably linked with functions which could be undertaken by a businessman or by a Company and such activities form an integral part of his activities, there is element of `commerce’- In that case, the provisions of Act would clearly apply- In the instant case, it is a case of International commercial arbitration and covered by clause of MOU between parties- Plea that there is no International Commercial Arbitration, unsustainable- Any dispute between the applicant- Company and the respondent would, therefore, be covered by Clause 12 of the Agreement which provides for arbitration- Hence, the contention that respondent was merely an employee and there was no element of business, trade or commerce has no substance and must be rejected- Since there is a dispute between parties, it has to be decided by arbitrator- As relevant clause provide for a sole arbitrator, hence, only one arbitrator to be appointed.- HELD: I find no substance in the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that there is no arbitration clause in the Agreement. Clause 12 of the agreement which provides for arbitration reads thus;- If there be any dispute pertaining to meaning of this MoU or of any nature, will be solved and decided by appointing an independent Arbitrator acceptable to all the parties and if not solved by him can be referred to court of law and for which the jurisdiction will be Vadodara.- Bare reading of the above clause leaves no room for doubt that it is an `arbitration clause’ and expressly declares that any dispute pertaining to MoU would be solved and decided by an arbitrator.- I am also unable to uphold the argument of the learned counsel that there is no International Commercial Arbitration. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no `commercial’ element in the agreement and what was agreed between the parties was to provide `technical know-how’ and `expertise’ to the applicant-Company for which the respondent was to be paid `fees’.- It has not been disputed by the applicant-Company that if the contract is merely of an employment and the relationship between the parties is of master and servant, the matter cannot be referred to Arbitral Tribunal. But if the respondent is engaged by the applicant Company to perform functions which are inextricably linked with functions which could be undertaken by a businessman or by a Company and such activities form an integral part of his activities, there is element of `commerce’. In that case, the provisions of the Act would clearly apply.- In the instant case, the respondent has been appointed as Director (Technical) and has been allotted 40% equity shares in the subsidiary Company (Comed Bio-Tech Ltd.). Over and above that, he was to be paid salary and other benefits in lieu of services rendered by him. Para 3 of the Agreement required the respondent to undertake certain responsibilities.- Thus, from settled legal position as also from the functions to be performed by the respondent, I hold that the respondent was working in dual or double capacity, i.e. (i) as an employee, and (ii) as a Director. In the later capacity, however, he was the Chief Executive Officer of the subsidiary Company and had to look after all operational matters. The functions to be performed by him were supervisory and related to policy making decisions in the affairs of the Company, as observed by this Court in Ram Pershad. Any dispute between the applicant-Company and the respondent would, therefore, be covered by Clause 12 of the Agreement which provides for arbitration. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent was merely an employee and there was no element of business, trade or commerce has no substance and must be rejected.- For the foregoing reasons, in my opinion, the application filed by the Company must be allowed by holding that the case is covered by clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act. It is a case of International Commercial Arbitration and is covered by Clause 12 of MoU. Since there is a dispute between the parties, it has to be decided by an arbitrator. The clause extracted hereinabove provides for an arbitrator i.e. sole arbitrator and hence only one arbitrator should be appointed. I, therefore, appoint Mr. Madhukar Fanse, retired Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad as the sole arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties [Full PDF Judgment].

Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [State of West Bengal Vs. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, W.B.]- 2010(3) SCC 571- Investigation- Independent Agency- CBI- Parameters laid down therein for investigation to be handed-over to an independent agency- Mere filing of charge-sheet would not preclude the power of the High Court to hand-over investigation to an independent agency [Full PDF Judgment].

Common Cause Vs. Union of India-SC-13.05.2015-W.P.197 of 2004-Ads-Government Advertisement Guidelines, 2014 [PDF Judgment].

Common Cause Vs. Union of India- SC-28.11.2017-Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1088 Of 2017- Quashing- Appointment- CBI- Challenge to Appointment of CBI Director- Violation of Vineet Narain Vs. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 cited [Full PDF Judgment].

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Poddar Cement P. Limited (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC)- The Court applied the doctrine of “updating construction‟, which required acknowledgment of the emergent trends in business, technology and law.

Common Cause Vs. Union of India and Ors., _____- (2016) 11 SCC 455- Mineral Law- What is “In the interest of mineral development” [Full PDF Judgment].

Common Cause Vs. Union Of India, Writ Petition(Civil) No.13 Of 2003, Judgment Dated-13.05.2015, Bench- Rajan Gogoi & Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Supreme Court Of India- Constitution Of India- Article-32- Public Interest Litigation- Writ Of Mandamus- Issue – Implementation of Statute, namely, Government Advertisement (Content Regulations) Guidelines, 2014.- The Five Principles Of Content Regulation: (i) Advertising Campaigns to be related to Government responsibilities; (ii) Advertisement materials should be presented in an objective, fair and accessible manner and be designed to meet the objectives of the campaign; (iii) Advertisement materials should be objective and not directed at promoting political interests of ruling party; (iv) Advertisement Campaigns be justified and undertaken in an efficient and cost-effective manner; Government advertising must comply with legal requirements and financial regulations and procedures [Full PDF Judgment].

CBI Vs. Coodil Ravikumar & 9 Ors.- In The Special Court At Bombay – Special Case No. 2 Of 1994 In C.B.I. Case No.R.C.52-A-92-Bom-BomHC-25.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Competition Commission Of India Vs. Oriental Rubber Industries Private Limited- LPA 607/2016- DHC-24.05.2018- A lawyer can accompany his client to the Director General, Competition Commission of India (DG, CCI), but he cannot sit with his client while his questioning: Delhi High Court Order Dated-24.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Consumer Education & Research Centre Vs. UOI- 1995 AIR 922- 1995 SCC (3)      42-SC-27.01.1995- Human tragedy of modem industry- Occupational accidents and diseases- Most serious forms of economic waste- Occupational health hazards- Diseases to the workmen employed in asbestos industries [Full PDF Judgment].

Consumer Protection Bar Association [State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary & Ors. Versus All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association- Civil Appeal No.(S). 2740 Of 2007- SC-18.05.2018- Paucity of infrastructure in the Consumer For a [Full PDF Judgment]

Crossword Entertainment Private Limited Vs. Central Board Of Film Certification- DelHC-11.12.2017- W.P.(C) 11992 of 2016 – Media & Entertainment- Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)- Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal (FCAT)- Cuts/Modifications/Excisions [Full PDF Judgment].

CTO- Anti Evasion-I, Kota Vs. M/S Anand Minerals Pvt Ltd- S.B. Sales Tax Revision -Reference No. 318 of 2011-RajHC-02.08.2017- Directions given to various Department- The officers present in the Court: Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate- Addl. Commissioner (Narcotics)- IG, ACB- S.P. CBI- Director, Revenue Intelligence- Asstt Director, IB- DG, Income Tax (Inv.)- Addl. DG, GST- Addl. Commissioner GST- Asstt Director, DRI- Commissioner, Customs [Full PDF Judgment].

CVS Insurance And Investments Vs. Vipul It Infrasoft Pvt. Ltd.-DelHC-08.12.2017- ARB.P. 9 Of 2017- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- Section 11- Seat of the Arbitration- Jurisdiction-  viz. Jurisdiction at Delhi or Noida when the agreement between the parties give exclusive jurisdiction to courts at Noida? [Full PDF Judgment].

Custodian of Evacuee Property Bangalore, The Vs. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor etc.– CIVIL Appellate Jurisdiction: Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1954- SC- SC-09.12.1994- (1961) 3 SCR 855- Writ of Certiorari- Four proposition laid- “(1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting  errors of jurisdiction; (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction,   as   when   it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice; (3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous. (4) An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari if it is a manifest [Full Pdf Judgment].

Kindly CLICK HERE or e-mail us at office@hellocounsel.com if you are facing any Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empanelled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.

Judgments-Index

D Vs. P Alias R- MAT.APP.(F.C) 161/2017-DelHC-15.12.2017– Divorce-HMA- S-13(1)(a)- what should be the contents of a petition filed under the HM Act- Reference made to the Rule 7 of Delhi High Court Rules, 1967, “7. Contents of petition-In addition to the particulars required to be given under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code and Section 20(1) of the Act, all petitions under Section 9 to 13 shall state: (g) The matrimonial offence or offences alleged or other grounds, upon which the relief is sought, setting out with sufficient particularity the time and places of the acts alleged, and other facts relied upon, but not the evidence by which they are intended to be proved, e.g.: … (iv) ……in the case of cruelty, the specific acts of cruelty and the occasion when and the place where such acts were committed.”- Condonation part very material- Reference made to S-23 of the HMA: “23. Decree in proceedings – (1) In any proceeding under this Act, whether defended or not, if the court is satisfied that:- (a) xxx xxx xxx — (b) where the ground of the petition is the ground specified in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 13, the petitioner has not in any manner been accessory to or connived at or condoned the act or acts complained of, or where the ground of the petition is cruelty the petitioner has not in any manner condoned the cruelty, and…….” [Full PDF Judgment].

Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited Vs. Malvinder Mohan Singh- O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6 Of 2016- DelHC-31.01.2018- Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996- Arbitration & Conciliation- international arbitral award- Jurisdictional issues- enforcement and execution of the Foreign Award-tribunal in Singapore- Share Purchase and Share Subscription Agreement (SPSSA)- Self Assessment Report SAR- US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)- Department of Justice (DOJ)- Art.-15, Art.-39(e) & (f) and Art.-45 of the Constitution of India empower the state to make special provisions for protection of children- It was alleged against Ranbaxy, that it had intentionally fabricated data for regulatory submissions to various regulators, as also kept the SAR secret and had misrepresented the ongoing investigation by the US Regulatory authorities as routine regulatory exercise and a meritless fishing expedition launched at the behest of a competitor. [Full Pdf Judgment]

Daljit Singh & Ors. Versus Sukhwinder Kaur & Anr., Crl. Misc. No. M-8742 of 2015(O&M), Judgment Dated: 03.10.2016, Bench: Anita Chaudhary, JJ, Punjab & Haryana High Court: Quashing Of FIR- S-406 & 498A IPC [Full PDF Judgments].

Dalmia Resorts International Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deepak Gupta- Crl. R. No. 228 of 2002- DelHC-09.05.2002- ___- Case U/S-138 NI Act- NBW issued in this Case [Full PDF Judgments].

Dalpat Kumar Vs. Prahlad Singh-16.10.1991-(1992) 1 SCC 719- AIR 1993 SC 276- S-41(H) Of The Specific Relief Act, 1963- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2-Ex Parte Injunction- Injunction When Refused [Full PDF Judgments].

Damodar Lal Versus Sohan Devi And Others, Civil Appeal No. 231 OF 2015, Judgment dated: 05.01.2016, Bench: T. S. Thakur, CJI, Kurian Joseph, J, Supreme Court Of India- Rent matter- Appeals Under Rent Laws- Landlord had been successful both in the trial court and the first appellate court, however, the High Court in second appeal went against him on a pure question of fact- Landlord filed SLP in Supreme Court- The Supreme Court reversed the High Court Order, as follows:  “… approach made by the High Court has been wholly wrong, if not, perverse. It should not have interfered with concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court on a pure question of fact. The strained effort made by the High Court in second appeal to arrive at a different finding is wholly unwarranted apart from being impermissible under law.”- Landlord succeeds [Full PDF Judgments].

Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. Vs. Amar & Ors.- Civil Appeal Nos.-188-189 Of 2018- SC-01.02.2018- Partition Suit- The right to partition- The right is inherent and can be availed of by any coparcener, now even a daughter who is a coparcener. [Full Pdf Judgment].

Danial Latifi & Anr. Vs. Union Of India, Writ Petition (Civil) 868 Of 1986, Judgment Dated: 28.09.2001, Bench: G.B. Pattanaik, S. Rajendra Babu, D.P. Mohapatra, Doraiswamy Raju & Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, 2001 (8) SC 218 [5 Judge bench]- Talaq Under Muslim Law- In This Case the Court held the constitutional validity of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 [Full PDF Judgments].

Dante Farinello Cardoso Vs. State of UP- Criminal Revision No. – 84 of 2016- AllHC-31.05.2016- Sentence-Proportionate [Full PDF Judgment].

Dataram Singh Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.-SC-06.02.2018- Criminal Appeal No.227 Of 2018- Bail- New Guidelines, 2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar: State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others – CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 753-755 of 2009- SC-07.12.2011- AIR 2012 SC 364)- Extent & Scope of Section 482 Cr.PC & Section 482 Cr.PC discussed [Full PDF Judgments].

Daya Singh Lahoria v. Union of India and others- Writ Petition -Crl-256 of  2000- SC-17.04.2001- Citation- [(2001) 4 SCC 516]- Issue, Extradition Treaty [Full PDF Judgments].

  1. Dhaya Devadas Vs. Anupam Nandi, CPIO, IBM, F.No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000835,836,837,966, 1050,1114,1183, 1257, 1394,1397,1618,1844, 1806 and  CIC/SG/A/2012/001408 (14 cases), Judgment Dated:  30.11. 2015, Bench: M.Sridhar Acharyulu, IC, Yashovardhan Azad, IC, Vijai Sharma, CIC- On the issue of Mining allotment related information [Full PDF Judgments].

DHBA [Union Of India Vs.Delhi High Court Bar Association]- Appeal (Civil) 4679  of  1995- 3JBSC-14.03.2002- The challenge to the constitutional validity of The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [Full PDF Judgments].

Debendra Nath Padhi- [State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi]- Appeal-Crl-497 of 2001-SC-29.11.2004- (2005) 1 SCC 568- Section- 91 Cr.P.C.- Summons to produce document or other thing [Full PDF Judgments].

Deepak Bajpai  Vs.  State  Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And  Arun Jaitley – Crl.- Rev.P. 685 Of 2017 & Crl.- M.A. 15058 Of 2017-Delhc-27.10.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Deepak Khosla v. Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd.[DB], Letters Patent Appeal No. 16 of 2012- SC-24.04.2012- Letters Patent Appeal No. 16/2012 [Sanjiv Khanna, J.: R.V. Easwar, J.]- Contempt Of Court- In the Case the Hon’ble High Court declined the motion, holding, inter alia, the direction to appellant, as passed by the subordinate Court, were stringent, severe, deleterious & unsustainable and therefore liable to be set aside [Full PDF Judgments].

Delfi as v. Estonia, Application no. 64569/09, Judgment Dated: 16.06.2015, Grand Chamber Of The European Court Of Human Rights [ECHR] [ 17 Judges Judgments]- Findings, DELFI AS, a news portal held liable for comments made on its website.- In India, this Case casts bearing on Sec 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which offers protection for intermediaries in a particular facts & circumstances.- The Parallel of this Case can be traced down to the Case, namely, “Shreya Singhal”, where Sec 66A of the Act was quashed, and constitutional validity of Sec 79 and 79A was upheld [Full PDF Judgments].

Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited Vs. Alok Mehndiratta- FAO 90 Of 2017- DelHC-04.01.2018- O-VII, R-11 CPC- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2 CPC- [Full PDF Judgment].

Deoraj Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others-SC-06.04.2004-Appeal (Civil) 2084 of 2004- (2004) 4 SCC 697- Stay & Injunction- O-XXXIX, R-1, & 2- Interim relief- Final relief-Where withholding of an interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of main petition itself – Granting of an interim relief would tantamount to granting the final relief itself. [Full PDF Judgment].

Devender Kumar Versus Khem Chand, Crl. Rev. P. 679 of 2012, Decided on 06-10-2015, Bench- Ashutosh Kumar, J, Delhi High Court.- On Legally Enforceable Debt & Liability- On Legally Enforceable Debt & Liability & Onus to prove and of rebuttal [Full PDF Judgments].

Dhanaj Singh Alias Shera Vs. State Of Punjab- SC-10.03.2004- Appeal (Crl.) 941 of 2003- (2004) 3 SCC 654- Evidence & Witness- Investigation- Held, When the direct testimony of the eye-witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence fully establishes the prosecution version failure or omission of negligence on part of the IO cannot affect credibility of the prosecution version.- Further held, Even if the investigation is defective, in view of the legal principles set out above, that pales into insignificance when ocular testimony is found credible and cogent [Full PDF Judgments].

Dhananjay Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka-Appeal-Crl-1000  of  1999-SC-14.03.2001- 2001 4 SCC 9- S-293(4) CrPC- The trial Court can accept documents issued by any of the six officers enumerated therein as valid evidence without examining the author of the documents- The same was held in the Cases, State of HP Vs. Mast Ram (2004) 8 SCC 660 & Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (2008) 4 SCC 493 [Full PDF Judgment]

Dhanwanti Devi [Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi]- SC-21.08.1996 (1996) 6 SCC 44- Taxation Laws [Full PDF Judgments].

Dhanyamol C.J. Versus State Of Kerala, WP (C).No. 3450 Of 2014, Judgment Dated- 17.08.2015, Bench: Dama Seshadri Naidu, J, Kerala High Court– The Court held that  the Rule prohibiting women from being employed in a bar in Kerala is unconstitutional. The said rule, held the Court, fall foul of the Constitutional scheme of gender equality as has been spelt out in Articles 14, 15 (1) & (2) and 16 (1) & (2) of the Constitution of India [Full PDF Judgment].

Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.- Criminal Appeal No. 12 Of 2018- SC-05.01.2018-Condition precedent to commencement of investigation- Police have no unfettered discretion to commence investigation- Power to investigate- quashing of investigation- quashing of proceedings- quashing of FIR- Held, “30..In order to examine as to whether the factual contents of the FIR disclose any prima facie cognizable offences or not, the High Court cannot act like an investigating agency and nor can exercise the powers like an appellate Court. Further held, “34. The inherent powers of the High Court, which are obviously not defined being inherent in its very nature, cannot be stretched to any extent and nor can such powers be equated with the appellate powers of the High Court defined in the Code.”. The Supreme Court concluded by holding that the High court committed a  jurisdictional error [Full PDF Judgment]

Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) Versus State of Gujarat, Appeal (Crl.) 739 of 2008, Date Of Judgment: 28.04.2008 Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam & Aftab Alam, JJ, (2008) 5 SCC 66,  Supreme Court Of India- Cancellation Of Bail- Issue, that seriousness of the offences, and the sentences to be imposed were not kept in view. Also, Irrelevant factors were taken into consideration for granting bail.- Held, the order of granting bail to the appellant was certainly vulnerable and cancellation of the bail by the High Court was justified and therefore could not be interfered with [Full PDF Judgments].

Dipanwita Roy Vs. Respondent: Ronobroto Roy- Civil Appeal No. 9744 of 2014- SC-15.10.2014- Matrimonial- DNA Test [Full PDF Judgment]

Disabled Rights Group & Anr. Vs. Union Of India- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 292 Of 2006 – SC-15.12.2017-Various directions issued [Full PDF Judgment].

Divyansh Arora, Master Vs. Union Of India- DelHC- 14.11.2017- W.P.(C) 6759/2016- Adoption- CARA- HAMA- Adoption under HAMA Act is complete in itself, being in accordance law of the land- Grave injustice to a child if he/she is forced to live in lurch [Full PDF Judgments].

  1. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal- SC-24.07.2015- 18.12.1996- 01.08.1997- _____- 1997 (1) SCC 416- 2015 (8) SCC 744- Arrest, Detention, Custodial Death & Torture-Damages & Compensation- Bail- [Full PDF Judgment Dated: 24.07.2015] [Full PDF Judgment Dated: 18.12. 1996] [Full PDF Judgment Dated: 01.08. 1997

Don Ayengia . Versus The State of Assam & Anr., Criminal Appeal Nos. 82-83 OF 2016,  Judgment Dated: 28.01.2016, T.S. Thakur & Kurian Joseph, JJ, Supreme Court OF India- Plea of “security” qua the cheques.- The Court held, “This would ordinarily and in the context in which the cheques were given imply that once the debt / liability was discharged, the cheques shall have to be returned. In case, however, the amount was not paid within the period stipulated, the cheques were liable to be presented, for otherwise there was no logic or reason for their having been issued and handed over in the first instance. If non-payment of the agreed debt/liability within the time specified also did not entitle the holder to present the cheques for payment, the issue and delivery of any such cheques would be meaningless and futile if not absurd.- If cheques were issued in relation to a continuing contract or business where no claim is made on the date of the issue nor any determinate amount payable to the holder, one could perhaps argue that the cheques cannot be presented or prosecution launched on a unilateral claim of any debt or liability [Full PDF Judgments].

Doongar Singh Versus The State Of Rajasthan-SC-28.11.2017- Criminal Appeal Nos. 2045-2046 Of 2017- Issue, Adjournments [Full PDF Judgments].  

Dunlop [Asst. Collector Of Customs OF Central Excise Chandan Nagar Vs. Dunlop]- SC-30.11.1994- (1985) 1 SCC 260- 1985 AIR 330- 1985 SCR -2-190- Law Declared By The Supreme Court Is The Law Of The Land [Full PDF Judgments].

  1. Venkatasubramaniam Vs. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari (2009) 10   SCC 488- Extent & Scope of Section 482 Cr.PC & Section 482 Cr.PC discussed [Full PDF Judgments].

Kindly CLICK HERE or e-mail us at office@hellocounsel.com if you are facing any Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empanelled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.

Judgments-Index

E.C. Ramakrishnan Vs Mrinalini @ Nalini-KerHC-12.06.2018- DNA Test [Full PDF Judgment]

  1. Sivakumar Vs Union Of India And Ors.- Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ___Of 2018 (Diary No.17180/2018)-  CBI Investigation- Transfer of investigation to CBI [3JB-Full PDF Judgment].

Energy Watchdog Vs. Union Of India- DelHC-06.11.2017- W.P.-C-No.9269 of 2017 [Full PDF Judgments].

Essar Teleholdings [Commissioner Of  Income Tax 5 Mumbai Vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.]- Civil Appeal No.2165 Of 2012-SC-31.01.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

E.V.Chinnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh- Appeal (Civil)  6758 of 2000- 5JBSC-05.11.2004- 2 (2005) 1 SCC 394- Service Law- Reservation- Articles 16(4), 16(4A) and 16(4B) of the Constitution of India [Full PDF Judgment- Part-I | Part-II].

Extra Judl. Exec. Victim Families Assn. & Anr.  Vs. Union of India & Ors.- Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 129 Of 2012-Fake Encounter- SIT Investigation/ CBI Investigation [Full PDF Judgment-SC-14.07.2017] [Full PDF Judgment-SC-08.07.2016

Kindly CLICK HERE or e-mail us at office@hellocounsel.com if you are facing any Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empanelled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.

Judgments-Index

Fabindia Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. The Asst.Commissioner – Assessment – Dept. Of   Commercial Taxes, Special Circle Ii,Ernakulam – WP-C- No. 19428 Of 2012 –   KerHC – 06.06.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

F.A. Pictures International Vs. CBFC and Anr. AIR 2005 BOM 145- Central Board of Film Certification- Film Certification Appellate Tribunal [FCAT] [Full Pdf Judgment]

Fashion Design Council Of India Vs. Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi-W.P.(C) 2563 Of 2013- DelHC-22.12.2017-Quashing-Challenge to the vires of the second explanation to S-2(m) of the Delhi Entertainment and Betting Tax Act [DEBT Act] [Full PDF Judgment].

Federation Of Hotel And Restaurant Associations Of India Appellant Vs. Union Of India- Civil Appeal No. 21790 OF 2017- SC- 12.12.2017- Consumer Laws- hotels and restaurants- Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977- Pre-packaged commodity- Institutional consumers [Full PDF Judgment].

Federation Of NOIDA Residents Welfare Vs. NOIDA Toll Bridge Company Ltd.-PIL No.- PIL No. – 60214 of 2012 -AllHC-26.10.2016-Quashing-Arbitrary action of the State or its instrumentality [Full PDF Judgment].

Felix MA-W.P.(C) No. 7778 of 2018- KerHC-08.03.2018- The Court observed: “one man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric, so to say”- Further observed- “beauty lies in the beholder’s eye, so does obscenity, perhaps”. [Full PDF Judgment].

Francis Coralie Mullin Vs. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi- Writ Petition No. 3042 of 1980-3JBSC- 13.01.1981- 1981 AIR 746- Writ- Constitution of India- Art- 226 & 32- Art-19(1)(d), 21 & 38- Basic Amenities- Water- Food- Road- Education [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Kindly CLICK HERE or e-mail us at office@hellocounsel.com if you are facing any Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empanelled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.

Judgments-Index

Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra- Appeal (Crl.)  639 of 1999-SC-28.09.2004- (2004) 4 SCC 359 = AIR 2006 SC 1037- – It is no more open to any Court to prematurely terminate a criminal case (Quash an FIR ) behind the back of the complainant/whistle blower without giving him an opportunity of being heard [Full PDF Judgment].

Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas Versus State Of Gujarat, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 191 Of 2015, Judgment Dated: 15.09.2015, Bench: Jayant Patel, ACJ. & N.V.Anjaria, JJ, Gujrat High Court- Substantial question of law, declare the notification issued by the State Government of blocking/banning access to Mobile Internet Services during the relevant period as void ab initio, ultra vires and unconstitutional; issue appropriate writ, permanently restraining the State and its officers from imposing a complete or partial ban, blocking access to Internet Mobile/Broadband Services in the State of Gujarat, as it is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently beyond the powers of the State Government under the relevant laws; the respondent no.1 is vicariously liable and respondent no. 6 is personally liable for the unconstitutional and arbitrary action of banning Mobile Internet access and for causing loss ” [Full PDF Judgment].

Gautam Kundu     Vs.   Directorate   of   Enforcement (Prevention   of   Money Laundering   Act),   Government   of India- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1706  OF  2015-SC-16.12.2015- (2015) 16 SCC 1- Bail in PMLA, ED, and Analogous Crimes- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2012 (PMLA)- S-45- Offences to be cognizable and non-­bailable-  Held, “34. “xxx   xxx xxx    We have noted that Section 45 of the PMLA will have overriding effect on the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case of conflict between them. As mentioned earlier, Section 45 of the PMLA imposes two conditions for grant of bail, specified under the said Act. We have not missed the proviso to Section 45 of the said Act which   indicates   that   the   legislature   has   carved   out   an exception for grant of bail by a Special Court when any person is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is a sick or infirm. Therefore, there is no doubt that the conditions laid down under Section 45­A of the PMLA, would bind the High Court as the provisions of special law having overriding effect on   the   provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to any person accused of committing offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, even when the application for bail is considered under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”[Full PDF Judgment].

G.C. Roy [Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orrisa Vs. G.C. Roy]- Appeal (Civil)  1403 of 1986 – SC – 12.12.1991- AIR 1992 SC 732= (1992) 1 SCC 508, Interest- Observed, a person deprived of use of money to which he is legitimately entitled as of right, to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages [Full PDF Judgment].

Geeta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. 2726/2014, Judgment Dated- 05/03/2015, Bench-Manmohan Singh, J, Citations- 2015(3) AD(Delhi) 322: 2015(149) DRJ 351- Observed as follows: “19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding. 20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: “there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.” The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes. 21. In yet another case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 in the matter of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. it was observed that there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498A against the husband and his relatives and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power.” [Full PDF Judgment]

Geeta Mehrotra and anr. Vs. State of U.P.-SC-17.10.2012- Criminal Appeal No. 1674 OF 2012-Quashing of Proceedings- Quashing of summoning Order-Inherent power-IPC-S-498A, 406, 341, 323- [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Ghulam Mohi-Ud-Din Wani Vs. State Of Jammu & Kashmir- Criminal Appeal Nos.1275-1276 Of 2014- SC- 15.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Gian Kaur Vs. The State Of Punjab- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 167 OF 1984-SC-21.03.1996, Bench: Verma, Jagdish Saran (J)& Ray, G.N. (J)& Singh N.P. (J) & Faizan Uddin (J) & Nanavati G.T. (J), Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 1996(2) SCC 648= 1996 AIR  946= JT 1996 (3) 339- Quashing of Legislation- Issue, Whether S-306 IPC is unconstirutional [Full PDF Judgment].

Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab– (Crl.) No.8989 of 2010- SC-23.11.2010-Criminal Appeal Nos.2107-2125 of 2011- SC-24.09.2012- 2012-10-SCC-303= 2012(9) SCALE 257- Settlement And Compounding Of Criminal Cases- This matter Came up for consideration before this bench on reference from two judge bench to adjudge the correctness of the following judgments: B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2008) 9 SCC 677,  and Manoj Sharma v. State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1- Held, “57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any 54 Page 55 Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction 55 Page 56 is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”- Further Held, “58. In view of the above, it cannot be said that B.S. Joshi1 , Nikhil Merchant2 and Manoj Sharma3 were not correctly decided. We answer the reference accordingly.”[Full PDF Judgment- 23.11.2010] [Full PDF Judgment- 24.09.2012].

Giridhari Nath Vs. Mamitarani Sutar – CRLREV NO. 608 of 2016-OriHC- 15.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

GKN Drive Shafts (India) Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer – Appeal-Civil-7731 of 2002-SC-25.11.2002- 2002 Supp (4) SCR 359- Income Tax Act- Ss- 143, 147, 148- Notice U/S- 143- Assessment- Reassessment- Abuse of power under Section 147- Held, Without disposing of the petitioner’s objections to the reopening of assessment and without passing a speaking order, the assessment could not have been completed [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. Madhavan Nair Versus Union Of India, W.P.(C).No.30342 Of 2014 (P), Judgment Dated: 10.02.2016, Bench: K. Vinod Chandran, J, Kerala High Court [Full PDF Judgment]- Issue, territorial jurisdiction of the Writ Court- The petitioner would contend that the petitioner was never issued with Exhibit P1 or P2 and that the same were available in the website of the Department, which he happened to be confronted with, at his residence at Thiruvananthapuram, to which place he had retired after being divested of the Professorship. The petitioner being a native of the State of Kerala and having his permanent residence at Kerala, is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, is the contention.- Held, “19. As far as Exhibit P1 and P2, the contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner was made aware of the same through the website at his native place within the State of Kerala and that these created a disability on the petitioner from any further engagement with the Governments throughout the territory of India and he being so aggrieved, could raise the contention before the High Court of Kerala. Immediately it is to be noticed that the petitioner has not pleaded that the disability created on him by Exhibit P2, has divested him of any post or even an opportunity for such an engagement within the State of Kerala. The mere fact that the petitioner was made aware of Exhibit P1 & P2, only through the website, at Kerala would not be sufficient to confer jurisdiction. To assume jurisdiction on such a pleading would be specious, since then, with the accessibility to the website through the internet, the petitioner could as well plead that the same was accessed anywhere in India to confer jurisdiction in any High Court within the territories of India. The report of the High Level Team and Exhibits P2 and P3 have an inextricable link and the “cause of action” arose for the petitioner, on his being served with the order at Exhibit P3, which he would have to take recourse by a writ petition filed before the High Court within whose jurisdiction such cause of action or any other arose [Full PDF Judgment].

G.Mahalingappa vs. G.M. Savitha- Appeal (Civil) 2867 of 2000-SC-09.08.2005-Ingredients, requirements of Benami Transaction Act, 1988 [Full PDF Judgment].

GNCTD [Government Of National Capital Territory Of Delhi] Versus Union Of India, W.P.(C) No.5888/2015, Judgment Dated: 04.08.2016, Bench: G.Rohini, Chief Justice & Justice Jayant Nath, Delhi  High Court  Issue, Extent & Scope Of The Powers Of The Lt. Governor, Delhi & The Chief Minister, Delhi- Related Legislations: Article-239AA of the Constitution of India; Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 & the Transaction of Business of the Government of NCT of Delhi Rules, 1993.- The Lt. Governor of Delhi is the administrative head of NCT Delhi. The Governor is not under an obligation to act on the advice of the Cabinet [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Goa Plast (P) Ltd. vs. Chico Ursula D’souza & Anr.- Appeal (Crl.)  1968 of 1996-SC-20.11.2003- (2003) 3 SCC 232- Presumption of debt & liability U/S-139 of the NI Act & Right to rebuttal [Full PDF Judgment].

Goloconda Linga Swamy [State of A.P. v. Goloconda Linga Swamy]-Appeal (crl.)  1180 of 2003-SC-27.07.2014- AIR 2004 SC 3967- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC.-, Held, “It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of malafides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding.” [Full PDF Judgments].

Gotan Lime Stone- State Of Rajasthan & Ors Versus Gotan Lime Stone Khanji Udyog Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., SC- 20.01.2016- Civil Appeal No. 434 Of 2016- Mineral Law- Held, “26. …..the doctrine of lifting the veil can be invoked if the public interest so requires or if there is allegation of violation of law by using the device of a corporate entity. In the present case, the corporate entity has been used to conceal the real transaction of transfer of mining lease to a third party for consideration without statutory consent by terming it as two separate transactions – the first of transforming a partnership into a company and the second of sale of entire shareholding to another company. The real transaction is sale of mining lease which is not legally permitted. Thus, the doctrine of lifting the veil has to be applied to give effect to law which is sought to be circumvented.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Govt of NCT Delhi through Dy. Secretary to CM Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, RC No. DAI/ 2015/ A/ 0042U/ S-120B IPC and section 13(2)r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act 1988, CBI Vs. Rajendra Kumar & Ors. (Under investigation); Order dated-20.01.2016, Bench: Ajay Kumar Jain, Spl Judge, CBI, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. Sagar Suri  Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.- Appeal (Crl.)  91 of 2000- SC-28.01.2000- AIR 2000 SC 754- 2000 (1) SCR 417- Quashing- Criminal proceedings- Case U/S-420 IPC [Full PDF Judgment].

Gunasekaran [Union Of India V. P. Gunasekaran]- S.L.P. (Civil) No. 23631 Of 2008- Sc-03.11.2014- (2015) 2 SCC 610- In The Disciplinary Proceedings, The High Court Cannot Act As An Appellate Authority, Re-Appreciating The Evidence Before The Enquiry Officer. The High Court, In Exercise Of Its Powers U/Art.-226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Shall Not Venture Into Re-Appreciation Of The Evidence. The High Court Can Only See Whether: [Full PDF Judgment

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., Vs. State of Punjab– SC-09.04.1980- Criminal Appeals Nos.335 Of 1978- (1980) 2 SCC 565=1980 AIR 1632- Anticipatory Bail- Judicial Balancing of Personal Liberty of Investigational Powers [Full PDF Judgment– Five Judge Constitution Bench].

Gurcharan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)-SC-06.12.1977-Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 1977-1978 SCC (1) 118- AIR 1987 SC 179-1978 SCR (2) 358- Cancellation of Bail- Jurisdictional Issue- Co-ordinate bench of the same court not empowered to sit in Appeal[Full PDF Judgment].

Guria, Swayam Sevi Sansthan Versus State Of U.P. & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1373 2009,  Date Of Judgment: 31.07.2009, S.B. Sinha, & Cyriac Joseph, JJ, Supreme Court OF India [Full PDF Judgments].

Gurucharan Singh Vs. Union Of India- DelHC-27.04.2016-WP-Crl-307-of-2016-Bail-in-PMLA-ED-and-Analogous-Crimes [Full PDF Judgment].

Kindly CLICK HERE or e-mail us at office@hellocounsel.com if you are facing any Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empanelled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.

Judgments-Index

Haji Ali Dargah Trust Case- Noorjehan Safia Niaz Dr. Versus State of Maharashtra & Haji Ali Dargah Trust, Public Interest Litigation No. 106 Of 2014, Judgment Dated: 26.08.2016, Bench: V. M. Kanade &
 Revati Mohite Dere, JJ, Bomaby High Cour- Issue, a PIL, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where some social activists have alleged gender discrimination and arbitrary denial of access to women in the sanctum sanctorum at the Haji Ali Dargah.- Held, “38. Accordingly, the petition must succeed and is allowed. We hold that the ban imposed by the respondent No. 2 Trust, prohibiting women from entering the sanctum sanctorum of the Haji Ali Dargah contravenes Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the Constitution, and as such restore status-quo ante i.e. women be permitted to enter the sanctum sanctorum at par with men. The State and the respondent No. 2 Trust to take effective steps to ensure the safety and security of women at the said place of worship.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Harish Uppal, Ex-Capt. Vs. Union of India-17.12.2002- Writ Petition -(Civil)- 132 of 1988- 2003 (2) SCC 45- Bar Associations- Bar Councils- Lawyers- Right to strike- Boycotts of Courts [Full PDF Judgment-I] [Full PDF Judgment-II[Full PDF Judgment-III].

Harish Chandra Singh Rawat Versus Union of India and another, Writ Petition No. 795 of 2016, Judgment Dated: 29.03.2016, Bench: U.C. Dhyani, J., High Court Of Uttarakhand At Nainital- The Art.-356 Of the Constitution- Imposition of President Rule In Uttarakhand- Writ Petition by Harish Chandra Singh Rawat, the Chief Minister- The Double Bench of the High Court revoked the President Rule, and ordered a Floor test in the assembly [Full PDF Judgment].

Harita Sunil Parab Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi And Others – Transfer Petition – Crl – Nos.254-255 Of 2017 With Transfer Petition- Crl.- Nos.253 Of 2017 – Sc – 28.03.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others.- Civil Appeal No.-61 of 1954- 7JSC-09.12.1954- 1955- AIR- 233- 1955- SCR- (1)-1104- Writ of Certiorari- Four proposition laid- “(1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting  errors of jurisdiction; (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction,   as   when   it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice; (3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence  of this  is that the  court will not  review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous. (4) An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari if it is a manifest [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Harshd S. Mehta Securities Scam-CBI Coodli Ravikumar- BomHC- 25.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Harvinder Kaur Vs. Jagdish Pal Singh Bindra-TA No. 133 of 2013(O&M)-P&HHC – 04.05.2015 [Full PDF Judgment].

Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja- Civil Appeal No.- 4222 Of 2008-SC- 08.07.2008- (2008) 9 SCC 31- Service Law- Labour Law- Natural Justice- Inquiry- Dismissal- Termination- Held, “21. From the ratio laid down in B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727] it is explicitly clear that the doctrine of natural justice requires supply of a copy of the inquiry officer’s report to the delinquent if such inquiry officer is other than the disciplinary authority. It is also clear that non-supply of report of the inquiry officer is in the breach of natural justice. But it is equally clear that failure to supply a report of the inquiry officer to the delinquent employee would not ipso facto result in the proceedings being declared null and void and the order of punishment non est and ineffective. It is for the delinquent employee to plead and prove that non-supply of such report had caused prejudice and resulted in miscarriage of justice. If he is unable to satisfy the court on that point, the order of punishment cannot automatically be set aside.- Further held, “44. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that though supply of report of the inquiry officer is part and parcel of natural justice and must be furnished to the delinquent employee, failure to do so would not automatically result in quashing or setting aside of the order or the order being declared null and void. For that, the delinquent employee has to show “prejudice”. Unless he is able to show that non-supply of report of the inquiry officer has resulted in prejudice or miscarriage of justice, an order of punishment cannot be held to be vitiated. And whether prejudice had been caused to the delinquent employee depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down.” [Full PDF Judgment]

HDFC Bank Ltd.  Vs. Prem Power Construction Pvt. Ltd.-CO. APP. 84 of 2013- DelHC-08.01.2018-S-433 & S-434-Companies Act, 1956- Service of notices & summons [Full PDF Judgment].

Hdfc Securities Ltd. & Ors Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Anr.- Criminal Appeal No. 1213 Of 2016 – Sc – 09.12.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Hemant Dhage, Ahmednagar Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, GOI, CIC/SA/A/2015/000435 (Video Conference-Ahmednagar), Judgment Dated: 12.03.2016, Bench: Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), IC, Chief Information Commissioner- Held, The Ministers are Government Authority [Full PDF Judgment].

Hemant Satti vs Mohan Satti & Ors- DelHC-07.11.2013- CS-(OS)-824 of 2010- Evidence & Witnesses- Proof & Proving- Pleading- Issues- Absence of specific pleading in the Plaint or WS or absence of issue being framed by the Court- What is not pleaded cannot be proved and no amount of evidence can be considered unless there is a background in the pleadings- No evidence can be received or appreciated unless pleaded- The onus has to be discharged by the parties by firstly pleading it [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Hem Chand vs. State of Jharkhand- Appeal (Crl.) 479 of 2008- SC- 13.03.2008- AIR 2008 SC 1903- Framing of Charge- “The Court at the stage of framing charge exercises a limited jurisdiction. It would only have to see as to whether a prima facie case has been made out. Whether a case of probable conviction for commission of an offence has been made out on the basis of the materials found during investigation should be the concern of the Court. It, at that stage, would not delve deep into the matter for the purpose of appreciation of evidence. It would ordinarily not consider as to whether the accused would be able to establish his defence, if any.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Het Ram Beniwal & Ors. Vs. Raghuveer Singh & Ors. – Criminal Appeal No. 463 Of 2006 – Sc- 21.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos.10941-10942 Of 2013, Judgment Dated- 04.12.2015, ANIL R. Dave, J, Vikramajit Sen, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Supreme Court Of India- Period of limitation for filing the written statement by the opponent U/S- 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Full PDF Judgment].

Himani Malhotra  Vs. Indraprastha College For Women – W.P.(C) 11251 Of 2017- DelHC-02.01.2018- Whether a person can assert a right which stood relinquished earlier- Whether petition is impliedly hit by principle of res judicata- Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a right- Res judicata or constructive Res judicata [Full PDF Judgment].

Hina And Another Respondent Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others- WRIT-C- No. – 51421 of 2016- AllHC- 05.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Hina Versus Union Of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1676 Of 2016-SC-23.02.2016, Bench: Kurian Joseph & Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Child Custody- Administrative Law- Age proof- SC held that the Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate can be accepted as proof of age.- Held, “7. It is seen from the Eligibility Criteria, as extracted above, even an Affidavit was sufficient as proof of age. Be that as it may, in case, the copy of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate meets the requirement of the Eligibility Criteria, we fail to understand as to how does it make a difference in case the School Leaving Certificate is of the Higher Secondary School. The learned counsel for the Corporation was at pains to explain before us that the Secondary School Leaving Ceritificate is issued by the Board whereas the School Leaving Certificate Page 4 4 of the Higher Secondary School is issued by the School. School Leaving Certificate, as the very expression indicates, is issued by the School since the pupil leaves the school. Annexure P1, which was produced by the appellant before the Corporation is captioned as “School Leave Certificate”. The requirement of the Corporation is only a proof regarding the age. No doubt, certain documents are specified in the Eligibility Criteria which would be accepted by the Corporation as proof of age. In case, a copy of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate can be accepted as proof of age, it does not even strike to common sense as to why the copy of the Higher Secondary School Leaving Certiciate, duly attested, cannot be accepted as proof of age. The High Court, however, is not correct in its approach. The clarification we have made does not in any way amend the criteria.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Hindu Front For Justice Thru. Secy. & 9 Ors. Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. U.P. Govt. & 2 Ors. Judgment Dated: 03.12.2015, Bench: V.K. Shukla,J., & Brijesh Kumar Srivastava-II, J., Allahabad High Court- In this PIL, the Allahabad High Court upheld blocking of 25% of the benefits in a Pension scheme in favour of minorities as legal and valid. Upholding the validity of the Pension Scheme the court held that Minorities are a class in themselves and State is not prohibited in making welfare scheme for the minorities belonging to weaker section, provided it does not overreach and undermine the constitutional provisions [Full PDF Judgment].

Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. [State of Jharkhand Versus Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.]- Civil Appeal No. 1093 Of 2006- 5JBSC- 14.12.2017- Arbitration Act, 1940- SC-2(c)- Jurisdictional Issues- “Whether this Court can entertain an application for making the award as Rule of the Court, even if it retains seisin over arbitral proceedings?”- Held, When an arbitrator is appointed by the Supreme Court and further directions are issued, it retains seisin over the arbitration proceedings and in such circumstances, the Supreme Court is the only court for the purposes of Section 2(c) of the Act [Full PDF Judgment].

Hiral P. Harsora-Kusum Narottamdas Harsora-SC-06.10.2016- Civil Appeal No. 10084 Of 2016-2016-10-SCC-165- S-2-q Of DV Act- Constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.- The word, “male” struck down from S-2(q)- Held, “46. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court and declare that the words “adult male” in Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act will stand deleted since these words do not square with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the proviso to Section 2(q), being rendered otiose, also stands deleted….” [Full PDF Judgment].

Honey Preet Insan Vs. State [of Delhi]- Delhi High Court-26.09.2017- Bail Application No.-1983 of 2017- Whenever, an application for anticipatory bail is made before a Court, where an FIR has been lodged elsewhere i.e. outside the territorial jurisdiction of that Court, the Court is duty bound to consider whether the applicant is a regular or bona fide resident of a place within the local limits of that Court and is not a camouflage to evade the process of law. If the Court is not satisfied on this aspect, the application deserves to be rejected without going into the merits of the case [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. N. Jagannath Versus State of Karnataka- SC-06.12.2017-SLP (Civil) No. 33813 of 2011- Land Acquisition- Civil Court Jurisdiction- Barred- Suits of any nature, what-so-ever- Not maintainable [Full PDF Judgment].
  2. Lyngdoh & Ors. Vs. Gromlyn Lyngdoh- Civil Appeal No. 1929-SC- 02.03.1971- Bench: Reddy, P. Jaganmohan & Shelat J.M, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 1971 AIR 1110 1971 SCR (3) 903 1971 SCC (1) 754- Section-107. Powers of Appellate Court.Duty of the appellate Judges in dealing with the judgment of the lower court- In the objective discharge of judicial functions there is little justification nay, none-at-all to assume any attitude other than of judicial restraint or to use a language while referring to one’s colleagues other than that which has been hitherto adopted by long usage [Full PDF Judgments].

Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma Vs State of Bihar- Appeal (Crl.) 313-314 of 2000- SC-31.03.2000- (2000) 4 SCC 168- Quashing- Criminal Proceedings- IPC- S-418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477(a), 506(2), 120(b)-Held, “…The distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one.”.-  Further held, “..It would depend upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement..”- Further held, “ .. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of transaction that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is the intention which is gist of the offence.”.  Further held, “From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such an culpable intention right at the beginning that is when he made the promise cannot be presumed” [Full PDF Judgments].

HS BEDI Versus National Highway Authority Of India, RFA 784/2010, Judgment Dated-22.01.2016, Bench: J.R. Midha, J, Delhi High Court- Prosecute the unscrupulous litigants U/S-209 IPC who file false claims and written statements before the Courts “to prevent the abuse of process of law, secure the ends of justice, keep the path of justice clear of obstructions and give effect to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court…” in various judgments.: J R Midha, J, of Delhi High Court directs the Courts below [Full PDF Judgment].

H Srinivas [State by Lokayuktha Police Vs. H. Srinivas- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.775 of 2018- SC-18.05.2018- Quashing of criminal proceedings-  irregularity and illegality [Full PDF Judgment].

Hussain and Anr.  Vs. Union of India- Criminal Appeal NO.509 OF 2017-SC-09.03.2017- Bail- Speedy Trial- Art.-21 of Constitution of India- Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [NDPS Act] [Full PDF Judgment].

Kindly CLICK HERE or e-mail us at office@hellocounsel.com if you are facing any Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empanelled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.

Judgments-Index

IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Hubtown Ltd.- Civil Appeal No.-10860 Of 2016- SC-15.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.  Vs. S & D Hospitality- CS-(COMM)-111 Of 2017- DelHC-03.01.2018- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2- O-VII, R-10- Trademarks- Injunction & Stay- Jurisdiction [Full PDF Judgment]  

Independent Thought  Vs. Union of India- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 382 OF 2013- SC-11.10.2017- Sex With Minor Wife- Sexual intercourse between a man and his wife being a girl between 15 and 18 years of age is rape- POSCO- Ocular Evidence, Medical Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Documentary Evidence, Police Investigation- Age Determination [Full PDF Judgment].

Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs Prabha D Kanan, Civil Appeal No.4767 of 2006, Judgment Dated-10.11.2006, Bench: S B Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, AIR 2007 SC 548- Issue, Constitutionality and/ or validity of Regulation of the Indian Airlines (Flying Crew) Service Regulations was examined in this Appeals, arising out of a judgment and order dated 30th August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.2030 of 2003 [Full PDF Judgments]. 

Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. V. Union Of India- SC-06.12.1984- (1985) 1 SCC 641- Fundamental Rights- Art.-19(1)(A)- Speech & Expression- Restrictions under Cl (2)- Freedom Of Press [Full PDF Judgment].

Indian Hotel & Restaurants Assn. & Others- State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Indian Hotel & Restaurants Assn. & Others, Civil Appeal No. 2705 Of 2006, Judgment Dated: 16.07.2013, Bench: Altamas Kabir, CJI & Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ, Supreme Court Of India-Issue, Bar dancer’s- Substantial question of law, Whether 33A of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 as inserted by the Bombay Police (Amendment) Act, 2005 is ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India [Full PDF Judgment]

Indian Institute of Aircraft Engineering Versus Union of India [DB], WP (C) No. 3513 Of 2012, Judgment Dated: 21.05.2013, Bench: D. Murugesan, C.J. & Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J., Delhi High Court- Citation: 2013(30) STR 689- Aircraft Rules, 1937- Rule 133-B- Rules and CAR issued by DGCA- The Civil Aviation Requirement [CAR]- Nature of-  Held, Rules and the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) dealing with aircrafts are law- Narsingh Pratap Singh Deo Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1964 SC 1793 & R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay, (1984) 2 SCC 183, Referred (Para 26) [Full PDF Judgment]

Indian Institute Of Planning And Management Vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan P. Ltd.Anr-CS-OS-3354 Of 2015-DelHC-16.02.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Indian Medical Association- Vs State Of Maharashtra- WRIT PETITION NO.4579 of 2005- BomHC- 21.10.2016-Commercial Establishments-Shops & Establishment- Private Doctors Clinic [Full PDF Judgment].

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service and Ors.- SC-19.11.1990-  (1991)-1-SCC-533- Corporate, Business & Commercial Law- Commercial Contracts- Determinable Clauses- Termination Clause- Principle of “just, fair and devoid of arbitrariness” [Full PDF Judgment].

Indian Oil Coporation Ltd. [IOCL] Vs. National Commission For Scheduled Tribes & Anr.- W.P.(C) 9186 of 2016- DelHC-09.01.2018- National Commission for Scheduled Tribes Art.-338A of Constitution of India- The Commission is not an Alternative Forum for dispute resolution and has no adjudicatory function [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Indian-Young-Lawyers-Association-Vs-State of Kerala.-SC-13.10.2017-Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 Of 2006 [Full PDF Judgment].

Indira Nehru Gandhi  Vs. Raj Narain & Anr.- Appeal Civil 887 of 1975- SC-24.06.1975- 1975- AIR- 1590= 1975- SCC- (2)- 159 [Full PDF Judgment].

Indira Nehru Gandhi  Vs. Raj Narain & Anr.- Appeal Civil 887 of 1975- SC-07.11.1975- 1975 AIR 2299 = 1976 (2) SCR 347 = 1975 Suppl. SCC 1 [Full PDF Judgment].

Indira Jaising Vs. Supreme Court Of India – Writ Petition -C – No. 454 Of 2015 – SC- 12.10.2017- Issue, Designation of Advocate as Senior [Full PDF Judgment].

Indore Development Authority  Vs Shailendra (Dead) Through Lrs.-Sc-07.12.2017- Civil Appeal No.20982 Of 2017-Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013- Section 24- Compensation Not paid- Validity of  Land Acquisition-Whether Acquisition lapsed?- Or higher interest U/S-Section 34 of the 1894 Act entails?- Related Cases- Yogesh Neema Vs. State Of M.P. – SC-12.01.2016- Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S). 10742 Of 2008 [Full PDF Judgment]- Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki- 3JBSC-24.01.2014-Civil Appeal No. 877 OF 2014 [Full PDF Judgment]- Matter referred to larger bench [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Indra Pal Singh (I.P. Singh) Versus State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lucknown &Ors., MISC. BENCH No.- 13915 of 2016, Judgment Dated: 13.06.2016, Bench: Suneet Kumar & Shri Narayan Shukla, JJ, Allahabad High Court- Frivolous & mischievous petition, being filed for personal gains & instituted at the behest of a person seeking publicity.- The Hc referred to and relied upon, Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Versus Prem Chandra Mishra and others, AIR 2008 SC 913, wherein the SC had observed as follows: “10. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, the said petition is to be thrown out…”- The public interest aspect was also discussed in this Case., seeking to distinguish between “Public Interest Litigation” [PIL], “publicity interest litigation” or “private interest litigation” or “politics interest litigation” or “paise income litigation”.- The Court further observed, “If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of wishful thinking.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Indra Sarma  Vs. V.K.V. Sarma- SC-26.11.2013- Criminal Appeal No. 2009 Of 2013- Domestic Relationship U/S-2(f)- DV Act- Domestic Violence U/S-3- DV Act- “Whether a “live-in relationship” would amount to a “relationship in the nature of marriage” falling within the definition of “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the DV Act”) and the disruption of such a relationship by failure to maintain a women involved in such a relationship amounts to “domestic violence” within the meaning of Section 3 of the DV Act” [Full PDF Judgment].

Indra Sawhney Vs Union Of India-8JBSC-16.11.1992- AIR 1993 SC 477= 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217= 1992 Supp 2 SCR 454- Service Law- Reservation- Articles 16(4), 16(4A) and 16(4B) of the Constitution of India [Full PDF Judgment].

Indu Munshi And Ors Vs. UOI And Ors. – LPA 286 Of 2015, Rev.Pet.374 Of 2016 – DelHC- 23.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]

Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 Of 2013-SC-15.09.2017- Prison Reforms- Bail- A Letter Writ Petition- Letter Dated 13th June, 2013 By  R.C. Lahoti, Former Chief Justice Of India, Based On A Report, As Reflected In A Graphic Story Appearing In Dainik Bhaskar (National Edition) On 24th March, 2013- Writ Petition (Civil) No.406 of 2013, Judgment Dated: 05.02.2016, Bench: Madan B. Lokur & R.K. Agrawal, JJ, Supreme Court Of India – Prisoner’s right to dignity- A prisoner is required to be treated as a human being entitled to all the basic human rights, human dignity and human sympathy.- Multiple directions issued [Full PDF Judgment].

Inox Wind Ltd. Vs. Thermocables Ltd- Civil Appeal No. 19 of2018- SC-S-11(6)- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- Appointment of an arbitrator- The purchase order is a single contract and general reference to the standard form even if it is not by a trade association or a professional body is sufficient for incorporation of the arbitration clause. [Full PDF Judgment]

International Asset Reconstruction Company Of India Ltd. Versus The Official Liquidator Of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd. -SC-24.10.2017- Civil Appeal No.16962 OF 2017- Banking & Finance- Issue, Limitation- DRT has no power to condone delay under limitation Act [Full PDF Judgment].

International Confederation Of Societies Of Authors And Composers (Cisac) Vs. Aditya Pandey & Ors. – Civil Appeal Nos. 9412-9413 Of 2016 – Sc -20.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Ishaan Research Lab [Commissioner of Central Excise v. Ishaan Research Lab (P) Ltd.]- Civil Appeal No. 7357-7372 of 2001, Judgment: 08.09.2008, Bench: Ashok Bhan, J. & V.S. Sirpurkar, J., Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 2008(13) SCR 208: 2008(13) SCC 349: 2008(10) JT 1: 2008(12) SCALE 270: 2008(230) ELT 7- Environmental Law- Excise and Customs- Ayurvedic medicines- Scope- Products `Bio- Heena’ and `Bio Heena leaf’ may not be called as Ayurvedic Medicine- Assessee rightly gave up his claim of classification of theses products under Chapter 30 and more precisely under Entry 3003.30- Central Excise Tariff- Items 3003.30, 3304 & 3305 [Full PDF Judgment]

Ishwari Prasad Mishra Versus Mohammad Isa, Date Of Judgment: 27/08/1962, Bench: Gajendragadkar P.B., Gupta K.C. Das & Dayal Raghubar, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 1963 AIR 1728= 1963 SCR (3) 722- Section-107. Powers of Appellate Court. Duty of the appellate Judges in dealing with the judgment of the lower court- Criticism of the trial Judge or the witnesses-Extravagant language to be avoided.- The High Court made some observations criticizing some of the witnesses examined in the case suggesting that they had consipired to give false evidence.- The Supreme Court after carefully considering the matter fully was satisfied that the amputations made by the High Court against the impartiality and the objectivity of the approach adopted by the trial Judge were wholly unjustified.- Held, that the High Court erred in using extravagant language in criticizing the trial court; that the use of strong language and imputation of corrupt motives should not be made light-heartedly because the judge against whom the imputations are made has no remedy in law to vindicate his position.  Held, further, that the High Court was, similarly, in error in its criticism of some the witnesses examined in the case as showing a tendency to regard every witness whose evidence the High Court did not feel inclined to accept, as a perjuror and a conspirator [Full PDF Judgments].

Ismail Farooqui- (1994) 6 SCC 360 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kindly CLICK HERE or e-mail us at office@hellocounsel.com if you are facing any Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empanelled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.

Judgments-Index

Jafar Abbas Rasoolmohammad Merchant Versus State Of Gujarat, Criminal Misc. Application No. 14361 Of 2010, Judgment Dated- 05.11.2015, J.B.Pardiwala, J, Gujrat High Court- Quashing   of   the   Criminal proceedings arising from the FIR U/S- 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), 494, 406, 420 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, & Ss. 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act [Full PDF Judgment].

Jagdish Balaram Bahira [Chairman And Managing Director FCI And Ors .Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira]- Civil Appeal No 8928 Of 2015 Etc. Etc.-SC-02.08.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Jagdish Revansiddha Patil Vs State of Maharashtra-Writ Petition No.- 10913 of 2014- BomHC- 21.10.2016- Election-Disqualification Of Counselor Due To Faking of Cate-Upheld [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Jagdish v. State of Uttaranchal, Criminal Appeal No. 1097/2012, Judgment Dated: 25/11/2014, Bench: T.S. Thakur, J.: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.: R. Banumathi, J., Citation: 2015(2) SCC 252: 2014(13) JT 249: 2014(13) SCALE 148: 2014(9) SLT 625: 2015(2) Crimes 200(SC)- Penal Code, 1860- Sections 304-B, 498-A & 201- Judgments On Sentence- Judgments Culminating In Modification of The Term of The Sentence to the period of incarceration already undergone, etc.- Conviction under- Scope, lack of persistent demand of dowry, accused leaving separately from deceased, effect of- Death of sister-in-law of appellant by burning- Appeal against conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A by appellant/Jagdish/elder brother of husband of deceased- Held, a mere demand of dowry at one or two instances may not attract provisions of Section 304B IPC though such demand might be an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC- There is no material to show that there was persistent demand of dowry by first appellant-Jagdish- Appellant who stated to be living separately could not have persistently subjected Seema to dowry harassment and cruelty and first appellant is to be acquitted of charge of 304B IPC but to be convicted under Section 498-A IPC- HELD: In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., first appellant-Jagdish has stated that he has no wife or child and that he is living separately in Village Churiyala and that his brother Sukhbir was living with his wife and children. First appellant has further stated that he has been living separately even prior to the marriage of Chandrahas and that he has his own food prepared. We find no reason to disbelieve the statement of the first appellant-Jagdish. Insofar as signature of first appellant-Jagdish in Ex A-3 compromise deed is concerned, being elder member of the family and to ensure peaceful married life of Chandrahas, first appellant perhaps might have signed in the compromise deed. The first appellant who is stated to be living separately could not have persistently subjected Seema to dowry harassment and cruelty and the first appellant is to be acquitted of the charge of 304B IPC. For the alleged demand of dowry by the first appellant as spoken by PWs 1 and 2, the first appellant is to be convicted under Section 498A IPC. As seen from the materials on record, first appellant-Jagdish was about 70 years of age in the year 1996. Considering his age, lenient view has to be taken in imposing the sentence for the offence under Section 498A IPC (Para 16)- As Jagdish 70 years of age, he is sentenced to period already undergone by him for committing offence under Section 498A IPC (Para 15 & 16) [Full PDF Judgments].

Jagdish Thakkar Vs. Delhi- 1992 (3) CCR 2764- The Proceedings under S-498 are not the one for recovery of articles [Full PDF Judgments].

Jagmohan Bahl v. State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 2335/2014 Judgment Dated- 18/12/2014), Bench- Dipak Misra & Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ., Citations- 2014(14) JT 369= 2014(14) SCALE 224= 2014(10) SLT 605- Cancellation Of Bail [Full PDF Judgment].

Jagmohan Singh Bhatti Versus Union of India and others, CWP No. 6715 of 2012 (O&M), Judgment Dated: 12.08.2016, Bench: S.S. Saron & Ramendra Jain, JJ, Punjab & Haryana High Court- Issue, Appointment of Parliament Secretaries-Legality, Validity & Justifiability Of Their Appointments- Issue, appointments of Parliamentary Secretaries in the State of Punjab.-Writ in the nature of quo warrants sought qua the the posts of Chief Parliamentary Secretaries declaring the same to be  illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and contrary to; besides, being in utter disregard to the Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003 to the Constitution of India.- A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the Finance Department of the State of Punjab not to bear the expenses of the said illegal appointees.- Other constitutional provisions involved- Article 164 (3) of the Constitution of India.- Held, “appointments of Chief Parliamentary Secretaries amount to infraction of the provisions of Article 164 (1A) of the Constitution.”.

Jail Reforms-Re-Inhuman Conditions In Jails-SC-15.09.2017-Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 OF 2013.

Jamiluddin Nasir v. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No(S). 1240-1241/2010, Judgment Dated- 21/05/2014, Bench- A.K. Patnaik & Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ, Citations- 2014 AIR(SC) 2587: 2014(7) SCC 443: 2014(7) SCALE 571: 2014(5) Supreme 135: 2014(5) SLT 588: 2014 CrLJ 3589: 2014(3) SCC(Cr) 230: 2014(3) Crimes 335(SC)- Criminal Appeals [Full PDF Judgment].

Jamshed Ansari Vs. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad- Civil Appeal No.6120 OF 2016- SC-26.08.2016- Bench:  A.K. Sikri & & N.V. Ramana, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- The right to practice- The right u/s 29, 30 and 33 read with Article 19(1)(g) is however not absolute. The right to practice is subject to Article 19(6) and Article 225 of the Constitution and Section 34 of the Advocates Act. Article 19(6) lays down certain reasonable restrictions on Article 19(1)(g). Article 225 grants power to high courts to frame rules and Section 34 of the Advocates Act holds that a high court may make rules laying down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practice in the high court and the courts subordinate thereto. In NK Bajpai Vs. Union of India [(2012) 4 SCC 653], the Supreme Court made it clear that right to practice can be regulated and is not an absolute right which is free from restriction or without any limitation- rules are regulatory provisions and do not impose a prohibition on practice of law. It further held that Section 30 is subject to Section 34 and there is no absolute right to practice- The Cases referred to relied upon in the SC: N.K. Bajpai vsUnion of India, (2012) 4 SCC 653; R.K. Anand & Anr. v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106, & Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal VsUnion of India (2003) 2 SCC 45 [Full PDF Judgment].

Janardan Vasant Patil Vs State of Maharashtra- Writ Petition No. 1525 OF 2011- BomHC- 16.09.2016-Legislation, Policy & Rule-Quashing Of Administrative Order Rejecting-Plea To Form Police Association [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary, Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 1991., Judgment Dated: 27.08.1991, Bench: PANDIAN, S.R., SHETTY, K.J., JJ, Supreme Court Of India- 1992(4) SCC 305 [Full PDF Judgment]- Public interest litigation- Issue, Maintainability- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 397, 401, 482- Revisional jurisdiction of High Court-Whether invokable by public interest litigation [Full PDF Judgments].

Jairnail Singh [State of Uttarakhand  Vs. Jairnail Singh]- SC-13.11.2017- IPC- 307- Evidence & Witness- Investigation- Held, 16) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal. 17) In other words, in our view, the reasoning and the conclusion of the High Court in acquitting the respondent of the charges under Section 307 IPC and Section 25(1-A) appears to be just and proper as set out below and to which we concur and hence it does not call for any interference by this Court. 18) First, the parties involved in the case namely, the victim, his brother, who was one of the eye-witnesses with other two eye-witnesses and the accused were known to each other then why the Complainant-brother of victim in his application (Ex-P-A) made immediately after the incident to the Chief Medical Superintendent, Pilibhit did not mention the name of the accused and instead mentioned therein “some sardars”. 19) Second, according to the prosecution, the weapon used in commission of offence was recovered from the pocket of the accused the next day, it looked improbable as to why would the accused keep the pistol all along in his pocket after the incident for such a long time and roam all over. 20) Third, the weapon (pistol) alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence was not sent for forensic examination with a view to find out as to whether it was capable of being used to open fire and, if so, whether the bullet/palate used could be fired from such gun. Similarly, other seized articles such as blood-stained shirt and soil were also not sent for forensic examination.. 21) Fourth, weapon (Pistol) was not produced before the concerned Magistrate, as was admitted by the Investigating Officer. 22) Lastly, if, according to the prosecution case, the shot was hit from a very short distance as the accused and the victim were standing very near to each other, then as per the medical evidence of the Doctor (PW-6) a particular type of mark where the bullet was hit should have been there but no such mark was noticed on the body. No explanation was given for this. This also raised some doubt in the prosecution case. 23) In our considered opinion, the aforesaid infirmities were, therefore, rightly noticed and relied on by the High Court for reversing the judgment of the Session Court after appreciating the evidence, which the High Court was entitled to do in its appellate jurisdiction. We find no good ground to differ with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. 23) In our considered opinion, the aforesaid infirmities were, therefore, rightly noticed and relied on by the High Court for reversing the judgment of the Session Court after appreciating the evidence, which the High Court was entitled to do in its appellate jurisdiction. We find no good ground to differ with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. 24) In other words, it cannot be said that the aforementioned infirmities were either irrelevant or in any way insignificant or technical in nature as compared only to the ocular version of the witnesses. The prosecution, in our view, should have taken care of some of the infirmities noticed by the High Court and appropriate steps should have been taken before filing of the charge-sheet to overcome them. It was, however, not done. The benefit of such infirmities was, accordingly, rightly given to the respondent by the High Court. 25) In the light of the aforementioned infirmities noticed in the prosecution case which, in our opinion, were material, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant (State) cannot be applied to the facts of the case at hand. It is distinguishable. 26) Since the State has challenged the order of acquittal in this appeal, unless we are able to notice any kind of illegality in the impugned judgment, we cannot interfere in such judgment. In other words, it is only when we find that the impugned judgment is based on no evidence or/and it contains no reasoning or when it is noticed that the reasoning given are wholly perverse, this Court may consider it proper in appropriate case to interfere and reverse the decision of the High Court. 27) But when the High Court while reversing the decision of the Session Court acquits the accused and assigns the reasons by appreciating the entire evidence in support of the acquittal, then this Court would not be inclined to interfere in the order of acquittal. In our view, it is necessary for the High Court while hearing the appeal arising out of the order of conviction to appreciate the entire evidence and then come to its conclusion to affirm or reverse the order. In a case of later, which results in reversal, with which we are here concerned, it is necessary for the High Court to assign cogent reasons as to why it does not consider it proper to agree with the reasoning of the Sessions Judge by pointing out material contradiction in evidence and infirmities in the prosecution case. Case at hand is of this nature [Full PDF Judgment].

Jasbir Kaur & Ors. Versus State & Anr., CRL.M.C. 1096/2011 & Crl.M.A. Nos. 2903-2904/2012, 2906- 2907/2012, , Judgment Dated- 29.11.2011, Bench: Manmohan, J, Delhi High Court -Quashing of FIR U/S-226 of the Constitution & S-482 of CrPC.- The FIR U/S- 406/498A/376/420/506/120B IPC [Full PDF Judgment].

Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. Distt. Judge, Dehradun-SC-27.08.1997-Citation-1997-7 SCC-7- Maintenance For Wife & Children-HMA- S-24 [Full PDF Judgments].

Jaya Bachchan vs. Union of India- Writ Petition (Civil)  199 of 2006- SC-08.05.2006-(2006) 5 SCC 266- Art.- 32, 102, 103, 102 of constitution of India- Challenge to the order of the Hon’ble President of India, as also to the opinion rendered by the Election Commission [Full PDF Judgment]

Jaydayal Poddar (Deceased) Through His L.Rs Andanother Vs. Mst.  Bibi Hazra And Ors.- Civil Appeal No. 1759 Of 1967- SC-19.10.1973- 1974 -AIR- 171= 1974- SCR- (1)- 70- 1974-SCC-(1)-3 [Full PDF Judgments].

Jessica Lal Murder-Sidhartha Vashisht Alias Manu Sharma-SC-19.04.2014 [Full PDF Judgments].

Jitendra Vs. State Of M.PSC-18.09.2003- Appeal (Crl.) 1318-1319 Of 2002-(2004) 10 SCC 562- NDPS Case- Non-production of seized contraband- Fatal for the case for prosecution [Full PDF Judgment]. 

J Jayalalitha Vs. State- KarHC-11.05.2015-Crl Appeal-835 of 2014 [Full PDF Judgments].

Joginder Kumar Vs. State Of U.P.-SC-25.04.1994- Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 9 of 1994- AIR 1994 SC 1349- 1994 CriLJ 1981- (1994) 4 SCC 260- Articles 21 and 22 (1) of Constitution of India -law of arrest is one of balancing private rights of individual and that of social interest in curbing crime- no arrest can be made only because it is lawful for police officer to do so- police officer has to justify arrest apart from his power to do so – Articles 21 and 22 (1) mandates some rights to arrested persons and therefore the same have to be complied with- it is dutyof magistrate before whom arrested person is produced to satisfy himself whether the requirements are complied with or not – duty envisaged under Articles 21 and 22 (1) [Full PDF Judgments].

J S Gill- State v. Jaspal Singh Grill, AIR 1984 SC 1503 at p. 1505= 1984 Cri LJ 1211= (1984)3 SCC 555= 1984 SCC (Cri) 44 [Full PDF Judgment].

J S Gill- State v. Jaspal Singh Gill, AIR 1984 SC 2277= 2005 SCC (Cri) 1057. 36 [Full PDF Judgment].

Jurah [Customs Vs. Juarah & Anr.]- CRL.LP. 238 of 2017-DelHC-08.01.2018- S-21-S-23-S-29-S-50-S-67-S-103-Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [NDPS Act] [Full PDF Judgment].

Jyoti Puri Vs. Pawan Gandhi- CS-(OS)- 970 of 2011-DelHC-03.01.2018- Partition Suit- Rendition of Account- Will- Relinquishment Deed- Absolute owner [Full PDF Judgment].

K.A. Abbas Vs. Union of India & Another Writ Petition No-491 Of 1969-SC-24.09.1970-Citation-1971-AIR-481=1971-SCR-2-446=1970-SCC-2-780 [Full PDF Judgments

Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr. Versus State Of U.P. & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 2055 Of 2014,V. Gopala Gowda, & Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Quashing sought of the proceedings sought against the proceedings under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.– Held, “10. The parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are well known. If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the face of it, the criminal proceedings are abuse of Court’s process, quashing jurisdiction can be exercised. Reference may be made to K. Ramakrishna and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr, (2000) 5 SCC 207 (2000) 8 SCC 547, Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., (1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335, and Asmathunnisa vs. State of A.P. represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Anr., (2011) 11 SCC 259.”.

Kali Prasad Agarwalla Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd & Ors- SC-31.03.1989-Civil Appeal No. 2647 of 1980- 1989 AIR 1530- 1989 SCR (2) 283- 1989 SCC Supl. (1) 628- Evidence & Witnesses- Proof & Proving- Pleading- Issues- Absence of specific pleading in the Plaint or WS or absence of issue being framed by the Court [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav-SC-12.03.2004- (2004) 7 SCC 528 =2004 CriLJ 1796= AIR 2004 SC 1866= 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977- Cancellation Of Bail [Full PDF Judgment].

Kalyan Singh [State Through CBI Vs. Shri Kalyan Singh, FormerCM Of UP]- Criminal Appeal No.751of_2017-SC-19.04.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kalyaneshwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.- WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 260 OF 2004- SC-21.01.2011 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kamala- Secretary To Government Of Tamil Nadu, Public – Law And Order- Revenue Department Vs. Kamala- Criminal Appeal No. 507 Of 2018 – Arising Out Of SLP- Crl – No 1600 Of 2018-Sc- 10.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kamaraj- State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Namakkal Police Station Namakkal District Vs, Kamaraj- Criminal Appeal Nos.402 & 465 of 2017 – MadHC-25.10.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kamini Lau, Dr., Ld.- Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.  Vs. Delhi Auto General Finance Pvt. Ltd- RFA No. 851 Of 2015- 22.12.2017-Contempt Courts Case- By a Judge- Ld. Dr. Kamini Lau, ASJ, Delhi [Full PDF Judgment].

Kamlesh @ Ghanti Vs. State Of M.P. – Criminal Appeal Nos.1720-1721 Of 2014- Sc-21.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kamlesh Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh– Criminal Appeal No. 740/2015, Judgment Dated- 01.05.2015, Bench- Dipak Misra, J.: Prafulla C. Pant, J.Citation- 2015(6) SCALE 77 [Full PDF Judgments].

Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Union Of India- 5JBSC- 17.04.1995-Appeal (Crl.) 764-65 of 1994- 1995 (3) SCR 279- Preventive Detention- Representation by the detenu, who is the competent authority to consider [Full PDF Judgment].

Kanchan Bedi And Anr. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Bedi- IA No. 847 Of 2003 In IPA No. 17 Of 2002-DelHC-07.02.2003 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kapur Chand Godha Vs. Mir Nawab Himayatalikhan Azamjah- Civil Appeal No. 52 of 60- SC-12.04.1962- AIR 1963 SC 250- S-41- Contract Act, 1872 [Full PDF Judgment]

Karmanya Singh Sareen And Anr Vs. Union Of India And Ors- W.P.-C- 7663 Of 2016 & C.M.No.31553 Of 2016 -Directions-Delhc-23.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Karna Vs. M.Jothisorupan- Crl. OP -MD-No.13285 of 2013 and MP-MD-No.1 of 2013-MadHC-05.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Karti P Chidambram Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation- Bail Appln. 573 Of 2018- DelHC-23.03.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Karthik Gangadhar Bhat Vs. Nirmala Namdeo Wagh- BomHC-03.11.2017-Writ Petition No. 11151 OF 2017-Evidence & Witness- Secondary Witness [Full PDF Judgments].

Kashi Math Samsthan Vs Srimadsudhindrathirthaswamy- Civil Appeal Nos.7966-7967 Of 2009-SC-02.12.2009- Prima Facie Factor  Takes Precedence on remaining two prerequisites [Full PDF Judgments].

Kashmeri Devi vs. Delhi Administration- 1988 Supp SCC 482- Parameters laid down therein for investigation to be handed-over to an independent agency- Investigation- Independent Agency- CBI- Mere filing of charge-sheet would not preclude the power of the High Court to hand-over investigation to an independent agency [Full PDF Judgment].

Kathi Kalu [State of Bombay V. Kathi Kalu Oghad]- SC-04.08.1961-Citations: 1962-SCR-3-10= AIR- 1961- SC- 1808- Criminal Law- Inquiry & Investigation- S-73- Evidence Act- absence of any specific provision- Practice & Procedure- inherent powers- ancillary powers- Held, Where there is no specific provision in any law to authorize a particular course of action, the Trial Court can use its inherent or ancillary powers [Full PDF Judgment].

Kavita Manikikar Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation- Writ Petition No.1142 Of 2018 – BomHc- 16.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors.  Versus State of Kerala and Anr, Writ Petition (Civil) 135 of 1970- SC-24.04.1973- Bench: S.M. Sikri & A.N. Grover & A.N. Ray & D.G. Palekar & H.R. Khanna & J.M. Shelat & K.K. Mathew & K.S. Hegde & M.H. Beg & P. Jaganmohan Reddy & S.N. Dwivedi & Y.V.Chandrachud,, JJ, Supreme Court Of India– 1973) 4 SCC 225– Quashing- 29th Constitutional Amendment – Held,  “2242. The decision of the leading majority in the Golak Nath case that the then Article 368 of the Constitution merely prescribed the procedure for amendment of the Constitution and that the power of amendment had to be traced to Entry 97 of List I, Schedule VII read with Articles 245, 246 and 248 is not correct. 2243. The decision of the leading majority and of Hidayatullah J. that there is no distinction between an ordinary law and a law amending the Constitution is incorrect. Article 13(2) took in only ordinary laws, not amendments to the Constitution effected under Article 368. 2244. The decision of the leading majority and of Hidayatullah J. that Parliament had no power to amend the Constitution so as to abrogate or take away Fundamental Rights is incorrect. 2245. The power of amendment of the Constitution conferred by the then Article 368 was wide and unfettered. It reached every part and provision of the Constitution. 2246. Preamble is a part of the Constitution and is not outside the reach of the amending power under Article 368. 2247. There are no inherent limitations on the amending power in the sense that the Amending Body lacks the power to make amendments so as to damage or destroy the essential features or the fundamental principles of the Constitution. 2248. The 24th Amendment only declares the true legal position as it obtained before that Amendment and is valid. 2249. Section 2(a) and Section 2(b) of the 25th Amendment are valid. Though courts have no power to question a law described in Article 31(2) substituted by Section 2(a) of the Amendment Act, OP the ground that the amount fixed or determined for compulsory acquisition or requisition is not adequate or that the whole or any part of such amount is to be given otherwise than in cash, courts have the power to question such a law if (i) the amount fixed is illusory; or (ii) if the principles, if any are stated, for determining the amount are wholly irrelevant for fixation of the amount; or (iii) if the power of compulsory acquisition or requisition is exercised for a collateral purpose; or (iv) if the law of compulsory acquisition or requisition offends the principles of Constitution other than the one which is expressly excepted under Article 31(2B) introduced by Section 2(b) of the 25th Amendment Act – namely Article 19(1)(f); or (v) if the law is in the nature of a fraud on the Constitution. 2250. Section 3 of the 25th Amendment which introduced Article 31C into the Constitution is valid. In spite, however, of the purported conclusiveness of the declaration therein mentioned, the Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ascertain whether the law is for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specifie d in Article 39(b) or (c). If there is no direct and reasonable nexus between such a law and the provisions of Article 39(b) or (c), the law will not, as stated in Article 31C, receive immunity from a challenge under Articles 14, 19 or 31. 2251. The 29th Amendment Act is valid. The two Kerala Acts mentioned therein, having been included in the Ninth Schedule, are entitled to the protection of Article 31B of the Constitution [Full PDF Judgments].

Keshav Dutt v. State of Haryana- 2010-9-SCC-286- Criminal Law-  report of the handwriting expert- where the conviction was sought to be based solely on the report of the handwriting expert. [Full PDF Judgment]

Keshub Mahindra [CBI Vs  Keshub Mahindra]-Constn.BenchSC- 11.05.2011- Curative Petition (Crl.) NOS.39-42 OF 2010 In CRL. APPEAL NOs. 1672-1675 OF 1996- AIR 2011 SC 2037- Held, No Decision By Any Court, This Court Not Excluded, Can Be Read In A Manner As To Nullify The Express Provisions Of An Act Or The Code- Further held, when the charges are framed, the court makes an endorsement till that stage. So charges are framed on the materials produced by the prosecution for framing the charges “at that stage”. Such indication is necessary otherwise the provisions contained in Sections 216, 323, 386, 397, 399, 401 etc. Cr.P.C., would be rendered nugatory and denuded a competent court of the powers under those provisions. The court cannot be restrained from exercising its powers either under Section 323 or Section 216 Cr.P.C [Full PDF Judgments].

  1. G. Vs State Of Delhi- W.P.(Crl) 374 of 2017-DelHC-16.11.2017- Child Custody- NRI & Foreigner-Guardianship- Visitation Rights- Jurisdiction [Full PDF Judgment].   

Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 1- Judge & Decision- Held, “13. A Judge cannot be expected to give reasons other than those that have been enumerated in the judgment or order. The application filed by the petitioner before the public authority is per se illegal and unwarranted. A judicial officer is entitled to get protection and the object of the same is not to protect malicious or corrupt Judges, but to protect the public from the dangers to which the administration of justice would be exposed if the judicial officers concerned were subject to inquiry as to malice, or to litigation with those whom their decisions might offend. If anything is done contrary to this, it would certainly affect the independence of the judiciary. A Judge should be free to make independent decisions.”. 

Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor- The Custodian Of Evacuee Property,Bangalore Vs.Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor, Etc.- 20.02.1961- 1961 AIR 1087, 1961 SCR (3) 855- Writ of Certiorari  [Full Pdf Judgment].

Kharak Singh V. State Of U.P., (1964) 1 SCR 332- Protection Of Right Of Privacy Vis-A-Vis Defamation [Full PDF Judgments].

Khursida Begum (D) By Lrs. & Ors. Versus Komammad Farooq (D) By Lrs. & Anr., Civil Appeal No.2845 Of 2006, Judgment Dated: 01.02.2016, Bench: Anil R. Dave & Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Validity of a gift deed executed by a Muslim in favour of his son was the sole question for consideration.- The gift was by father to his minor son. Property was under tenancy. The gift is by a registered deed.- The courts below held the same to be a gift of undivided share of property which was capable of division and thus invalid under Muslim Law being hiba-bil-musha.- It has also been held that gift was of no effect as possession was not delivered to the donee.- The Supreme Court reversed the concurrent finding holding, inter alia,  “14…..The gift had no infirmity under the Muslim Law either on the ground that the possession was not delivered or on the ground that the gift was hit by Hiba-bil-Musha. Right to collect rent stands transferred to donee.- The SC further held, “13. Requirement of possession is  met when right to collect rent has been assigned to the plaintiff under the gift deed.”.

Khushwant Singh V. Menaka Gandhi- AIR 2002 Delhi 58- O-39, R-1 & 2- Grant Of Ex Parte Injunction [Full PDF Judgments].

Kihoto Hollohan Vs. Zachillhu And Others- Sc-18.02.1992- Writ Petition No.17 Of 1991= Transfer Petition No. 40 Of 1991= Writ Petition No. 17 Of 1991- 1992 Scr (1) 686, 1992 Scc Supl. (2) 651- Anti-Defection Law- Disqualification [Full PDF Judgment].

Kiran Lohia Vs. The State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors – W.P.- Crl – 357 Of 2018 – DelHC – 01.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kiran Pal Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.- Civil Appeal No. 2622 OF 2018- 3JBSC-17.05.2018- Panchayat- no confidence motion against the Pramukh [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. Karunakaran v. State of Kerala-Appeal (Crl.) 801 of 2003- SC-06.12.2006- (2007) 1 SCC 59- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC [Full PDF Judgments].

K.K. Mishra Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr- Criminal Appeal Nos. 547 Of 2018- Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition – Criminal- No. 6064 Of 2017 – Sc – 13.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]

K.M. Mathew Vs. Kerala-SC-19.11.1991-AIR-2206=1992-1-SCC-217-Quashing-Summoning-Defamation [Full PDF Judgment]

K.M. NANAVATI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA-24.11.1961-1962-AIR-605-1962. 

Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v Govt of A.P.- 29.01.2002-Appeal (Civil) 2063 of 1999-AIR 2002 SC 1012- Evidence & Witnesses- Proof & Proving- Pleading- Issues- Absence of specific pleading in the Plaint or WS or absence of issue being framed by the Court- So long as the parties are left without doubt as to what is required to be traversed, inexactitude in the plea is not a bar. It is the substance of the pleading that matter, rather than the text.- Held, “..it is a settled position that if the parties have understood the pleadings of each other correctly, an issue was also framed by the Court, the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases, then the absence of a specific plea would be no difference.”The rule itself is not immutable [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Versus Kamal Chauhan & Anr., O.M.P(I) No. 540/2015, Judgment Dated: 23.12.2015, Bench: J.R. Midha, J, Delhi  High Court- Issue, Appointment of a Receiver Of a Vehicle under S-9 Of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- Following guidelines formulated by the Court- “6. The receiver shall take over the possession of the vehicle from the respondent at the address(es) given in the loan application. If the vehicle is not available at the said address(es), the receiver shall be at liberty to recover the vehicle wherever found. However, the receiver shall not stop a running vehicle on the road to forcibly take out the driver to take the possession of the vehicle. The receiver shall also not make any attempt to block the passage of a car to bring it to a halt to take its possession. 7. The receiver shall avoid taking the possession of the vehicle if the vehicle is occupied by a woman who is not accompanied by a male member or an elderly, infirm or physically/mentally challenged person. In such cases, the receiver shall take the possession of the vehicle from the borrower’s residence. 8. The receiver shall be at liberty to take the assistance of the local police, if required, for taking over possession of the vehicle. The concerned SHO shall provide assistance to the receiver as and when requested. 9. The receiver shall also ensure that the repossession of the vehicle does not result in any breach of peace. In the event of any breach of peace, the receiver shall not proceed without assistance of police. 10. At the time of taking the custody of the vehicle, the receiver shall deliver a copy of this order to the person from whom the possession it is taken. 11. At the time of taking the custody of the vehicle, the receiver shall take the photographs of the vehicle from different angles along with the person(s) occupying the vehicle as well as the place of taking over the possession. 12. The receiver shall prepare an inventory of the articles/accessories found in the vehicle and shall furnish the copy of the inventory to the person from whom the possession is taken. 13. After taking the vehicle in possession, the receiver shall keep the vehicle in safe custody. 14. If the respondent makes payment of the outstanding instalments as on date of possession, the receiver shall release the vehicle in question to the respondent on superdari subject to an undertaking by the respondents to the receiver for regular repayment of future monthly instalments till the expiry of the tenure and a declaration not to part with the vehicle or create third party interest in the vehicle until the entire amount is paid. 15. If the respondent is not in a position to clear the entire outstanding instalments, the receiver shall give him another opportunity to pay the outstanding instalments within 30 days of taking over the possession of the vehicle and in case the respondent makes the payment the outstanding instalments within the said period, the receiver shall release the vehicle to the respondent subject to an undertaking as aforementioned. 16. If the respondent does not make the payment of the outstanding amount to the appellant bank within 60 days, the receiver, with the prior permission of the arbitrator, would be authorised to sell the vehicle in question in a public auction with prior written notice (to be sent by Speed Post AD) of the date of auction to the respondent at the address(es) mentioned in the loan agreement or the address from where the vehicle is taken into possession so that the respondent may also be able to participate in the auction to enable the appellant to fetch maximum amount from the sale of the vehicle. The receiver shall carry out video recording of the auction proceedings and shall submit the same before the arbitrator along with his final report. 17. The receiver shall submit his report before this Court within 10 days of taking the custody of the vehicle along with the photographs and inventory mentioned above.” Copy of the Order circulated in all District Courts/ Trial Courts [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka- (2015) 2 SCC 638- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA)- premeditation- predetermined motive or enmity- constant quarrel ever ensued [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Krishna Veni Nagam Vs. Harish Nagam- Transfer petition (CIVIL) NO. 1912 OF 2014- SC-09.03.2017- Matrimonial- Divorce- Child Custody- Counselor- Settlement- Transfer Petition- 09.032017- i) Availability of video conferencing facility- ii) Availability of legal aid service.- iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of Order XXV Code of Civil Procedure.- iv) E-mail address/phone number, if any, at which litigant from out station may communicate [Full PDF Judgment].

Krishan Chander Nayar v. The Chairman, Central Tractor Organisation & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 602- Affidavit- It is an essential characteristic of an affidavit that it should be made on oath or affirmation before a person having authority to administer the oath or affirmation, and thus, duty to state on oath on the part of the deponent is sacrosanct. Same remains the position in respect of administration of oath as required under the Oaths Act 1873. Other relevant Court Cases- Chhotan Prasad Singh & Ors. v. Hari Dusadh & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 407; and M. Veerabhadra Rao v. Tek Chand, AIR 1985 SC 28 [Full PDF Judgments].K. M. Mathew Vs Kerala-SC-19.11.1991- 1991 AIR 2206=1992-1-SCC-217- Quashing-Summoning-Defamation [Full PDF Judgments].

Krishna Bhatacharjee Versus Sarathi Choudhury And Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 1545 Of 2015 (@ SLP(Crl) No. 10223 Of 2014), Judgment Dated 20.11.2015,  Dipak Misra, J & Prafulla C Panta, J, Supreme Court Of India- Judicially separated wife is an “aggrieved person” under section 2(a) of the DV Act, 2005 Act.

Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54- Presumption of debt & liability U/S-139 of the NI Act & Right to rebuttal.

Krishnakumar Vs RPJJ.No. 3 Of 2018 State Of Kerala- KerHC- 18.06.2018- Revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the order of the Child Welfare Committee [Full PDF Judgment].

Krishna Kumar Singh Vs. State Of Bihar- Civil Appeal No. 5875 OF 1994- SC-02.01.2017- Ordinance promulgation- State Legislature- Art.-213(2)-Constitution of India- Failure to lay an Ordinance before the legislature is a fraud on the constitution [Full PDF Judgment].

Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul  Vs. Pratima Maity- Appeal (Civil) 7133 of 2003- SC-09.09.2003- 2003 Supp(3) SCR 496- S-101-S-102-Indian Evidence Act (IEA)- “Right to Begin” the evidence- Plaintiff or defendant [Full PDF Judgment]

  1. Srinivas Rao Vs D.A. Deepa- SC-22.02.2013-Civil Appeal No. 1794 OF 2013-2013 (5) SCC 226- Cruelty-S-13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.- Illustrative of mental cruelty- (1) Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse.- Cases Referred to and relied upon: G.V.N. Kameswara Rao Vs. G. Jabilli, (2002) 2 SCC 296- Parveen Mehta Vs. Inderjit Mehta, (2002) 5 SCC 706- Vijayakumar R. Bhate Vs. Neela Vijayakumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334- Durga Prasanna Tripathy Vs. Arundhati Tripathy, (2005) 7 SCC 353- Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558- Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kuldeep Singh Versus State, Crl. M.C. No.3387/2014, Judgment dated- 25th August, 2014, Ved Prakash Vaish, J, Delhi High Court [Full PDF Judgment].

Kuldeep Singh Vs. Rajinder Kumar And Ors.- Civil Appeal No.10223 Of 2016- Sc-20.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kuldeep  Vs. Union Of India- W.P.(C)- 8470 of 2015- DelHC-04.01.2018- Land Acquisition- Acquisition proceedings lapsed- S–24(2)- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Full PDF Judgment]

Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari & Anr- Criminal Appeal No. 516 Of 2016- SC- 18.04.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kurukshetra University Vs. State of Haryana – AIR 1977 SC 2229= (1977) 4 SCC 451- If the High Court was ultimately exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.PC, it is impermissible for the High Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC during the stage of investigation.- The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only in respect of a matter which is pending before an inferior criminal court subordinate to the High Court.

Kush Kalra Vs. Union Of India & Anr- W.P.(C)No.10498 of 2015- DelHC-05.01.2018- Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India- Institutional Discrimination- mandamus sought to place female gainfully employed candidates at par with similarly placed male candidate- The recruitment into the Indian Territorial Army [Full PDF Judgment]

Kusum Lata Sharma  Vs. State – Crl. M.C. No. 725 Of 2011-DelHC-02.09.2011- Quashing- DV Act Complaint- S-2-q Of DV Act [Full PDF Judgment].

Kusum Sharma  Vs. Mahinder Kumar Sharma- FAO 369 Of 1996- DelHC-14.01.2015- 29.05.2017-06.12.2017- Maintenance- Wife- Children-Income Affidavit Format & Guidelines [Full PDF Judgment Dated-14.01.2015] [Full PDF Judgment Dated-29.05.2017] [Full PDF Judgment Dated-06.12.2017]. 

Lakshmi Kant Pandey Vs. Union of India- Writ Petition -Crl- No. 1171 Of 1982- 1984 (2) SCC 244- Child is soul- 1984(2) SCC 244- Adoption- CARA- HAMA- POSCO- Ocular Evidence, Medical Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Documentary Evidence, Police Investigation- Age Determination [Full PDF Judgment-SC-06.02.1984] [Full PDF Judgment-SC-02.02.1984]. 

Lalita Kumari Versus Government Of Uttar Pradesh-SC-12.11.2013- WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 68 OF 2008- (2014) 2 SCC 1- Issue, whether “a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section-154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) or the police officer has the power to conduct a “preliminary inquiry” in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same?”- There are two judgments by the same title. The reference of the other judgment is as follows: Lalita Kumari Versus Government Of Uttar Pradesh-SC-27.02.2012-WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 68 OF 2008-(2012) 4 SCC 1 [Full PDF Judgment].

Lalit Mohan Madhan  Vs. Reliance Capital Ltd.- DelHC-07.12.2017- O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 439/2017– Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [SARFAESI Act]-S-13(2) and 13(4)- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- Section-9- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Bankruptcy Act, 1993 [DRT Act] Simultaneous proceedings under the SARFAESI & Arbitration Act permissible [Full PDF Judgment].

Lata Pramod Dave Versus M/s. Mode Export Private Limited, Criminal Writ Petition No.3188 OF 2014, Judgment Dated: 17.03.2016, Bench: Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J, Bombay High Court [Full PDF Judgments]. 

Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P.- SC-07.07.2006-AIR 2006 SC 2522- Writ Petition(Crl.)  208 of 2004- Quashing of FIR- Writ of certiorari- Writ of mandamus- A live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterosexual sex does not amount to any offence even though it may be perceived as immoral [Full PDF Judgment].

Laxmi Vs. Union Of India & Others, Writ Petition (Criminal) 129 Of 2006-[Full PDF Judgment-SC-06.02.2015] [Full PDF Judgment-SC-10.04.2015- ]. 

  1. Chandra Kumar Versus Union Of India & Ors., Judgment Dated- 02.12.1994- 1997 (3) SCC 261- Issue, formation of Administrative Tribunals [Full PDF Judgments].

Lekh Raj [State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Lekh Raj]- Crl. Appeal- 1174/1999- SC-02.11.1999- 2000 CrLJ 44- Ulterior motive- Discrepancies not amounting to contradiction [Full PDF Judgments].

Lily Isabel Thomas vs Unknown- Petition No. 42 Of 1963- 4JBSC-14.01.1964- AIR 1964 SC 855, 1964 CriLJ 724, 1964 6 SCR 229- Quashing- The proper construction of  Art-145 (1)(a) of the Constitution- Ultra vires- Rule 16 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, proving for Advocates on record- Advocate on Record is an advocate who is entitled under the Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (previously Order IV of the Supreme Court of India Rules, 1966), framed under Article 145 of the Constitution, to act as well as to plead for a party in the Supreme Court of India [Full PDF Judgment].

Lily Thomas Vs. UOI- SC-05.05.2000- WP(C)- 798/1995= WP(C)-1079/1989- 2013-7-SCC-653= 2000 Crl.LJ 2433- Muslim Laws- Quashing- Legislation-Sub-Section (4) Of Section 8 Of The Representation Of The People Act, 1951 Is Ultra Vires The Constitution [Full PDF Judgment].

Levi Strauss & Co. Rajesh Agarwal- RFA 127 of 2007- DelHC-03.01.2018- Held, “11. The rationale behind Order 26 Rule 10 (2) of CPC is clear i.e. the Commissioner is appointed as a representative of the Court and evidence collected by the Commissioner along with the report of the Commissioner would be evidence in the suit, subject to any objection raised by any party. If any party has any objection to Commissioner’s report or to the evidence, such party has an option to examine the Commissioner personally in open Court. Such examination is however, neither compulsory nor required especially in cases where the party does not challenge the report.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Macquarie Bank Limited  Vs. Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd.- Civil Appeal No.15135 Of 2017- SC- 15.12.2017- Corporate, Business & Commercial Law- Operational Creditor- Operational Debt- Corporate Debtor- Demand Notice By Lawyer, Chartered Accountant Or A Company Secretary- Insolvency Proceedings- Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016- S-9(3)(C)- Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016- National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) [Full Pdf Judgment].

Madan Kansagra Vs. Perry Kansagra-DelHC-17.02.2017- MAT.APP.(F.C.) 67 Of 2016- custody, including interim custody and visitation rights- Mediation- Mediator- Conciliation- Counselor- Counselor’s Report- How far confidential and/or debatable during trials- The Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Rules, 2004- The Conciliation Rules of United Nations Commission On International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)- Section 12 of the Family Courts Act, 1984- Uniform Mediation Act (USA), 2003- Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre Rules, 1999-Code for Practice for Mediators issued by the Family Mediation Council, England and Wales- Guidelines issued by Family Justice Courts, Singapore-Members Code of Professional Conduct issued by Family Mediation, Canada-Mediation Training Manual issued by the Supreme Court of India [Full PDF Original Judgment-17.02.2017] [Full PDF Review Judgment-11.12.2017].

Madhu Limaye Vs. Not Known-Writ Petition No. 355 Of 1968-SC-18.12.1968- Criminal Law-Arrest And Detention [Full PDF Judgment].

Madhu Limaye-  Writ Petition No. 307 Of 1970- SC-10.09.1970- [Full PDF Judgment].

Madhu Limaye Vs Ved Murti- Writ Petition No. 307 Of 1970- SC-28.10.1970- Arrest And Detention- Quashing- Cr.P.C.-S-144 [Full PDF Judgment].

Madhu Limaye Vs. SDM, Monghyr-SC-28.10.1970- [Full PDF Judgment].

Madhu Limaye-Criminal Appeal No. 81 Of 1977- SC-31.10.1977- Crpc- S-397(2) [Full PDF Judgments],

Madhuri Ghosh & Anr. Vs. Debobroto Dutta & Anr. – Civil Appeal No.10742 Of 2016 – SC- 09.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Madras Bar Association Versus Union Of India- Writ Petition (C) NO. 1072 OF 2013- 5JBSC-14.05.2015- (2015) 8 SCC 583- AIR 2015 SC 1571- Challenge to the constitutional validity of creation of National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’ for short) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’ for short) [Full PDF Judgment]

Madras Petrochem Ltd. & Anr. Versus BIFR & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.-614-615 OF 2016, Judgment Dated: 29.01.2016, Bench: Kurian Joseph & R.F. Nariman, JJ, Supreme Court OF India- – Banking & Finance- SARFAESI Act- Held, “54. The resultant position may be stated thus: 1. Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 will continue to apply in the case of unsecured creditors seeking to recover their debts from a sick industrial company. This is for the reason that the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 overrides the provisions of the Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993. 2. Where a secured creditor of a sick industrial company seeks to recover its debt in the manner provided by Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, such secured creditor may realise such secured debt under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. 3. In a situation where there are more than one secured creditor of a sick industrial company or it has been jointly financed by secured creditors, and at least 60 per cent of such secured creditors in value of the amount outstanding as on a record date do not agree upon exercise of the right to realise their security under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 will continue to have full play. 4. Where, under Section 13(9) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, in the case of a sick industrial company having more than one secured creditor or being jointly financed by secured creditors representing 60 per cent or more in value of the amount outstanding as on a record date wish to exercise their rights to enforce their security under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, being inconsistent with the exercise of such rights, will have no play. 5. Where secured creditors representing not less than 75 per cent in value of the amount outstanding against financial assistance decide to enforce their security under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, any reference pending under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 cannot be proceeded with further – the proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 will abate. 55. In conclusion, it is held that the interim order dated 17.1.2004 by the Delhi High Court would not have the effect of reviving the reference so as to thwart taking of any steps by the respondent creditors in this case under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. This is because the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 prevails over the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 to the extent of inconsistency therewith. Section 15(1) proviso 3 covers all references pending before the BIFR, no matter whether such reference is at the inquiry stage, scheme stage, or winding up stage. The Orissa High Court is not correct in its conclusion on the interpretation of Section 15(1) proviso 3 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. This being so, it is clear that in any case the present reference under Section 15(1) of the Appellant No.1 company has abated inasmuch as more than 3/4th of the secured creditors involved have taken steps under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The appeals are accordingly dismissed [Full PDF Judgment].

Mahendra Singh  Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others- Writ Petition (PIL) No. 112 of 2015-UttHC-19.06.2018- Environment Law-  Issue, Multiple Pollutants & Contaminants- Sound Pollution- Air Pollution- Water Pollution- Discharge of industrial effluents- Untreated chemical waste- industrial waste- Untreated Hazardous waste [Full PDF Judgment].

Mahesh Chandra Gupta Vs. Union of India- SC-06.07.2009- Transferred Case (C) NO. 6 OF 2009-(2009) 8 SCC 273- Appointment- of a Judge- Held, there is vital difference between judicial review and merit review. Once there is consultation, the content of that consultation is beyond the scope of judicial review though lack of effective consultation could fall within the scope of judicial review [Full PDF Judgment].

Maheshwari Mandal (Delhi) Vs. The State Of Delhi- W.P. (C) 2029 of 2016- DelHC-03.01.018- Registrar of Society Cases- Societies Registration Act, 1860-S-12- The Act enabled a society to alter or amend its objects and purpose and did not extend to registering any amendment in Rules and Regulations of the society [Full PDFJudgment].

Major Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 1145/2012, Judgment Dated: 08/04/2015; Bench: T.S. Thakur, J.: R. Banumathi, J.: Amitava Roy, J.-  Citation: 2015(5) SCC 201: 2015(5) JT 435: 2015(4) SCALE 599: 2015(2) JCC 1385: 2015 AIR(SC) 2081: 2015(6) SLT 452.- Penal Code, 1860- Section 304-B- Acquittal- Lack of reasonable nexus between harassment and death, convition set aside- Appeal against judgment of High Court of whereby High Court confirmed conviction of appellants under Section 304B- During pendency of appeal before High Court, husband of deceased died and appeal against husband abated and appeal survived qua appellants viz., father-in-law and mother-in-law- Held, Karamjit Kaur died due to organo phosphorus poisoning within 21/2 years of marriage- However, fact that deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry not proved by prosecution- Both courts below acquitted all accused for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC- No evidence as to demand of dowry or cruelty and that deceased Karamjit Kaur was subjected to dowry harassment “soon before her death”- Conviction of appellants under Section 304B IPC is liable to be set aside- Appeal allowed.- Hira Lal & Ors. vs. State(Govt. of NCT) Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 80; State of A.P. vs. Raj Gopal Asawa & Anr., (2004) 4 SCC 470; Balwant Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab, (2004) 7 SCC 724; Kaliyaperumal & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 9 SCC 157; Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC 388; Harjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 1 SCC 463; Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal, (2008) 1 SCC 202 & Narayanamurthy vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., (2008) 16 SCC 512, Relied on (Para 11, 13, 14, 17 & 18)- HELD: Prosecution has not examined any independent witness or the Panchayatdars to prove that there was demand of dowry and that the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment. Ordinarily, offences against married woman are being committed within the four corners of a house and normally direct evidence regarding cruelty or harassment on the woman by her husband or relatives of the husband is not available. But when PW3 has specifically stated that the demand of dowry by the accused was informed to the Panchayatdars and that Panchayat was taken to the village Badiala, the alleged ill-treatment or cruelty of Karamjit Kaur by her husband or relatives could have been proved by examination of the Panchayatdars. The fact that deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry is not proved by the prosecution. It is also pertinent to note that both the courts below have acquitted all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC (Para 13)- Insofar as the occurrence on 14.08.1996, PWs 1 and 3 have stated that they saw the accused dragging Karamjit Kaur towards a room inside the house and that Karamjit Kaur was trembling and on seeing PWs 1 and 3, all the four accused persons ran away and after taking last breath Karamjit Kaur expired. Subsequent conduct of PWs 1 and 3 raises serious doubts about their presence in the house of the accused at the time of occurrence and witnessing accused dragging deceased-Karamjit Kaur. That PWs 1 and 3 have not raised any alarm nor tried to chase the accused and that PW1 did not inform anyone in the village of the accused looks quite unnatural. The subsequent conduct of PWs 1 and 3 raises doubt about their presence at the time of occurrence and the prosecution version. But the fact remains that deceased-Karamjit Kaur died within 21/2 years of marriage otherwise under normal circumstances. As pointed out earlier, in the cases of dowry death prosecution is obliged to show that “soon before the occurrence” deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment. In the absence of proof that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment “soon before her death”, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained (Para 14)- There is no evidence as to the demand of dowry or cruelty and that deceased Karamjit Kaur was subjected to dowry harassment “soon before her death”. Except the demand of scooter, there is nothing on record to substantiate the allegation of dowry demand. Assuming that there was demand of dowry, in our view, it can only be attributed to the husband-Jagsir Singh who in all probability could have demanded the same for his use. In the absence of any evidence that the deceased was treated with cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry “soon before her death” by the appellants, the conviction of the appellants under Section 304B IPC cannot be sustained. The trial court and the High Court have not analyzed the evidence in the light of the essential ingredients of Section 304B IPC and the conviction of the appellants under Section 304B IPC is liable to be set aside (Para 17) [Full PDF Judgments].

Makemytrip (India) Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India & Ors, W.P.(C) 525 of 2016, Judgment Dated: 01.09.2016, Bench: S. Muralidhar & Vibhu Bakhru, JJ, Delhi  High Court- Issue, Challenge to the powers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) of arrest, investigation and assessment of service tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 ( ̳FA‘).- MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited filed this Petition against Union of India ( ̳UOI‘) through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, [Respondent No. 1]; the Director, DGCEI, [Respondent No. 2]; The Additional Director General ( ̳ADG‘) and the Senior Intelligence Officer, DGCEI [Respondent No. 4]- Related provisions of law: Section 91 read with Section 89 of the FA and Section 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ( ̳CE Act‘).- The Court examined and determined the legality of the DGCEI in proceeding to search the premises of the two Petitioners and then deciding to arrest senior officials of the two Petitioners.- The Court’s findings and conclusions were as follows: “116. To summarise the conclusions in this judgment: (i) The scheme of the provisions of the Finance Act 1994 (FA), do not permit the DGCEI or for that matter the Service Tax Department (ST Department) to by-pass the procedure as set out in Section 73A (3) and (4) of the FA before going ahead with the arrest of a person under Sections 90 and 91 of the FA. The power of arrest is to be used with great circumspection and not casually. It is not to be straightway presumed by the DGCEI, without following the procedure under Section 73A (3) and (4) of the FA, that a person has collected service tax and retained such amount without depositing it to the credit of the Central Government. (ii) Where an assessee has been regularly filing service tax returns which have been accepted by the ST Department or which in any event have been examined by it, as in the case of the two Petitioners, without commencement of the process of adjudication of penalty under Section 83 A of the FA, another agency like the DGCEI cannot without an SCN or enquiry straightway go ahead to make an arrest merely on the suspicion of evasion of service tax or failure to deposit service tax that has been collected. Section 83 A of the FA which provides for adjudication of penalty provision mandates that there must be in the first place a determination that a person is “liable to a penalty”, which cannot happen till there is in the first place a determination in terms of Section 72 or 73 or 73 A of the FA. (iii) For a Central Excise officer or an officer of the DGCEI duly empowered and authorised in that behalf to be satisfied that a person has committed an offence under Section 89 (1) (d) of the FA, it would require an enquiry to be conducted by giving an opportunity to the person sought to be arrested to explain the materials and circumstances gathered against such person, which according to the officer points to the commission of an offence. Specific to Section 89 (1) (d) of the FA, it has to be determined with some degree of certainty that a person has collected service tax but has failed to pay the amount so collected to the Central Government beyond the period of six months from the date on which such payment is due and further that the amount exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs (now enhanced to Rs. 1 crore).  (iv) A possible exception could be where a person is shown to be a habitual evader of service tax. Such person would have to be one who has not filed a service tax return for a continuous length of time, who has a history of repeated defaults for which there have been fines, penalties imposed and prosecutions launched etc. That history can be gleaned only from past records of the ST Department. In such instances, it might be possible to justify resorting to the coercive provisions straightaway, but then the notes on file must offer a convincing justification for resorting to that extreme measure. (v) The decision to arrest a person must not be taken on whimsical grounds; it must be based on ̳credible material‘. The constitutional safeguards laid out in D K. Basu’s case (supra) in the context of the powers of police officers under the Cr PC and of officers of central excise, customs and enforcement directorates, are applicable to the exercise of powers under the FA in equal measure. An officer whether of the Central Excise department or another agency like the DGCEI, authorised to exercise powers under the CE Act and/or the FA will have to be conscious of the constitutional limitations on the exercise of such power. (vi) In the case of MMT, without even an SCN being issued and without there being any determination of the amount of service tax arrears, the resort to the extreme coercive measure of arrest followed by the detention of Mr. Pallai was impermissible in law. (vii) In terms of CBEC’s own procedures, for the launch of prosecution there has to be a determination that a person is a habitual offender. There is no such determination in any of these cases. There cannot be a habitual offender if there is no discussion by the DGCEI with the ST Department regarding the history of such Assessee. Assuming that, for whatever reasons, if the DGCEI does not talk to ST Department, certainly it needs to access the service tax record of such Assessee. Without even requisitioning that record, it could not have been possible for the DGCEI to arrive at a reasonable conclusion whether there was a deliberate attempt of evading payment of service tax. In the case of MMT, the decision to go in for the extreme step of arrest without issuing an SCN under Section 73 or 73A (3) of the FA, appears to be totally unwarranted. (viii) For the exercise of powers of search under Section 82 of the FA, (i) an opinion has to be formed by the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner or other officers notified by the Board that ―any documents or books or things‖ which are useful for or relevant for any proceedings under this Chapter are secreted in any place, and (ii) the note preceding the search of a premises has to specify the above requirement of the law. The search of the premises of the two Petitioners is in clear violation of the mandate of Section 82 of the FA. It is unconstitutional and legally unsustainable. (ix) The Court is unable to accept that payment by the two Petitioners of alleged service tax arrears was voluntary. Consequently, the amount that was paid by the Petitioners as a result of the search of their premises by the DGCEI, without an adjudication much less an SCN, is required to be returned to them forthwith. (x) It was imperative for the DGCEI to first check whether the entity whose employees are sought to be arrested has regularly been filing service tax returns or is a habitual offender in that regard. It is only after checking the entire records and seeking clarification where necessary, that the investigating agency can possibly come to a conclusion that Section 89 (1) (d) is attracted. None of the above safeguards were observed in the present case. The DGCEI acted with undue haste and in a reckless manner. (xi) Liberty is granted to the officials of MMT and IBIBO to institute appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against the officers of the DGCEI in which the supplementary affidavits filed in these proceedings and the replies thereto can be relied on. This holds good for the officials of the DGCEI as well when called upon to defend those proceedings in accordance with law. (xii) The Court cannot decline to exercise its jurisdiction and clarify the legal position as regards the interpretation of the scope and ambit of the powers under Sections 89, 90 and 91 of the FA. This is clearly within the powers of this Court. That is why this Court has decided to proceed with these petitions notwithstanding that the criminal petitions may be pending in the criminal jurisdiction of this Court. (xiii) The Court is satisfied that in the present case the action of the DGCEI in proceeding to arrest Mr. Pallai, Vice-President of MMT, was contrary to law and that Mr. Pallai‘s constitutional and fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution have been violated. The Court is conscious that Mr. Pallai has instituted separate proceedings for quashing of the criminal case and, therefore, this Court does not propose to deal with that aspect of the matter [Full PDF Judgment].

Mala Devi Versus The State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors., W.P.(C) 7178 of 2012,  Judgment Dated: 18.09.2014, Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, JJ, Delhi High Court- Consumer Laws- Medical Negligence- Issue, the Petition claiming compensation for a sum of 35,50,000/- to bring up her third child who is alleged to have been born because of medical negligence on the part of the doctors in performing the sterilization operation on the petitioner. The petitioner has further claimed an additional sum of `25,00,000/- Held, “12. In view of the above, an unsuccessful sterilization procedure does not necessarily imply that the attending doctors were negligent. As stated earlier, the contention that no procedure had been carried on by the doctors on petitioner’s right side fallopian tube is also not clearly established in given facts. 13. The petitioner had unequivocally agreed that she would not be entitled to file any suit for any compensation other than under the Family Planning Insurance Scheme. It was also clearly stated in the consent form that she would not seek compensation for maintenance of the child. In view of her accepting the terms for the operation conducted by respondent no.2, the claim for petitioner for upbringing a child or for compensation on account of failure of the sterilization procedure cannot be entertained in these proceedings. However, the petitioner would be entitled to a sum of `20,000/- under the Family Planning Insurance Scheme of respondent no.1. 14. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal- Civil Revision No. 1290 of 1999- MPHC-24.03.2000- Held, “well qualified wife is not entitled to remain as an idle and claim maintenance from her husband” [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Maneka Gandhi-SC-25.01.1978- Quashing- Legislation- Writ Petition No. 231 of 1977- (1978) 1 SCC 248= 1978 AIR 597= 1978 SCR (2) 621- Art-14, 19, 21- procedure in Article 21 means procedure which conforms to principles of natural justice – power conferred under Section 10 (3) (c) of Passports Act, 1967 not unguided and it is implied in it that rules of natural justice would be applicable – Held, Section 10 (3) (c) not violative of Article 21- Right of dignity – right to live is not merely confined to physical existence – it includes within its ambit right to live with human dignity- Principle of reasonableness provided under Article 14 must apply to procedure as contemplated under Article 21 – Article 21 controlled by Article 19 also – in case a law does not infringe Article 21 even then it has to meet challenges of Articles 14 and 19- Post-decisional hearing – petitioner’s passport impounded and not given pre-decisional notice and hearing – Government contended that rule audi alteram partem must be excluded because it may have frustrated very purpose of impounding passport – concept of post-decisional hearing developed to maintain balance between administrative efficiency and fairness to individual – Court stressed that fair opportunity of being heard following immediately Order impounding passport would satisfy mandate of natural justice- Personal liberty- Whether right to go abroad is part of personal liberty-Whether a law which Complies with Article 21 has still to meet the challenge of Article 19-Nature and ambit of Article 14-Judging validity with reference to direct and inevitable effect-Whether the right under Article 19(1) (a) has any geographical limitation. Passports Act, 1967-Ss. 3,5,6,10(3)(c), 10(5)-Whether s.10(3)(c) is violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (a) (b) & 21-Grounds for refusing to grant passport-Whether the power to impound passport arbitrary-“in general public interest” if vague. Principles of Natural Justice-Whether applies only to quasi judicial orders or applies to administrative orders affecting rights of citizens-When statute silent whether can be implied-Duty to act judicially whether can be spelt out-In urgent cases whether principles of natural justice can apply. [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana- Criminal Appeal No. 696 Of 2009-SC-27.03.2014- (2014) 12 SCC 595- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA)- Held, the mere fact that a married woman committed suicide within a period of 7 years of her marriage would not straightway attract the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA)- Further held, the presumption as regards dowry death was triggered only upon the proof of the fact that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry by the accused and that too with reasonable contributory to death [Full PDF Judgment].

Mange Ram Jain & Ors. Represented By: Versus Jatinder Kumar Jain, Crl.M.C. 3768 of 2012, Judgment Dated: 07.10.2016, Bench: Mukta Gupta, J, Delhi  High Court/ Supreme Court Of India- Quashing- Summoning Order- Temporary disconnection of water supply line does not fall U/S-430 & 506 IPC [Full PDF Judgment].

Mangesh Balkrushna Bhoir Versus. Sau. Leena Mangesh Bhoir- Civil Appellate Jurisdiction- Second Appeal No. 634 Of 2013, Judgment Dated: 23.12.2015, R.D. Dhanuka, J, Bombay High Court- The Divorce Sought & Granted By Trial Court, Under Section 13(1) (I-A)- The Appellate Court Reversed The Decree Passed By The Trial Court- The High Observed As Follows: “If The Wife Had Filed A False Case Against The Husband And His Family Members In Which The Appellant Husband And His Family Members Are Acquitted, It Amounted To Cruelty And The Husband On The Said Ground Was Entitled To Seek Divorce” [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr. Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Ors.- Criminal Appeal No.  1577   OF 2012- SC- 01.10.2012- (2012) 10  SCC  517- S-156(3), S-203 CrPC- Criminal Revision- Whether a suspect is entitled for hearing by the revisional court in a revision preferred by the complainant challenging the order of the Magistrate dismissing   the   complaint   under   Section   203   of   the   Cr.P.C. [Full Pdf Judgment].

Manik Taneja Versus State of Karnatka, Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2015, Judgment Dated: 20/01/2015, Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, J. & R. Banumathi J., Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 2015(1) JT 237: 2015(1) SCALE 484: 2015(1) SLT 657: 2015 CrLJ 1483: 2015(1) Crimes 221(SC): 2015(2) JCC 926: 2015(7) SCC 423: 2015(2) Supreme 121- Penal Code, 1860- Sections 353 & 506- Quashing of FIR- Lack of ingredients of alleged offences in complaint, justified- FIR against appellants under Sections 353 and 506 IPC for posting of a comment on Traffic Police Facebook page, accusing Inspector, Traffic Police Station, of his misbehaviour and also forwarded an email complaining about harassment meted out to them at hands of Respondent Police Inspector- Petition for quashing of said FIR- Held, page created by traffic police on Facebook was a forum for public to put forth their grievances- Appellants might have posted comment online under bona fide belief that it was within permissible limits- Even going by uncontroverted allegations in FIR, none of ingredients of alleged offences are satisfied- It would be unjust to allow process of court to be continued against appellants and consequently the order of High Court liable to be set aside- Petition allowed and FIR registered against appellants quashed- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Section 482- Quashing of FIR- Lack of ingredients of alleged offences, effect of- Cyber Laws- Online complaint (Para 12, 14, 15, 16 & 17)- HELD: Essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the appellants to commit such an offence. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants either assaulted the respondents or used criminal force to prevent the second respondent from discharging his official duty. Taking the uncontroverted allegations, in our view, that the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are not made out (Para 12)- A reading of the definition of “Criminal intimidation” would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do (Para 14)- Allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of “Criminal intimidation”. The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the minds of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on the Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of appellants posting a comment on the Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC (Para 15) [Full PDF Judgment].

Maniram Sharma Versus CPIO & Scientist “D” M/o Communication & IT National Informatics Centre, RTI Division, File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001725, Judgment Dated: 16.12.2015, M. S. ACHARYULU, IC, YASHOVARDHAN AZAD, IC, & BASANT SETH, IC, Central Information Commission- Email IDs of all Government officials cannot be provided [Full PDF Judgment].

Manmohan Attavar Vs. Neelam Manmohan Attavar- Civil Appeal No.2500 Of 2017 – SC-14.07.2017- Domestic relationship must before allowing occupation of Shared house hold [Full PDF Judgment].

Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Sanjay Leela Bhansali & Ors.- Writ Petition (Criminal) 191 Of 2017- SC-28.11.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Manohar Lal Sharma, Vs. The Principal Secretary & Ors.- Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 Of 2012- SC- 25.08.2014- Mineral Law- The allocation of coal blocks made during the above period by the Central Government, according to petitioners, is illegal and unconstitutional inter alia on the following grounds: (a) Non-compliance of the mandatory legal procedure under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, ‘1957 Act’). 3 (b) Breach of Section 3(3)(a)(iii) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 (for short, ‘CMN Act’). (c) Violation of the principle of Trusteeship of natural resources by gifting away precious resources as largesse. (d) Arbitrariness, lack of transparency, lack of objectivity and non-application of mind; and (e) Allotment tainted with mala fides and corruption and made in favour of ineligible companies tainted with mala fides and corruption [Full PDF Judgment].

Manoj Kumar Vs. Champa Devi- Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).10137/2015- SC-06.04.2017- Matrimonial- Maintenance- Desertion- Adultery [Full PDF Judgment].

Manoj Kumar Sharma & Ors. Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 775 Of 2013, Judgment Dated: 23.08.2016, Bench: Madan B. Lokur & R.K. Agrawal, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Issue, extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR. The Petitioner averred, the FIR suffers from the following: an afterthought; coloured version or exaggerated story; raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations, which are, in any case, general in nature; reckless and vague allegations; wife has tried to rope the appellants in criminal proceedings. Held, “22) In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the FIR are inherently improbable and the evidence collected in support of the same  do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the appellants herein. Further, to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court must be fully satisfied that the material produced on record is based on sound, justifiable and reasonable facts. In the case on hand, malicious prosecution was instituted by the brother of the deceased after a period of five years that too on the basis of anonymous letters. There was no accusation against the appellants before filing of the FIR. The allegations are vague and do not warrant continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant. Also, the court at Durg has no territorial jurisdiction because cause of action, if any, has arisen in Ambala. The criminal proceeding is grossly delayed and a result of belated afterthought. The High Court failed to apply the test whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie, establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. The High Court did not apply its mind judiciously and on an incorrect appreciation of record, ordered for continuance of the investigation on a petition under Section 482 of the Code. This power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results [Full PDF Judgment].

Manoj-Sharma-Vs.-State-Ors.-Criminal-Appeal-No.-1619-OF-2008- Quashing- Amicable Settlement- [Full PDF Judgment].

Manoranjana Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation- Criminal Appeal No.  240   Of 2017-SC-05.02.2017-  (2017) 5 SCC 218- – Bail in PMLA, ED, and Analogous Crimes [Full PDF Judgment].

Manpreet Verma Vs. Brij Verma – First Appeal No. 133 of 2017- UttHC- 14.06.18 [Full PDF Judgment].

Manubhai Ratilal Patel Ushaben Vs. State of Gujarat- Criminal Appeal No. 1572 Of 2012-SC-28.09.2012- AIR 2013 SC 313 Detenu- detainee- Arestee-Confinee- Police Custody [PC]- Judicial Custody [JC]- S-167(2) CrPC- Art-21 of the Constitution- Detention beyond 60 days [Full PDF Judgment

Manu Sharma Vs NCT of Delhi-Criminal Appeal No. 179 Of 2007-SC-19.04.2010- 2010- 6 SCC 1- AIR 2001 SC 2352 [Full PDF Judgment].

Maria Margarida Sequeirafernandes V. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira- Civil Appeal No.2968 Of 2012- SC-21.03.2012- (2012) 5 SCC 370- – O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2-Ex Parte Injunction [Full PDF Judgment].

Marguerite Chawla Vs. Kiran Abnashi Chawla- CS (OS) 2951 Of 2014- DelHC-05.10.2015- CPC- O-XII, R-6- Specific Relief Act, 1963- Section 6- Recovery of possession- Decree on admissions–Scope of- Suit for recovery of possession- Plaintiff was in possession of the property all along but has been surreptitiously dispossessed- Suit has been filed before the expiry of 6 months from the date of dispossession- Plaintiff was in constructive and legal possession of the suit property- Legal possession entails a right to possession- Having been deprived of her legal possession she is entitled under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, to recovery of its possession and restoration of status quo ante- Suit is decreed [Full PDF Judgment].

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Transfer Pricing Officer New Delhi, W.P. (C) 6876/2008, Judgment Dated: 01/07/2010, Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.: V.K. Jain, J., Delhi High Court, Citation: 2010(10) AD(Delhi) 483: 2010(328) ITR 210.- Income Tax Act, 1961- Sections 92 to 92-F- Automobile Laws Involving The Income Tax Act- International transaction- Determination of arm’s length price by Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO]- Use of foreign trademark/logo by domestic entity- Justification- Petitioner launched a car using logo `S’ of Suzuki alongwith its own logo `M’- Grant of licence by Suzuki in respect of- Admittedly, petitioner was not a distributor for product manufactured by Suzuki- It was a licensed manufacturer of these products and had entered into a long term agreement with Suzuki- Therefore, no justification for TPO insisting upon payment by Suzuki to Maruti merely on account of use trademark/logo of Suzuki on products manufactured and sold by Maruti- Order passed by TPO making adjustment to income of  the company is based on no evidence which amounts to an error of law by him- The procedure followed by him is faulty, the approach adopted by him was erroneous and order passed is arbitrary and irrational- Impugned order of TPO unsustainable and hence set aside with directions to TPO to determine appropriate arm’s length price afresh.- HELD: We see no justification for the TPO insisting upon payment by Suzuki to Maruti, merely on account of use of the name and/or logo of Suzuki on the products and parts manufactured and sold by Maruti. It is Maruti which felt the necessity of use of Suzuki’s brand name and logo and that necessity was recognized by the Government of India, by approving the agreement between Maruti and Suzuki. We cannot agree with the TPO that Maruti had become a super brand and, therefore, the petitioner Company did not need to use Suzuki brand name and logo on its products. As noted earlier, on account of liberalization of the economy and de-licensing of the automobile industry, a number of foreign automobile majors had entered India or were contemplating entering the Indian market. Maruti, therefore, was not unjustified in concluding that it was necessary for it to enter into an agreement of this nature with Suzuki, so that it could meet the increased competition, posed to it on account of entry of these foreign majors, by using the brand name and logo of Suzuki on its products, besides obtaining the technical upgradation, augmentation and assistance from Suzuki. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that Suzuki being an international player, particularly in the segment of small cars, it was in a position to offer newer and better models to Maruti and use of the brand name and logo of Suzuki, therefore, was likely to be beneficial for the business interests of the petitioner. In any case, we can find no objection to the business decision taken by Maruti in this regard.- It would be noteworthy here that it was not obligatory for Maruti to use the logo of Suzuki on the products manufactured and sold by it in India, though Maruti in its discretion could use that logo, on those products as well- If we accept the contention that a foreign entity must necessarily pay to the domestic entity, which is an Associate Enterprise, on account of use of its trademark and logo even where using such trademark/logo is not obligatory for the Indian entity, that would result in the owner of every foreign trademark undertaking making payment to the domestic entity approaching it for use of its trademark and/or logo for the purpose of taking advantage of that reputed, trademark and/or logo on its products. This will result in a situation where, on the one hand, the Indian entity is paying to the foreign entity for use of its trademark/logo, and, on the other hand, it is simultaneously getting paid for carrying that trademark or logo on its products though it is the Indian entity and not the foreign entity which wants the use of the foreign trademark on the products manufactured and sold in India. If that happens, the owners of foreign trademarks may not be willing to permit use of their trademarks/logos by a domestic entities on the products manufactured and sold in India, unless they are more keen than the domestic entities in this regard- The TPO took the view that the value of the trademark ‘Maruti’ which, by the time Maruti entered into this agreement with Suzuki, had become a super brand, got diminished and correspondingly the value of the brand ‘Suzuki’ which was hitherto unknown in India appreciated on account of Maruti deciding to use the logo ‘S’ in place of the logo ‘M’ and use of the brand name ‘Maruti Suzuki’ in place of brand name ‘Maruti’ on the advertisements and promotions undertaken by Maruti. We, however, do not find ourselves to be in agreement with the TPO in this regard. As noted earlier, despite Maruti being a well-known brand of passenger car in the domestic market and only a few people in India being aware of the brand name ‘Suzuki’ at the time of Maruti entering into the agreement with Suzuki, the fact remains that on account of the increased competition, consequent upon the entry of multinationals selling vehicles under reputed and well established brand names, Maruti felt that it did require to use a reputed international brand name/logo in order to meet the competition. It is quite probable that had Maruti not used the name and logo of Suzuki, it might not have been able to face the competition given by these major auto players and would have lost its market share to them. Maruti instead of using the brand trademark of Suzuki, agreed to sell its products under a joint trademark which enabled it to preserve and promote its own brand while simultaneously taking advantage of the reputation associated with the name and logo of Suzuki, which admittedly was a reputed international brand in the automobile industry. In the joint trademark also the name Maruti comes before the name ‘Suzuki’, thereby giving an edge to the domestic trademark. In fact, the benefit from association of a reputed foreign name and logo may in such a case outweigh the loss, if any, in the value of the domestic brand. The test again, to our minds, would be as to what a comparable independent entity placed in the position of Maruti would have done in this regard. There was no material before the TPO from which it could be inferred that Maruti would have been able to achieve the growth which it was able to achieve even if it had not used the name ‘Suzuki’ in the joint trademark or had not used the logo of Suzuki- But, under the Agreement dated 12.12.1992 Maruti is under a contractual obligation to use the joint trademark ‘Maruti Suzuki’ on all the vehicles as well as the parts manufactured and/or sold by Maruti in India. We fail to understand any logic behind Suzuki insisting upon compulsory use of this joint trademark by Maruti, on all its products and parts, rather than leaving such use to the discretion of Maruti, except that Suzuki wanted to popularize its name in India at the cost of Maruti. Compulsory use of the trademark even when the domestic entity does not require it indicates benefit to the non-resident entity in the form of brand building in the domestic market by its display and use on the product as well as its packaging- There is no justification for apportioning the advertising and promotion expenses between a domestic entity and the foreign entity, even if they happen to be Associate Enterprises, merely on account of use of the name and/or logo of the foreign entity in the promotional and marketing activities, unless it is shown that the expenditure incurred on such activities was disproportionate and the benefit which accrued to the foreign entity in the form of increased awareness of its brand in the domestic market was not merely incidental. Mere use of a foreign brand, name and/or logo by an Associate Enterprise in the advertising and promotional activities undertaken by it, therefore, does not by itself entail payment by the owner of the foreign brand name and logo, and the question would always be as to whether a comparable independent entity would have incurred such expenditure or not- The use of the joint trademark has to be viewed in the context that any promotion or advertising of the product would also necessarily carry that joint trademark thereby bringing benefit in the form of marketing intangible to the foreign entity. There will be no justification for apportionment of the cost incurred on promotion and marketing where the use of such a joint trademark is discretionary and not obligatory or where the expenses incurred on marketing promotion and advertising do not exceed the expenditure which a comparable independent entity is expected to incur under these heads. But, this would become relevant where the use of a joint trademark of this nature is obligatory and the expenses incurred by the domestic entity on promotion and advertising exceed the normal expenses, which an independent entity would incur in this regard- Maruti, admittedly, was not a distributor for the products manufactured by Suzuki. It was a licensed manufacturer of these products and had entered into a long-term agreement with Suzuki. Therefore, it was justified in incurring substantial expenditure on marketing, promotion and advertising of its products even under the joint trademark ‘Maruti Suzuki’ and using the logo of Suzuki. Since the products promoted and advertised by Maruti were being manufactured and sold solely by it and Suzuki had no right to sell any product under the joint trademark ‘Maruti Suzuki’, the benefits from the expenditure incurred on marketing, promotion and advertising of Maruti products under the joint trademark ‘Maruti Suzuki’ would accrue to Maruti and the status of Maruti is, therefore, not comparable to that of a distributor or a licensed seller- Even if it is found that Maruti had incurred expenditure on marketing, promotion and advertising of its products, which was more than what a comparable independent entity, placed in the position of Maruti would have incurred, that by itself will not entail payment from Suzuki to Maruti if it is shown that under the terms and conditions of the composite agreement dated 12.12.1992, or some other arrangement, Maruti obtained some concession or subsidy from Suzuki, in one form or the other which can offset the extra expenditure incurred by Maruti on marketing, promotion and advertising of its products. As we said earlier, the TPO has to take an overall view of all the rights obtained and obligations incurred by Maruti, vis-a-vis, Suzuki and then determine appropriate arm’s length price in respect of the international transactions which Maruti had with Suzuki- Since we have come to the conclusion that the order passed by the TPO making adjustments to the income of the petitioner company is based on no evidence which amounts to an error of law by him, the procedure followed by him was faulty, the approach adopted by him was erroneous and the order passed by him is arbitrary and irrational, it will be open to this Court to set aside the order passed by him, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Also, the Transfer Pricing Provisions being rather new to the tax regime in India and with the entry of more and more multinationals in our country, these provisions are likely to come up frequently for application by the TPOs as well as the Assessing Officers, we deem it appropriate to clarify those aspects of the transfer pricing provisions which come up for our consideration in this case, so that they are able to appreciate the scope of their powers under Transfer Pricing Provisions of the Act as well as the procedure to be followed and approach to be adopted by them while processing such cases- For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, the impugned order dated 30.10.2008 is hereby set aside and the TPO is directed to determine appropriate arm’s length price in respect of the international transactions entered into by the petitioner Maruti Suzuki India Limited with Suzuki Motor Corporation, Japan, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 92C of the Income Tax Act and in the light of the observations made and the view taken by us in this order. The TPO shall determine the arm’s length price within three months of the passing of this order [Full PDF Judgment].

Masjid, Shahid Ganj V SGP Committee, Air 1940 Pc 116 [Full PDF Judgment]

Mattel, Inc. & Anr Vs. Ms. Aman Bijal Mehta & Ors- DHC- 22.11.2017- CS(COMM) 803/2017, IA No.13724/2017- CPC- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2- Grant Of Ex Parte Injunction- Public Interest- Held, “31. Though traditionally grant of orders under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 of the CPC was governed by the elements of prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience only but it is settled law that an interim order can also be refused if the same is not found to be in public interest.” [Full PDF Judgments]. 

Maturi Pullaiah And Anr. Vs Maturi Narasimham And Ors. On 1 March, 1966-Air 1966 Sc 1836- Registration Of Family Settlement, When A Must [Full Pdf Judgment].

Mayur Sunil Bagul Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.- Writ Petition No. 9806 OF 2014 – BomHC – 04.10.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Medical Council of India Vs. G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust- SC-23.11.2017- Civil Appeal No.19662 OF 2017- Judge- A Judge is expected to abandon his personal notion or impression gathered from subjective experience. The process of adjudication lays emphasis on the wise scrutiny of materials sans emotions. A studied analysis of facts and evidence is a categorical imperative. Deviation from them is likely to increase the individual gravitational pull which has the potentiality to take justice to her coffin [Full PDF Judgment]. 

M.Chinna Karuppasamy Vs. Kanimozhi- CRL.RC.(MD)No.142 of 2012- MadHC-16.07.2015-Matrimonial laws- Maintenance- Wife & Children- Adultery- Adulterous wife not entitled for maintenance    [Full PDF Judgment].

MCI- Medical Council Of India Vs.  Dr Anil Grover & Ors .- LPA 577 Of  2017-DelHC-27.10.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

M.C. Mehta Versus Union of India, WP-C-4677 of 1985-SC-18.12.1998 [Full PDF Judgment].

M.C. Mehta Versus Union Of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) 4677 of 1985- SC-16.02.2006, Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, B.N. Srikrishna & R.V. Raveendran, JJ, Supreme Court OF India, Citation: (2007) 1 SCC 110 – In respect of  flagrant violations of various laws including Municipal Laws, Master Plan and other plans besides Environmental Laws- Petition filed with a view to secure the implementation of laws and various orders, as also to protect fundamental rights of the citizens [Full PDF Judgment].

M.C. Mehta Versus Union Of India & Ors., Writ Petition- Civil- No.-4677 of 1985- SC-06.03.2018- Stay on Delhi Master Plan [Full PDF Judgment].

M.C. Mehta Versus Union Of India & Ors., Writ Petition- Civil- No.-4677 of 1985- SC-15.05.2018- Removal of stay on Delhi Master Plan [Full PDF Judgment].

M.C. Mehta Versus Union Of India & Ors., Writ Petition- Civil- No.-4677 of 1985- SC-24.05.2018- SC disallows Attorney General’s oral request of reducing the notice period of inviting suggestion/ objections to the proposed amendments to the Delhi Master Plan. The Hon’ble Supreme Court stuck to order dated 15.05.2018, wherein the whole procedure to be adopted was exhaustively laid down [Full PDF Judgment].   

M.C. Mehta Versus Union of India, WP(C) No. 4677/1985, Judgment Dated- 29/09/2006, Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J.: C.K. Thakker, J.: R.V. Raveendran, J., Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 2006(Supp-6) SCR 704: 2006(7) SCC 456: 2006(12) JT 351: 2006(9) SCALE 634: 2006(7) Supreme 508: 2006(10) SRJ 583: 2006(3) JCC 1470: 2006(10) SCJD 75- Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006- Section 5- Constitutional validity of- Flagrant violation of municipal laws, town planning laws and environmental laws- Commercial activity in residential/non-conforming area of Delhi, a basis of Various orders of Court for stoppage of misuser and to seal premises in case of misuser- Direction by Central Government to Local Authorities to give effect to provision of Act, 2006- Writ petition challenging constitutional validity of Act- Writ admitted and rule issued by court- Certain direction also issued by court in respect of premises involved in misuser- Constitution of India- Articles 21, 48-A & 51-A(g)- Delhi Development Act, 1957- Sections 12, 11-A & 31-A- Words and Phrases- Small shops.- HELD: In the background of the above facts and having considered the submissions made, we issue the following directions: (i) Re : Premises relating to which undertakings were given- The commercial activities by those who gave undertakings deserve to be stopped forthwith. Having regard, however, to the plea of forthcoming major festivals, we permit those who gave undertakings to stop misuser on or before 31st October, 2006.- (ii) Re : Small Shops- Small Shops, i.e., measuring not more than 20 sq. mts. in residential areas are allowed trading in the following items: i. Vegetables/fruits/flowers; ii. Bakery items/confectionary items; iii. Kirana/General stores; iv. Dairy products; v. Stationery/Books/Gifts/Book binding; vi. Photostat/Fax/STD/PCO; vii. Cyber cafe/Call phone booths; viii. LPG Booking office/Show room without LPG cylinders; ix. Atta chakki; x. Meat/Poultry and Fish shop; xi. Pan shop; xii. Barber shop/Hair dressing saloon/Beauty Parlour; xiii. Laundry/Dry cleaning/ironing; xiv. Sweet shops/Tea stall without sitting arrangements; xv. Chemist shops; xvi. Optical shops; xvii. Tailoring shops; xviii. Electrical/Electronic repair shop; and- xix. Photo studio- xx. Cable TV/DTH Operations- xxi. Hosiery/Readymade Garments/Cloth shops-xxii. ATM- (iii) Re : Other premises for which protection is extended by Notification dt. 7.9.2006- Regarding the remaining premises which may be covered by the Notification dated 7th September, 2006 read with 15th September, 2006, we direct that the said premises may not be sealed pending decision of these petitions on undertakings being filed before the Monitoring Committee on or before 10th November, 2006 that misuser shall be stopped as per the directions of this Court if the Act is invalidated and/or the Notification is quashed. Further, the undertakings shall state that the trade is being conducted in respect of the permissible items and only in that part of the premises in which commercial activity is now permitted as per the impugned Notification dated 7th September, 2006 read with Notification dated 15th September, 2006, viz. if commercial activity has been made permissible on the ground floor, the affidavit shall state that it is being carried out only in the ground floor and not on the other floors and in support a certificate of the registered Architect shall be annexed. Any Architect giving wrong certificate would subject himself to appropriate action including cancellation of certificate to carry on the profession of Architect.- (iv) Re : Premises for which protection is not extended by Notification dated 7.9.2006- In respect of the remaining premises not covered by the Notifications dated 7th September, 2006 and 15th September, 2006, the sealing process will continue in terms of the Order dated 16th February, 2006 and 10th August, 2006. The direction of sealing premises will also apply to specific properties mentioned in the judgment dated 16th February, 2006 and in the Report of the Monitoring Committee dated 14th September, 2006. The sealing would be done in a systemic manner as per directions of Monitoring Committee and not in a haphazard manner. There shall be no misuser of public land or public street. The authorities shall ensure that the Roads, Public Streets and pathways meant for public is kept free for their use and the commercial activity is not extended thereupon. The commercial user in contravention of judgment in M.C. Mehta’s case (supra), order dated 10th August, 2006 and Notifications dated 7th September, 2006 and 15th September, 2006 subject to what is stated in this order shall be liable to be sealed.- (v) General Directions: (a) We direct that the owner/occupier of small shops and also others who have been permitted to continue and not stop commercial activity for the present, under this order shall get themselves registered upto 31st December, 2006.- (b) In respect of the premises which have been sealed under the orders of this Court, we permit them to approach the Monitoring Committee which will consider each case on its merit and make appropriate report to this Court on consideration whereof necessary directions may be issued.- (c) The respondents are restrained from issuing any other Notification for conversion of residential user into commercial user except with the leave of this Court.- (d) We also hope that without any further loss of time the Government and the concerned authorities, instead of ad hoc measures like the present, would now undertake proper planning keeping into consideration all relevant factors including the interests of those residents which may not have any voice.- (e) Before concluding, we may note the grievance placed before us on behalf of professionals including Doctors, Lawyers, Chartered Accountants and Architects in respect of the Notification dated 7th September, 2006. Relying upon notifications dated 27th November, 1998 and 7th June, 2000 and Press Release dated 27th November, 1998, they say that restrictions sought to put in the Notification dated 7th September, 2006 were not there earlier and may be restrictions have been put by inadvertence. Mrs.Indira Jaisingh, appearing for Government of India says that she will have it examined by the Government and, if required, necessary correction will be made [Full PDF Judgment].

M.C. Mehta Versus Union Of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) 13381 Of 1984,  Judgment Dated: 27.11.2006, Bench: S.B. Sinha, S.H. Kapadia & D.K. Jain, JJ, Supreme Court OF India, Citation: (2007) 1 SCC 110- Taj Corridor Scam- In Supreme Court monitored cases, this Court is concerned with ensuring proper and honest performance of its duty by CBI and that this Court is not concerned with the merits of the accusations in investigation, which are to be determined at the trial on the filing of the charge-sheet in the competent court, according to the ordinary procedure prescribed by law. Therefore, the question which we have to decide in the present case is whether the administrative hierarchy of officers in the CBI, in the present case, have performed their duties in a proper and honest manner.- Whether on the facts and the circumstance of this case, the Director, CBI, who has not given his own independent opinion, was right in referring the matter for opinion to the Attorney General of India, particularly when the entire investigation and law officers’ team was ad idem in its opinion on filing of the charge-sheet and only on the dissenting opinion of the Director of Prosecution, whose opinion is also based on the interpretation of the legal evidence, which stage has not even arrived. The opinion of the Director, CBI is based solely on the opinion of the Attorney General after the reference.- It is beyond any doubt or dispute that investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police. It may be subject to supervision of higher ranking officer (s) but the court’s jurisdiction to have control in this behalf is beyond any controversy.- Section 5 of Cr.P.C shows that all offences shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with in accordance with the Code.- Under the Code, investigation consists of proceeding to the spot, ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case, discovery and arrest of the suspected offender, collection of evidence and formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial, and if so, taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a charge-sheet under Section 173.- The scheme of the Code, as provided in Section 168 of the Code,  shows that while it is permissible for an officer in charge of a police station to depute some subordinate officer to conduct some of these steps in the investigation, the responsibility for each one of the above steps is that of the officer in charge of the police station (SHO)- The SHO however can not delegation the function regarding formation of the opinion- Section 36 of the Code only entitles the superior officers to supervise.- A police report which results from an investigation as provided for in Section 190 of the Code is the material on which cognizance is taken. But from that it cannot be said that a valid and legal police report is the foundation of the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance.-  The manner and the method of conducting the investigation are left entirely to the officer in charge of the police station. A Magistrate has no power to interfere with the same. The formation of the opinion whether there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the case to a Magistrate or not, as contemplated by Sections 169 and 170, is to be that of the officer in charge of the police station and a Magistrate has absolutely no role to play at this stage.- There is a clear-cut and well-demarcated sphere of activities in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the field reserved for the executive through the police department, the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The executive is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law and order situation. It is obliged to prevent crime. If an offence is committed allegedly, it is the State’s duty to investigate into the offence and bring the offender to book. Once it investigates through the police department and finds an offence having been committed, it is its duty to collect evidence for the purposes of proving the offence. Once that is completed, the investigating officer submits report to the court requesting the court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 Cr.PC and his duty comes to an end.- Whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial, should be that of the officer in charge of the police station and none else. Under the CBI Manual, the officer in charge of the police station is the S.P.- In the present case, the investigating team consisted of the I.O., S.P., D.I.G., Joint Director and Additional Director CBI. In the present case, the law officers consisted of D.L.A. and A.L.A.. In the present case, the entire investigating team as well as the said law officers are ad idem in their mind. They have recommended prosecution. It is only the Director of Prosecution and the Sr. P.P. who have opined that a closure report should be filed. It may be noted that Sr. P.P. does not find place in clause 6.1 which refers to the administrative hierarchy of CBI.- Keeping in mind the scheme of Sections 168, 169, 170 and 173 of the Cr.PC, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the SC directed the entire material collected by CBI along with the report of the S.P. to be placed before the concerned court/ Special Judge in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.PC.- Under Article 142 of the Constitution, this Court is empowered to take aid and assistance of any Authority for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.- In the present case, at one stage of the matter, voluminous records were placed by CBI before this Court along with the recommendations of its officers. To vet and analyse the material, this Court essentially directed CVC to study the material, analyse the findings and give its recommendations as to the manner in which the investigations have been carried out.- “ The efficacy and ethics of the governmental authorities are progressively coming under challenge before this Court by way of PIL for failure to perform their statutory duties. If this continues, a day might come when the rule of law will stand reduced to “a rope of sand” [Full PDF Judgment].

M.C. Mehta Versus Union Of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) 13381 Of 1984,  Judgment Dated: 10.10.2007, Bench: S.B. Sinha, S.H. Kapadia & D.K. Jain, JJ, Supreme Court OF India, Citation: (2007) 1 SCC 110- Taj Corridor Scam- Issue of sanction U/S-197 Of Cr.P.C. for prosecution of Ms. Mayawati & Naseemuddin Siddiqui, the then Minister of Environment, U.P.-  Held, “13….while entertaining a public interest litigation in a given case, this Court may exercise a jurisdiction to set aside the decision of a constitutional authority…. If no sanction of the Governor was required or if he has committed an error in passing the said order, the appropriate court, in our opinion, would be entitled to deal therewith, but not this Bench.”Madras Bar Association Versus Union Of India And Another, Transferred Case (C) No. 150 Of 2006 Judgment Dated: 25.09.2014, Bench: R.M. Lodha, CJI, Jagdish Singh Khehar, J, J. Chelameswar, J, A K Sikri, J,  R.F. Nariman, J, Supreme Court Of India- Issue of the constitutional validity of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005, as also a challenge to section 46 of the Constitution (Forty second Amendment) Act, 1976 and Article 323B of Constitution of India. contending, inter alia, that section 46 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, is ultra vires the basic structure of the Constitution as it enables proliferation of Tribunal system and makes serious inroads into the independence of the judiciary by providing a parallel system of administration of justice, further contending that Article 323B violates the basic structure of the Constitution as it completely takes away the jurisdiction of the High Courts and vests them in the National Tax Tribunal, including trial of offences and adjudication of pure questions of law, which have always been in the exclusive domain of the judiciary [Full PDF Judgment].

M.C. Mehta Versus Union of India, WP(C) 4677/1985, Judgment Dated- 18/12/1996, Citation: 1997(6) SCALE(SP) 14(1)- Bench- Kuldip Singh, J.: S. Saghir Ahmad, J.- Environmental Law – Public Parks – Misuse of – District park in Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi, under the control of MCD – Direction given to restore and improve the Park to its original position – Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 – Section 397.Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund V. Kartick Das- ______- (1994) 4 SCC 225- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2- Principles Succinctly Culled Out For Grant Of Ex Parte Injunction [Full PDF Judgments].

Medical Council Of India Versus. Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors., Review Petition (C)Nos.2159-2268 Of 2013 And Review Petition (C) NOS.2048-2157 OF 2013 IN TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NOS.98-105, 107-108,110-139, 142, 144-145 OF 2012 & 1-5, 7-25, 28-49, 53, 58-73, 75-76 & 107-108 OF 2013, Judgment Dated: 11.04.2016, Bench: Anil R. Dave, A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal, Adarsh Kumar Goel, R.Banumathi, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Vide this judgment, the judgment namely, “Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors. Versus Union Of India And Ors., T.C.(C) No.98 Of 2012, Judgment Dated: 18.07.2013, Bench: Altamas Kabir, CJI, Vikramajit Sen, Anil R. Dave, JJ, Supreme Court Of India (2014) 2 SCC 305” recalled [Full PDF Judgment].

Medical Council of India Vs. G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust- SC-23.11.2017- Civil Appeal No.19662 OF 2017- Judge- A Judge is expected to abandon his personal notion or impression gadered from subjective experience. The process of adjudication lays emphasis on the wise scrutiny of materials sans emotions. A studied analysis of facts and evidence is a categorical imperative. Deviation from them is likely to increase the individual gravitational pull which has the potentiality to take justice to her coffin [Full PDF Judgments].

Meters And Instruments Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Kanchan Mehta- Criminal Appeal No. 1731 Of 2017-SC-05.10.2017- Cheque Bounce Case- 138 NI Act Cases- Compounding & Settlement- Directions issues [Full PDF Judgment]

Misrilal Ramratan & Ors. Mansukhlal & Ors. Vs. A. S. Shaik Fathimal- 1995 Supp (4) SCC 600- “It is now settled law that the report of the Commissioner is part of the record and that therefore the report cannot be overlooked or rejected on spacious plea of non-examination of the Commissioner as a witness since it is part of the record of the case.” [Full PDFJudgment]. 

  1. Nagaraj Vs. Union Of India- 5JBSC-19.10.2006- Writ Petition (Civil)  61 of 2002- 3 (2006) 8 SCC 212= AIR 2007 SC 71- Service Law- Reservation- Articles 16(4), 16(4A) and 16(4B) of the Constitution of India- The width and amplitude of the right to equal opportunity in public employment, in the context of reservation, broadly falls for consideration in these writ petitions under Article of the Constitution [Full PDF Judgment].  

M.N. Ojha & Ors. v. Alok Kumar Srivastav & Anr.- Criminal Appeal No. 1582 Of 2009-Sc-21.08.2009- (2009) 9 SCC 682. Quashing- Complaint Case- In this case a complaint filed against the bank officials was quashed because the Court found that it was a counter-blast to action taken by them in their official capacity for realizing the loan amount due from the complainant [Full PDF Judgment].

Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo- (1988) 4 SCC 619 that in a case where the defense is struck off, there is nothing which precludes the parties from confronting a witness of the other party in cross examination with documents that are not on record [Full PDF Judgment].

Mohammed Sultan Vs. State of Karnataka- KarHC-14.06.2018-Circumstantial Evidence- Confession- When hit by S-25 & S-27 of Evidence Act [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Mohan Lal [Union of India Vs. Mohanlal]-Criminal Appeal No.652 OF 2012-SC-28.01.2016- Seizure, Sampling, Safe keeping and Disposal of the seized Drugs, Narcotics and Psychotropic substances  [Full PDF Judgment].

Mohit Vs. Union of India and others – CWP No.5862 of 2016 – P&HHC – 16.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Moin Akhtar Qureshi Versus UOI- DelHC-01.12.2017-W.P.(CRL) 2465 of 2017- Detainee- Arrestee- Confinee- PMLA-ED-FERA- Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Motilal Vohra Vs. Subramanian Swamy & Others, Crl. MC 671 Of 201, Delhi High Court, Order dated 12.07.2016- Section- 91 Cr.P.C.- Summons to produce document or other thing [Full PDF Judgment].

Moti Ram Vs. State Of M.P.-SC-24.08.1978-1978 AIR 1594=1978 SCC (4) 47-Bail jurisprudence-Enlargement on bail with or without sureties-Scope of Ss. 440(1), 441, 445, 389(1)- Criteria to guide in quantifying the amount of bail and acceptance of surety whose estate is situate in a different district or State- ’Bail’ in s. 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code suggests ’with or without sureties. And, ’bail bond‘ in s. 436(2) covers own bond. Art. 14 protects all Indians qua Indians, within the territory of India. Art. 350 sanctions representation to any authority, including a Court, for redress of grievances in any language used in the Union of India. Equality before the law implies that even a vakalat or affirmation made in and State language according to the law in that State must be accepted everywhere in the territory of India, same where a valid legislation to the contrary exists. Otherwise, an Adivasi will be unfree in Free India, and likewise many other minorities. The process of making Indians aliens in their own homeland should be inhibited. Swaraj is made out of united stuff. The best guarantee of presence in Court is the reach of law, not the money tag- The Court left open to the Parliament to consider- whether in our socialist republic with social justice as its hallmark, monetary superstition, not other relevant consideration like family ties, roots in the community, membership of stable organisations should prevail or bail bonds to ensure that the ’bailee’ does not flee justice [Full PDF Judgment].

Moulasab Vs State of Karnataka-KarHC-11.06.2018- Over-speeding Not Necessary To Constitute Rash Driving [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. Pentiah Vs. Muddala Veeramallappa- Civil Appeal No. 387 Of 1960-SC-07.11.1960- AIR 1961 SC 1107- Doctrine of Implied Powers of the Court- The very purpose of Code of Criminal Procedure in restricting Magisterial powers is to enable the accused to get a fair trial in any proceeding [Full PDF Judgment]
  2. Sathiya Priya [Union Public Service Commission Vs. M. Sathiya Priya]- Civil Appeal No. 10854 Of 2014-SC-13.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]
  3. S. Shoes East Ltd. Vs M.R.T.P- 2003 VIII AD (Delhi)- Even though no period of limitation was specified in Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, all claims thereunder had to be filed within a reasonable time, which was determined, in this case to be three years [Full PDF Judgment].

Mukarrab Etc. Vs. State Of U.P.- Criminal Appeal Nos. 1119-1120 Of 2016 – Sc- 30.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment]

Mukesh Jain Vs. CBI-  Bail Application No. 2179 Of 2009-DelHC-21.12.2009- [2010 (1) AD (Delhi) 443 [Full PDF Judgment].

Mukesh Vs. State For NCT Of Delhi And Others- Criminal Appeal Nos. 607-608 Of 2017- SC-05.05.2017- Nirbhaya’s Case [Full PDF Judgment].

Mukesh Kumar  Vs. NDMC And Anr.- W.P.(C) 61 Of 2018- DelHC- 05.01.2018- Street Vendors Act, 2014- Town Vending Committee(TVC)- Merely because the petitioner is not found vending at the site when the survey is conducted, that by itself would not be a ground alone to reject his case [Full PDF Judgment].

Municipal Corporation, Ujjain Vs. BVG. India Limited- Civil Appeal No. 3330 Of 2018-3JSC-27.03.2018- Judicial Review- Vital Grounds of challenge- Unreasonableness, Irrationality, Arbitrariness, Bias & Malafide [PDF Judgment].

Municipal Council Ratlam Vs. Shri Vardichan and others- SC-29.07.1980-1980 (4) SCC 162= 1980 AIR 1622- Writ- Constitution of India- Art- 226 & 32- Basic Amenities- Water- Food- Road- Education- Electricity- Municipality not providing sanitary facilities  and construction of public conveniences for slum  dwellers-Whether Courts  can compel municipal body to carry  out its duty to the community to provide amenities and abate nuisance [Full PDF Judgment].

Muniswamy L [State Of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy] –3JBSC-03.03.1977- 1977 AIR 1489- 1977 SCC (2) 699- Framing of Charge- Discharge [Full PDF Judgment].

Nabam Rebia, and Bamang Felix  Versus Deputy Speaker and others, Civil Appeal Nos. 6203-6204 Of 2016, Judgment Dated: 13.07.2016, Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, Dipak Misra, Madan B. Lokur, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, N.V. Ramana, J, Supreme Court Of India- Constitutional provisions involved- Art-156, 163, 174, 175, 179, 191, and Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.- Held, The modification Order of the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh is unconstitutional and is set aside and the order of the Deputy Speaker is also set aside [Full PDF Judgment].

Nagaiah and another vs. Chowdamma (dead) By Lrs. and another- CIVIL APPEAL NO.  22969  OF 2017-SC-08.01.2018- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act- O-XXXII CPC- Who May Act As Next Friend Or Be Appointed Guardian For The Suit- No Court permission required before such appointment [Full PDF Judgment].

Nagendra Nath Bora & Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Ors.- SC-07.02.1958- (1958) SCR 1240- Writ of Certiorari- Mere formal or technical error in the order would not warrant exercise of writ jurisdiction [Full PDF Judgment].

Naima Khatoon Vs. Government Of India- W.P.(C) 10654 Of 2015-Del-03.01.2018- Pakistani Citizen-Property in India- Custodian of Enemy Property of India,- Enemy Property Act, 1968 [Full PDF Judgments].

Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik  Vs. Lata Nandlal Badwaik & Anr.- Criminal Appeal No.24 Of 2014-SC-06.01.2014- Matrimonial- DNA Test [Full PDF Judgment]

Narendra Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.- Civil Appeal   Nos. 10429-10430 Of 2017 – SC-11.09.2017- Justice to poor and disadvantageous people [Full PDF Judgment]

Narendra & Company [Management Of Narendra & Company Private Limited Versus The Workmen Of Narendra & Company], Civil Appeal No.14 Of 2016, Judgment Dated: 04.01.2016, Bench: Kurian Joseph, & Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- In an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief [Full PDF Judgments].

Narendra Vs. K. Meena- Civil Appeal No.3253 OF 2008- SC-06.10.2016- (2016) 9 SCC 455- Divorce- HMA [Full Pdf Judgment].

Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr., 2014 (2) Crimes 27 (SC)  [Full PDF Judgments].

Nar Singh Vs. State of Haryana- Criminal Appeal No.2388  Of 2014- SC-11.11.2014 (2015) SCC 496- CrPC-S-313 [Full PDF Judgment]. 

National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Limited Vs. Union of India- Appeal (Civil)  6170 Of 2001-Sc-25.03.2003- (2003) 260 ITR 548- Held, where the law has itself been changed, the question of legislature overruling the judiciary did not arise  [Full PDF Judgments].

National Federation Of The Blind Vs. Union Of India- WP(C) 15828 Of 2006-DelHC-17.07.2014-DelHC-12.09.2014-Civil Appeal No.9096 OF 2013-SC-08.10.2013-Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 [Full PDF Judgment-DelHC-17.07.2014] [Full PDF Judgment-DelHC-12.09.2014] [Full PDF Judgment-SC-08.10.2013].  

National Kamgar Union  Vs. Kran Rader Pvt. Ltd.- CIVIL APPEAL No.20 OF 2018- SC-05.01.2018- S-25-FFA- S-25-K- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [ID Act ]- Statutory Requirements of Law-60 days Closure Notice- Minimum No. of employees-100- Issue before the Court, whether the closure in question was bad in law entitling the members of the appellant-Union to claim all consequential benefits arising therefrom as if there was no closure of the Unit- Conclusions that could be drawn from the judgment- Relevant factors to be examined by the SC qua Fact finding by HC- Whether the finding is against any provision of law or evidence, or wholly perverse to the extent that no average judicial person could ever record such finding. Secondly, whether the High Court assigned the reasons as to why the finding of the court below is not factually and legally sustainable. Also, whether  the reasons assigned are neither arbitrary nor against the record and nor perverse so as to call for any interference by SC. Thirdly, the question being a question of fact or a mixed question of law and fact, the SC is always slow to appreciate the entire evidence afresh, the finding being binding on the SC.- Other issue, Re-appreciation of the evidence how far permissible under Art-227 of the Constitution- Held, “31. It is the duty of the High Court while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction to see that the subordinate Court has exercised its powers in accordance with law and did not commit any illegality or perversity in reaching to its conclusion. 32. While recording a finding, if it is noticed by the High Court that the subordinate Court has failed to take into consideration the material evidence or recorded a finding without there being any evidence, then the High Court would be entitled to interfere in such finding in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.”.- Third Issue, Entitlement of the compensation (i) amount of Gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, (ii) closure compensation payable under the I.D. Act, and over and above these two statutory payments of compensation, (iii) 30 days’ wages for each completed year of service as ex gratia payment [Full PDF Judgment]

National Tobacco Company of India [Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta Vs. National Tobacco Company of India Ltd.]- Civil Appeal No. 1101 Of 1967-Sc-09.08.1972- AIR 1972 SC 2563- Criminal Law- Doctrine of Implied Powers of the Court [Full PDF Judgment]

Natural Resources Allocation case- Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 (2012) 10 SCC 1- Mineral Law-“Why must the renewal operate automatically when there needs to be application of mind to ascertain if the renewal would be in the interest of mineral development?” [Full PDF Judgment].

Naveen Jindal V. Zee Media Corporation Ltd- Appeal- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2- Grant Of Ex Parte Injunction [Full PDF Judgments].

Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli- Appeal (Civil) 812 of 2004-SC-21.03.2006- AIR 2006 SC 1675- Divorce-HMA- S- 13(1)(a) [Full PDF Judgment].

Navinchandra Gangadhar Hegde Vs. The State Of Maharashtra- Criminal Writ Petition No.3438 Of 2017 – BomHC – 25.09.2017 [Full PDF Judgment]

Navjot Sandhu [State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru]- 04.08.2005- Appeal (Crl.) 373-375 of 2004-(2005) 11 SCC 600)- Evidence & Witness- The SC Court repelled the contention that obtaining evidence illegally by using tape recordings or photographs offend Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India as acquiring the evidence by such methods was not the procedure established by law. Other Cases where similar position was maintained- Yusufalli Esmail Nagree Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 147 Magraj Patodia v. R.K. Birla & Ors., 1970 (2) SCC 888; R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 157; Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection, Income-Tax, New Delhi & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 348 [Full PDF Judgments].

Navneet Arora Vs. Surender Kaur- DelHC-10.09.2014- FAO(OS) 196 of 2014- 207 (2014) DLT 78 (DB)- Interpretation of Statutes- DV Act- Shared Household (S-2(s)-Domestic Relation (S-2(f)-Aggrieved Person (S-2(a)- Respondent(S-2(q) [Full PDF Judgment].

Nayanaben Firozkhan Pathan @ Nasimbanu Firozkhan Pathan Vs. Patel Shantaben Bhikhabhai & 4 – Special Civil Application No. 15825 Of 2017 – AhdHC – 26.09.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Naz Foundation-Delhi Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi-DelHC-02.07.2009-WP-C-No.7455 of 2001 [Full PDF Judgments].

Nazir Khan And Others Vs. State Of Delhi- 2003 SCC (Crl.) 2033- Bail- S-121-A IPC- Waging Of War Against The State [Full PDF Judgment]

NCT- Government of NCT of Delhi   Vs. Union of India & Another- Civil Appeal No. 2357 OF 2017- SC-04.07.2018- Issue, NCT & Centre’s power tussle- Observed, “The status of NCT of Delhi is sui generis, a class apart, and   the   status   of   the   Lieutenant Governor of Delhi is not that of a Governor of a State,   rather   he   remains   an   Administrator,   in   a limited   sense”- Further observed, “Lieutenant Governor has to be treated as a titular head”.- Further observed, “There is no room for absolutism. There is no space   for   anarchy”. [Full PDF Judgment].

Nedunari Kameshwaramma Vs. Sampati Subba Rao- 3JBSC-17.04.1962- 1963 AIR 884- 1963-2-SCR 208- Evidence & Witnesses- Proof & Proving- Pleading- Issues- Absence of specific pleading in the Plaint or WS or absence of issue being framed by the Court- Held, “Though the appellant had not mentioned a Karnikam service in am parties well understood that the two cases opposed to each other were of Dharmila Sarvadumbala inam as against a Karnikam service inam. The evidence which has been led in the case clearly showed that the respondent attempted to prove that this was a Dharmila inam and to refute that this was a Karnikam service inam. No doubt, no issue was framed, and the one, which was framed, could have been more elaborate; but since the parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case and led all the evidence not only in support of their contentions but in refutation of those of the other side, it cannot be said that in absence of an issue was fatal to the case, or that there was that mis-trial which vitiates proceedings.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Neeru Yadav  Vs.State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another- Criminal Appeal No.1272 Of 2015- (2016) 15 Scc 422- Bail- SC-29-09-2015 [Full PDF Judgment].

News Nation Networks Private Limited Vs. News Nation Gujarat And Ors.- C.S. (COMM) 334/2016- DelHC-22.12.2017- Civil Suit- Jurisdiction- cause of action- Facebook Case- Held, “merely hosting a web page on facebook would not be sufficient to confer jurisdiction on a Court where the defendant does not carry on business. Merely because facebook is an interactive site and permits the users to offer comments or indicate whether they “like what they see” on the site, would not be sufficient to provide a cause of action for passing off in a jurisdiction where the defendant does not enter into any commercial transaction”.  [Full PDF Judgment]

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1302 OF 2008, Judgment Dated: 20.8.2008, Bench: Altamas Kabir & Markandey Katju, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, Citation: (2008) 9 SCC 677 Papaiah: Union Public Service Commission  Va. Papaiah and Others – AIR 1997 SC 3876- It is no more open to any Court to prematurely terminate a criminal case (Quash an FIR ) behind the back of the complainant/whistle blower without giving him an opportunity of being heard  [Full PDF Judgments].

Nirbhaya Case-Ram Singh-DelHC-13.03.2014-CRL. APP. No. 1398 of 2013 [Full PDF Judgments]  [Full PDF Judgments].

Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj-  Criminal Appeal Nos. 703 Of 1989 -SC-07.08.1990- (1990) 4 SCC 76- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 245  &  246 CrPC. – At the stage of framing the charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence- Cases referred-State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39, Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4 and Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja (1979) 4 SCC 274 [Full PDF Judgments].

Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab- Civil Appeal Nos. 6198 Of 2008-SC-22.10.2008- 2009(1) SCC 441- Investigation- Independent Agency- CBI- Parameters laid down therein for investigation to be handed-over to an independent agency- Mere filing of charge-sheet would not preclude the power of the High Court to hand-over investigation to an independent agency [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. M. Thomas- State Of Kerala & Anr. Vs. N. M. Thomas & Ors.- Appeal Civil 1160 Of 1974-SC-19.09.1975- Bench: Ray, A.N. (CJ) & Khanna, Hans Raj & Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien Beg & M. Hameedullah & Krishnaiyer, V.R. & Gupta, A.C. & Fazalali, Syed Murtaza, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Quashing Of Legislations- Kerala State Subordinate  Services  [Full PDF Judgment].

Nitin Kumar v. State, Bail Appln. No. 437/2015(06/04/2015), 2015(219) DLT 227: 2015(4) AD(Delhi) 109 [Manmohan Singh, J.] [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Nitish Katara Murder-Vikas & Vishal Yadav-02.04.2014-CRL.A. 741 of 2008- IPC-S-302, 34 [Full PDF Judgments- 02.04.2014 | 06.02.2015 | SC-03.10.2016].

Nitya Dharmananda Alias K. Lenin Vs. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy Also Known As Nithya Bhaktananda- SC- 07.12.2017- Criminal Appeal No. 2114 Of 2017- S-91 CrPC- Summoning Of Documents collected by the IO durig investigations-  Held, “9. Thus, it is clear that while ordinarily the Court has to proceed on the basis of material produced with the charge sheet for dealing with the issue of charge but if the court is satisfied that there is material of sterling quality which has been withheld by the investigator/prosecutor, the court is not debarred from summoning or relying upon the same even if such document is not a part of the charge sheet. It does not mean that the defence has a right to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. de hors the satisfaction of the court, at the stage of charge.- Cases Referred and relied upon: State of Orissa versus Debendra Nath Padhi [5JBSC] (2005) 1 SCC 568 [Full PDF Judgment].

Nityanand Sharma Vs. State of Bihar & others, (1996) 3 SCC 576- Held, Constitutional Laws- Constitution- Art-16(4)- Reservation- reservation under Article 16(4) is not made in favour of a “caste” but a “Backward Class”. Once a caste satisfies the criteria of backwardness, it becomes a Backward Class for the purpose of Article 16(4) [Full PDF Judgment].

NOIDA Toll Bridge Company Ltd.-PIL No.-Federation Of NOIDA Residents Welfare- PIL No. – 60214 of 2012 -AllHC-26.10.2016-Quashing-Arbitrary action of the State or its instrumentality [Full PDF Judgment].

Noorjehan Safia Niaz Dr. Versus State of Maharashtra & Haji Ali Dargah Trust, Public Interest Litigation No. 106 Of 2014, Judgment Dated: 26.08.2016, Bench: V. M. Kanade &
 Revati Mohite Dere, JJ, Bomaby High Court: Issue, a PIL, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where some social activists have alleged gender discrimination and arbitrary denial of access to women in the sanctum sanctorum at the Haji Ali Dargah.- Held, “38. Accordingly, the petition must succeed and is allowed. We hold that the ban imposed by the respondent No. 2 Trust, prohibiting women from entering the sanctum sanctorum of the Haji Ali Dargah contravenes Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the Constitution, and as such restore status-quo ante i.e. women be permitted to enter the sanctum sanctorum at par with men. The State and the respondent No. 2 Trust to take effective steps to ensure the safety and security of women at the said place of worship.” [Full PDF Judgment].

N.R. Sharma Vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited C.G. – Writ Petition -C- No.3341 Of 2017 – ChaHC- 0212018 [Full PDF Judgment].

N R Vairamani- [Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs. N.R. Vairamani]-Civil Appeal Nos. 7467 Of 2003- SC-01.10.2004- AIR 2004 SC 4778-Interpretation of Statutes- Observed, Court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclids theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of the context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. [Full PDF Judgment].

Nupur Talwar Respondent Vs. State Of U.P. And Anr. – CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 293 of 2014 – AllHC-12.10.2017- Arushi murder case [Full PDF Judgment].

Om Parkash Sharma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Criminal Revision No.123 Of 1997-SC-24.04.2000- (2005) 5 SCC 679- Section- 91 Cr.P.C.- Summons to produce document or other thing [Full PDF Judgment]

Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Others- SC-04.11.2008- Civil Appeal NO.2985 OF 2007- (2008) 10 SCC 1- Issue, Constitution of bench by chief justice- Reference to a larger bench- Held, “In the present case the Bench of two learned Judges has, in terms, doubted the correctness of a decision of a Bench of three learned Judges. They have, therefore, referred the matter directly to a Bench of five Judges. In our view, judicial discipline and propriety demands that a Bench of two learned Judges should follow a decision of a Bench of three learned Judges. But if a Bench of two learned Judges concludes that an earlier judgment of three learned Judges is so very incorrect that in no circumstances can it be followed, the proper course for it to adopt is to refer the matter before it to a Bench of three learned Judges setting out, as has been done here, the reasons why it could not agree with the earlier judgment. If, then, the Bench of three learned Judges also comes to the conclusion that the earlier judgment of a Bench of three learned Judges is incorrect, reference to a Bench of five learned Judges is justified.” [Full PDF Judgments].

Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors. – Civil Appeal Nos. 17869 of 2017 – SC – 03.11.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Oxford Universsity [The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars Of The University Of Oxford & Ors. Vs.. Rameshwari Photocopy Services]- Cs-Os- 2439 Of 2012 – Delhc-16.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Pacquik Industries- The Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation Of U.P. Ltd. Versus M/S Pacquik Industries Ltd. & Ors.- Co.App. 54/2013, Judgment Dated: 28.01.2016, Bench: Gita Mittal & P.S.Teji, JJ, Delhi High Court- Banking & Finance- Issue, Unnecessary Litigation by Government & Public Sector Undertakings (paras 201 to 2017) – The judgment opens up with the following excerpts, “Power vested by the State in a Public Authority should be viewed as a trust coupled with duty to be exercised in larger public and social interest. Power is to be exercised strictly adhering to the statutory provisions and factsituation of a case. ‘Public Authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them’. A decision taken in arbitrary manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation. An Authority is under a legal obligation to exercise the power reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the purpose for which power stood conferred. In this context, “in good faith” means “for legitimate reasons”. It must be exercised bona fide for the purpose and for none other [Full PDF Judgments].

Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy- Criminal Appeal No. 1499 Of 2011-SC-29-07-2011- (2011) 12 SCC 437)”- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC [Full PDF Judgments].

Panchhi and others Vs. State of U.P.- Writ Petition -Crl.-No. 50 Of 1998-SC-19.08.1998- (AIR 1998 SC 2726)- Evidence- Evidence- Child Witness- competency of the child witness- Reliability of the evidence tendered by a child witness- The evidence tendered by the child witness has to be evaluated with greater circumspection, since a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell them and thus, a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring [Full Pdf Judgment]. 

Pankaj Jain Vs. Union Of India & Anr. – Criminal Appeal No. 321 Of 2018 – SC-23.02.2018- CrPC-S-88-Bail [Full PDF Judgment].

Pankajakshi (Dead) Through L.Rs. & Others Versus Chandrika & Others Civil Appeal No.201 of 2005,  Judgment Dated: 25.02.2016, Bench: Anil R. Dave & Kurian Joseph & Shiva Kirti Singh & Adarsh Kumar Goel & R.F. Nariman, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Challenge to the virus of the Act.- Constitution Of India- Art- 142- Issue, “Whether Supreme Court can under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution direct in any appropriate case a reference to a third judge to resolve the conflict arising between two judges of the High Court hearing an appeal, on a question of fact.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Pappu- State of Maharashtra Vs. PappuCriminal Appeal No. 944/2014, Judgment Dated- 24/04/2014, Bench- P. Sathasivam, C.J., Ranjan Gogoi, J & N.V. Ramana, J, Citations- 2014(11) SCC 244= 2014(5) SCALE 584= 2014(4) Supreme 636= 2014(4) SLT 521= 2014(3) SCC(Cr) 350- Cancellation Of Bail [Full PDF Judgments].

Parkash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.- Appeal -Civil-5636 Of 2006 – SC-06.12.2006- AIR 2007 SC 1274- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC-, Held, “The ultimate test, therefore, is whether the allegations have any substance. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold because a political opponent or a person with political difference raises an allegation of commission of offence. Therefore, the plea of mala fides as raised cannot be maintained.”- In case there is some substance in the allegations and material exists to substantiate the complicity of the applicant, the case is to be examined in its full conspectus and the proceedings should not be quashed only on the ground that the same had been initiated with mala fides to wreak vengeance or to achieve an ulterior goal [Full PDF Judgment].

Patel Field Marshal Agencies Ltd Vs. PM Diesels Ltd.- SC-29.11.2017-Civil Appeal Nos.4767-4769 OF 2001- IPR- Trademark- IPR Infringement Suit- Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958- Trade Marks Act, 1999- Independent Proceedings Against Validity Of Trademark Not Maintainable If The Issue Is Abandoned In Infringement Suit [Full PDF Judgment].

Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana-SC-09.02.1998-bride burning’ and ‘dowry deaths’- Dowry Prohibition Act in 1961- IPC- S-306, 498-A & 304-B IPC  [Full PDF Judgments].

Pawan Kumar Vs State of HP- Criminal Appeal No. 775 Of 2017- SC-28.04.2017- POSCO- Ocular Evidence, Medical Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Documentary Evidence, Police Investigation- Age Determination- Freedom & Dignity of Women- Women’s Right To Love And Reject [Full PDF Judgment].

Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. Vs. M/S Arora Stationers & Ors.-CS(COMM) No.361 of 2017-DelHC-08.01.2018- S-22- Intellectual Property Rights [IPR]- Designs Act, 2000 [Full PDF Judgment].

Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors.- SC-04.11.1997- AIR 1998 SC 128= (1998) 5 SCC 749- Art- 226 & S-482 CrPC- Quashing- Summonig Order- Held, “The inherent power of the court should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution but can be exercised to save the accused to undergo the agony of a criminal trial.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Pfizer Limited & Anr Petitioners Versus Union Of India & Anr.- W.P.-C- No.2212 Of 2016- DelHC-01.12.2016-Quashing-Govt. Notification [Full PDF Judgments].

Phantom Films Private Limited Vs. The Central Board of Certification, 2016 (4) ARB 593- Central Board of Film Certification- Film Certification Appellate Tribunal [FCAT]  [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Philip David Dexter Versus State NCT Of Delhi & Anr., CM No. 1107/2013 in FAO No. 29/2013 & WP(Crl.) No.1562/2012, Judgment Dated: 02.04.2013, Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog & Pratibha Rani, JJ., Delhi High Court, Citations: 2013(135) DRJ 537: 2013(2) Crimes 208(LN)- Child Custody- NRI & Foreigner-Guardianship- Visitation Rights [Full PDF Judgments].

Phool Chandra Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, Crl. M.P. No. 25683/2013 Judgment Dated- 10/03/2014, Bench: B.S. Chauhan & J. Chelameswar, JJ, Citations- 2014(4) SCR 97: 2014(13) SCC 112.- Constitution of India- Article 136 -Held: Power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Constitution’) is to be invoked not in a routine manner but in very exceptional circumstances when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision sought to be impugned before this Court shocks the conscience of the court. This overriding and exceptional power vested in this Court has to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of the cause of justice (Para 7)- Of-lately, there has been an increase in the trend of litigants rushing to the courts, including this court, for all kinds of trivial and silly matters which results in wastage of public money and time. A closer scrutiny of all such matters would disclose that there was not even a remote justification for filing the case. It is a pity that the time of the Court which is becoming acutely precious because of the piling arrears has to be wasted on hearing such matters. There is an urgent need to put a check on such frivolous litigation. Perhaps many such cases can be avoided if learned counsel who are officers of the court and who are expected to assist the court tender proper advice to their clients. The Bar has to realise that the great burden upon the Bench of dispensing justice imposes a simultaneous duty upon them to share this burden and it is their duty to see that the burden should not needlessly be made unbearable. The Judges of this Nation are struggling bravely against the odds to tackle the problem of dispensing quick justice. But, without the cooperation of the gentlemen of the Bar, nothing can be done (Para 11)- It is high time that the Courts should come down heavily upon such frivolous litigation and unless we ensure that the wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigation. In order to curb such kind of litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive which can be ensured by imposing exemplary costs upon the parties as well as on learned counsel who act in an irresponsible manner (Para 12)- Subedar v. The State of UP, AIR 1971 SC 125; Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Setharathnam & Anr., AIR 1979 SC 1284; Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169; The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. The Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd, Delhi etc., AIR 1950 SC 188; Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, AIR 2010 SC 932 Mathai @ Joby v. George & Anr., (2010) 4 SCC 358; Varinderpal Singh v. Hon’ble Justice M.R. Sharma & Ors., 1986 Supp SCC 719; Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. v. Nirmala Devi & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 249; Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Khazani & Anr., AIR 2012 SC 2881; Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr., AIR 1975 SC 1331 & Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 3750, Relied on (Para 7, 11, 12 & 14) [Full PDF Judgment].

Phonographic Performance Ltd. Vs. Radio Mid Day -West- India Ltd.- RFA No. 440 Of 2009-DelHC- 07.04.2010 [Full PDF Judgment].

Phulwari Jagdambaprasad Pathak Vs. R.H.Mendonca- SC-26.07.200- 2000 (6) SCC 751- Detention- Preventive Detention- State Government-Advisory Board- Held, “[16] …..Preventive detention measure is harsh, but it becomes necessary in the larger interest of society. It is in the nature of a precautionary measure taken for preservation of public order……” [Full PDF Judgment].

Piara Singh [State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors.]- Civil Appeal No. 2979 Of 1992- SC-12-08-1992- AIR 1992 SC 2130- Contract Employees- Held, one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees, unless there are valid reasons for doing so i.e. some misconduct is attributable to such contractual employee- The proposition of the Judgment has undergone a sea change after this judgment came- In Gridco Limited & Anr. Vs. Sadananda Doloi & Ors. (2011) 15 SCC 16, the SC held that contractual appointments work only if they are mutually beneficial to both the contracting parties and not otherwise.- In Gridco Limited it was further held that a contractual employee has no vested right to continue with the contractual service after the project in question is no longer operational. [Full PDF Judgment].

PK Dash, Advocate & Ors. Versus Bar Council Of Delhi & Ors., W.P. (C) 8106/2010, Judgment Dated: 31.05.2016, Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat & Siddharth Mridul, JJ, Delhi  High Court/ Supreme Court Of India [Full PDF Judgment Dated-31.05.2016]; [Full PDF Judgment Dated-18.10.2016]: Holding that a Writ Petition is maintainable against Bar Councils and Bar Associations, Delhi High Court on directed Bar Associations on 31.05.2016 to incorporate “One Bar, One Vote” and “One person One chamber” Principles in Rules- This Order was however modified subsequently, i.e. on 18.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

PKH Vs. Central Adoption Resource Authority- CARA-DHC-18.07.2016- Writ Petition (Civil) No.5718/2015- Adoption- CARA- HAMA- In this case a Coordinate Bench of DelHC examined in detail the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, the Guidelines Governing Adoption of Children, 2015, the various International Conventions, the judgments of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Kant Pandey versus Union of India, 1984(2) SCC 244, and Anokha (Smt.) versus State of Rajasthan and Others, (2004) 1 SCC 382 [Full PDF Judgment].

Ponty Chadha Alias Gurdeep Singh Chadha Shootout Case- State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Bisht- Crl.Rev.P. 162 Of 2014- Charge- Discharge [Full PDF Judgments].

Pooja Vs. Vijay Chaitanya – A.F.R. Case – First Appeal No. – 227 of 2018 -AllHC-06.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Pooja Bhatia v. Vishnu Narain ShivpuriCriminal Appeal No. 585/2014 Judgment Dated- 10/03/2014, Bench-P. Sathasivam, C.J. & Ranjan Gogoi, J, Citations- 2014(3) SCALE 612: 2014(2) Supreme 465: 2014(3) SLT 304: 2014(2) Crimes 50(SC): 2014(3) JCC 1555: 2014(3) SCR 661: 2014(13) SCC 492- Cancellation Of Bail [Full PDF Judgments].

P P Sharma  [State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma]- Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 Of 1990- SC-02.04.1991- AIR 1991 SC 1260- Quashing- Chargesheet- Issue, whether an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet should be entertained before cognizance is taken by a criminal court; Held, “Quashing the charge-sheet even before cognizance is taken by a criminal Court amounts to killing a still born child. Till the criminal Court takes cognizance of the offence there is no criminal proceedings pending. I am not allowing the appeals on the ground alternative remedies provided by the Code as a bar” [Full PDF Judgments].

Prabhat Kumar Mishra Vs  South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.- Appointment & Employment In Accordance With The Rehabilitation Policy-In Lieu Of Acquisition Of His Land [Full PDF Judgment].

Prabhat Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs. Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr- FAO-OS-200 Of 2017- DelHC-24.01.2018- Encroachments- Unauthorized construction- Public way/ Right of way/easement- W-12D Link Road [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Pradip Burman Vs. Income Tax Office- Crl.M.C. 2467 Of 2015- Delhc- 02.12.2015- Bench- Suresh Kait, Delhi High Court- Quashing Of IT Complaint [Full PDF Judgments].

Pradeep Kumar [Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration Vs. Pradeep Kumar]- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2018-SC-08.01.2018- Police Force- Selection Process- Consideration of Antecedents of the candidates- What is honorable acquittal [Full PDF Judgment].

Pradeep Kumar Sharma (Dr.) Vs. Ratna Sharma- CM(M) 50/2007- DHC-03.07.2009- S-125 CrPC- DV Act- Test of the order granting maintenance Justified or unjustified- [Full PDF Judgment].

Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi- Appeal- Crl.- 324  Of  2001-SC-23.03.2001- AIR 2001 SC 1444 at p. 1446 = 2001 Cri LJ 1730= (2001)4 SCC 280= 2001 SCC (Cri) 674 [Full PDF Judgment].

Prakash Babulal Dangi Vs. The State Of Maharashtra- Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.10280-10281 Of 2017- SC-10.01.2018- Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-10-2017 in CRA No. 296 of 2017- 10.10.2017 in CRLWP No. 3791 Of 2016 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay- Maintenance- CrPC- DV Act, Payment liable either under one of them or both the Act. 

Prakash Chand [State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand]- 3JBSC-25.11.1997- (1998) 1 SCC 1- Issue, Constitution of bench by chief justice- Reference to a larger bench- Held, the Chief Justice of the High Court is the master of the roster [Full PDF Judgments].

Prakash Jha Productions Vs. Union Of India- Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 345 OF 2011- SC-19.08.2011- Ban on Screening of film- Ban on film- ultra vires the Art.-19(1) of Constitution of India [Full PDF Judgment

Prithipal Singh Versus Avtar Singh Walia, Cm(M) 131/2015, Date Of Decision: 26th November,2015, Bench: Pratibha Rani, J. Delhi High Court: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India- Seeking to have set aside the order whereby the learned ADJ dismissed the applications filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order IX Rule 4 CPC for restoration of the suit which has been dismissed in default by the learned Trial Court as well as application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay- Petition succeeds [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Pritish Natvar Sanghvi Vs. Natvar Keshavlal Sanghvi And Anr. – Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Writ Petition No. 11735 Of 2017 – BomHC- 04.06.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust ® & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 416 OF 2012, Judgment Dated: 06.05.2014, Bench: R.M. Lodha & A. K. Patnaik & Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya & Dipak Misra & Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ, Supreme Court Of India: Two substantial questions of law: (i)  Whether by inserting clause (5) in Article 15 of the Constitution by the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005, Parliament has altered the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. (ii)  Whether by inserting Article 21A of the Constitution by the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, Parliament has altered the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.- Other statute involved: Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short ‘the 2009 Act’). Related Case: Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Anr. [(2012) 6 SCC 1; Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala & Anr. (1973) 4 SCC 225- Held, “47. In the result, we hold that the Constitution (Ninety- third Amendment) Act, 2005 inserting clause (5) of Article 15 of the Constitution and the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 inserting Article 21A of the Constitution do not alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution and are constitutionally valid. We also hold that the 2009 Act is not ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. We, however, hold that the 2009 Act insofar as it applies to minority schools, aided or unaided, covered under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution is ultra vires the Constitution. Accordingly, Writ Petition (C) No.1081 of 2013 filed on behalf of Muslim Minority Schools Managers’ Association is allowed…..” [Full PDF Judgment].

Prashant Bharti vs. State of NCT of Delhi- Criminal Appeal No. 175 Of 2013 -SC-23.01.2013- 2013(1) Crimes 195(SC) [Against] [Full PDF Judgment]

Prateek Gupta Vs Shilpi Gupta- SC- 06.12.2017-Criminal Appeal No. 968 OF 2017- Child Custody- NRI- Guardian and Wards Act, 1890- Section 7(b)- Father entrusted with the custody [Full PDF Judgments].

Praveen Mehta Vs. Inderjit Mehta- Appeal (Civil) 3930 Of  2002 – SC – 11.07.2002- AIR 2002 SC 2582- Held, “21. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) is to be taken as a behavior by one spouse towards the other which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behavior or behavioral pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty the mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehavior in isolation and then pose the question whether such behavior is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Praveen Saini Vs. Reetu Kapur- RFA No. 21/2018- DelHC-08.01.2018- Cost & Penalties- Cost of Rs.10,00,000/- S-209 IPC- S-96 CPC- S-200 CrPC- Dishonest litigants-Scandalizing of the Court proceedings- Decree U/O- XII, R-6 CPC by referring to the admissions made by the Appellant/Defendant in earlier judicial proceeding- Law & Case law referred- Punjab High Court Rules and Orders (as applicable to Delhi)- Chapter VI Part I Rule 15 & Ramrameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala Devi- (2011) 8 SCC 249- [Full PDF Judgment].

Pravin Vijaykumar Taware Vs. The Special Executive Magistrate, Baramati, Pune-SC- 18.06.2009-Criminal Writ Petition No.   2682   Of 2008- Chapter-VIII CrPC- S-107, 108, 109, 111, 151 CrPC- Misuse of powers by SEMs [Full PDF Judgments].

Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand-SC-13.08.2010- Criminal Appeal No. 1512 OF 2010- (2010) 7 SCC 667- Rampant misuse of S-498A IPC- Quashing of Proceedings- Quashing of FIR-Inherent power-IPC-S-498A, 406, 341, 323- Observed as follows: “28. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. 29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code….”. Further observed- “30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavor to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. 34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. 35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it before the Hon’ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Preeti Satija vs. Smt. Raj Kumari and another- DBDelHC-15.02.2014- RFA (OS) 24/2012 -2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 1035, Delhi (DB)- DV Act- Shared Household (S-2(s)-Domestic Relation (S-2(f)-Aggrieved Person (S-2(a)- Respondent(S-2(q) [Full PDF Judgment].

Prithvi Cotton Mills Limited, Shri Vs. Broach Borough Municipality- Civil Appeals. Nos. 2197 And 2198 Of 1966 -SC-25.04.1969 (1969) 2 SCC 283- Decision of Courts is binding on the executive [Full PDF Judgment].

Priya Parameswaran Pillai Versus Union Of India And Ors., WP(C) 774/2015, Judgement Dated: 12.03.2015, Delhi High Court – Quashing Of Look Out Circular [LOC]  by IB.

Puneet Kaur Vs. Inderjit Singh Sawhney- CM(M) 79 of 2011-DelHC-12.09.2011- Matrimonial- Maintenance- What factors to be taken to be account [Full PDF Judgment].

Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki- 3JBSC-24.01.2014-Civil Appeal No. 877 OF 2014- (2014) 3 SCC 183- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013- Section 24- Compensation Not paid- Validity of  Land Acquisition-Whether Acquisition lapsed?- Or higher interest U/S-Section 34 of the 1894 Act entails? [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chd. Vs. State of Punjab- 1994(1) SCC 616- Mere filing of charge-sheet would not preclude the power of the High Court to hand-over investigation to an independent agency [Full PDF Judgment].

Purohit- [Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit  Vs. State of Maharashtra]- Criminal Appeal No. 1448 Of 2017-SC-21.08.2017-Bail-CrPC-439-Material Factors- Observed, “It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider, among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.”- Further observed: “23) At the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused.”.  [Full PDF Judgment

Puttaswamy,J [Justice K S Puttaswamy Vs, Union Of India-SC (9JB)-24.08.2017- Writ Petition (Civil) No 494 OF 2012- Right to privacy [Full PDF Judgment].

Putul Rabidas Vs. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.- F.M.A. 4401 Of 2016-CalHC-13.09.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. Veera Bhaarathi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Principal Secretary, Home [Prison] Department- H.C.P.(MD).No.540 of 2016- MadHC- 26.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment]

Rabia A. Khan Vs State of Maharashtra- Criminal Writ Petition No.669 OF 2016- BomHC- 09.02.2017- SIT Investigation beisdes the Police-Jiah Khan [Full PDF Judgment].

Rudul Shah vs. State of Bihar & Anr.; AIR 1983 SC 1086- Constitution of India- Articles 32 & 226- Compensation in case of Custodial Death- Cases referred: Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa & Ors.; AIR 1993 SC 1960; and Sube Singh vs. State of Haryana & Ors.; AIR 2006 SC 1117 [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Raghav Chadha Vs. State- DelHC- 25.09.2017- CRL. M. C. NO. 2570 Of 2017-O-6, R-16, CPC- Quashing- Summoning Orders-Twitter, Tweet and Retweet- Defamation- IT Act-S-66A- IPC- S-499, 500  [Full PDF Judgment].

Raghunath Das v. Union of India- Civil Appeal No. 1005 of 1965- SC-26.07.1968- AIR 1969 SC 674- CPC- S-80- The object of the notice contemplated by S-80 is to give to the concerned Governments and  public officers opportunity  to      reconsider the legal position and to make amends or settle the claim, if so advised without litigation- The provisions in S-80 Civil Procedure Code are not intended to be used  as  boobytraps  against  ignorant  and  illiterate persons- The purpose of law is advancement of justice [Full PDF Judgment].

Rahul Gandhi  Versus. Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Crl.M.C. 3332/2014, Judgment Dated-07.12.2015, Sunil Gaur, J, Delhi High Court- Quashing of summoning Order issued against Smt. Sonia Gandhi & Mr. Rahul Gandhi declined [Full PDF Judgments].

Rahul Mehra Vs. UOI, SC-31.10.2017-WP-C- No. 195 of 2010, Election of the Office Bearers set-aside [Full PDF Judgments].

Raja And Others Vs. State Of Karnataka  – Criminal Appeal No. 1767 Of 2011 – SC – 04.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur Vs. The State Of Punjab-4JBSC- 12.04.1955-AIR 1955 SC 549= 1955 2 SCR 225- Constitutional Laws- Constitution of India- Art-73 & 162-Executive powers under Art-73 and 162 of  the Constitution [Full PDF Judgment].

Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. Vs The Stroh Brewery Company (AIR 2000 Delhi 450) – Corporate, Business & Commercial Law- Commercial Contracts- Determinable Clauses- Termination Clause- Principle of “just, fair and devoid of arbitrariness” [Full PDF Judgment].

Rajasthan Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Versus Ajay Kumar Katewa & Ors., Special Appeal (Writ) No.529/2015, Bench: Ajit Singh, ACJ, & Anupinder Singh, J, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench- Held, “…existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar for the exercise of writ jurisdiction.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Rajat Gupta Vs Rupali Gupta- CONT.CAS(C) 772 Of 2013-DBDHC- 15.05.2018- Matrimonial Laws- Mutual Consent Divorce- Amicable Settlement- Court Cannot Compel the parties to go for mutual consent divorce- Following questions of law were formulated in this case- ―(A) Whether a party, which has under a settlement agreement decreed by a Court undertaken to file a petition under Section 13B(1) or a motion under Section 13B(2) of the Act, 1955 or both and has also undertaken to appear before the said Court for obtaining divorce ―can be held liable for contempt‖, if the said party fails to file or appear in the petition or motion or both to obtain divorce in view of the option to reconsider/renege the decision of taking divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the Act?- (B) Whether by undertaking before a Court to file a second motion under Section 13B(2) of the Act, 1955 at Section 13B(1) stage or by giving an undertaking to a Court to that effect in a separate court proceeding, a party waives its right to rethink/renege under 13B(2) of the Act, 1955? If yes, whether such right can be waived by a party under Section 13B(2) of the Act, 1955?- (C) Whether any guidelines are required to be followed by the Court while recording the undertaking/agreement of the parties with respect to a petition under Section 13B(1) or a motion under Section 13B(2) of the Act, 1955 or both for obtaining divorce?- (D) Whether the judgment in Avneesh Sood (supra) and Shikha Bhatia (supra) are good law in view of the doubts expressed by this Court in paras 19 to 28 and in view of the Division Bench judgment in Dinesh Gulati (supra).‖ [Full PDF Judgment]

Rajdeep Sardesai Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., Criminal Appeal No.857 Of 2012, Judgment Dated: May 14, 2015, Bench- V. Gopala Gowda & C. Nagappan, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section-482- Quashing- Summoning Order, passed by Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge in a defamation Case U/S- 499 & 500 IPC.- Bunch of Petitions decided by same Order, Disallowing the same with the following finding-  “there is no substantial question of law framed in the appeals nor is there any miscarriage of justice for the appellants to interfere with at this stage. In our considered view, having regard to the nature of the complaint, the respondents are required to prove the allegations against the appellants by adducing valid and cogent evidence, the same has to be considered by the trial court and accordingly record the findings on the merits of the case.” [Full PDF Judgments].

Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of U.P- Criminal Appeal No. 1265 OF 2017- SC-27.07.2017-498A- Guidelines Qua Welfare Committee- Family Members Personal Appearance- In this case, referring to Sushil Kumar Sharma versus Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 281, Preeti Gupta versus State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, Ramgopal versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 13 SCC 540, Chander Bhan versus State5 in Bail Application No.1627/2008, Delhi High Court, (2008) 151 DLT 691, Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, it was submitted that misuse of the provision is judicially acknowledged. Honble Supreme Court Of India, therefore, issued the following directions to prevent such misuse: (a) In every district one or more Family Welfare Committees be constituted by the District Legal Services Authorities preferably comprising of three members. The constitution and working of such committees may be reviewed from time to time and at least once in a year by the District and Sessions Judge of the district who is also the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority; (b) The Committees may be constituted out of para legal volunteers/social workers/retired persons/wives of working officers/other citizens who may be found suitable and willing; (c) The Committee members will not be called as witnesses; (d) Every complaint under Section 498A received by the police or the Magistrate be referred to and looked into by such committee. Such committee may have interaction with the parties personally or by means of telephone or any other mode of communication including electronic communication; (e) Report of such committee be given to the Authority by whom the complaint is referred to it latest within one month from the date of receipt of complaint; (f) The committee may give its brief report about the factual aspects and its opinion in the matter. (g) Till report of the committee is received, no arrest should normally be effected; (h) The report may be then considered by the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate on its own merit; …..(iv) If a bail application is filed with at least one clear day’s notice to the Public Prosecutor/complainant, the same may be decided as far as possible on the same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected. Needless to say that in dealing with bail matters, individual roles, prima facie truth of the allegations, requirement of further arrest/ custody and interest of justice must be carefully weighed; (v) In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine; (vi) It will be open to the District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer nominated by the District Judge to club all connected cases between the parties arising out of matrimonial disputes so that a holistic view is taken by the Court to whom all such cases are entrusted; and (vii) Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of the trial. (viii) These directions will not apply to the offences involving tangible physical injuries or death[Full PDF Judgments].

Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case [T. Suthenthiraraja,P. Ravichandran,Robert Payas, S Nalini Vs. State By D.S.P., CBI, SIT, Chennai]- SC-11.05.1999 [Full PDF Judgments]

Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 799 of 2011, Judgment Dated-14.01.2015, Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.: N.V. Ramana, J., Citation: 2015(4) SCC 215: 2015(1) SCALE 354: 2015(1) SLT 525: 2015 CrLJ 1560: 2015(1) Crimes 267(SC): 2015(2) JCC 1049: 2015(3) Supreme 12- Penal Code, 1860- Section 304-B- Conviction for dowry death- Death under other than normal circumstance, harassment soon before death, justified- Trial Court convicted appellant/husband of deceased u/s 498A and 304B IPC and acquitted other accused (mother and his sister)- On appeal, High Court set aside conviction and sentence of appellant u/s 498A IPC while upholding conviction and sentence u/s 304B- Appeal- Held, death of deceased (wife) occurred within seven years of her marriage- Not disputed that her death not under normal circumstances- Statements of complainant (PW-7/elder sister of deceased) and PW-13/brother were specific about harassment of deceased by accused in connection with demand of dowry- It is also evident from evidence on record that she was meted out with such harassment soon before her death- Prosecution was successful in proving ingredients of Section 304-B IPC- Trial Court rightly presumed that accused had caused dowry death of victim and High Court rightly upheld conviction and sentence- Appeal dismissed (Para 8, 12, 13 & 14)- HELD: Hari Chand (PW-13) has corroborated the statement made by the complainant (PW-7). No inconsistency is found in their statements. Defence also could not make out anything to disprove the same during their cross-examinations. From the statements of the complainant (PW-7) and Hari Chand (PW-13), we find that the deceased-Raj Rani had been harassed on account of demand of dowry soon before her death (Para 8) [Full PDF Judgments].

Rajive Raturi Vs. Union Of India And Others – Writ Petition – Civil – No. 243 Of 2005 – SC – 15.12.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Rajiv Thapar v Madan Lal Kapoor- Criminal Appeal No.174 Of 2013-Sc-23.01.2013- 2013 (3) SCC 330- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC.- Held, ” Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: i. Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?; ii. Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.; iii. Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?; iv. Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?”- “ [Full PDF Judgment].

Raj Kumar [State Of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumar]- Criminal Appeal No. 31 OF 2018-SC-08.01.2018-Criminal Law- circumstantial evidence- Held, “10. In a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be drawn only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused.”. [Full PDF Judgment].

Raj Kumar Vs State Of MP- Criminal Appeal Nos. 1419-1420 Of 2013-SC-25.02-2014- 1014-III AD (SC) 257- S-106 Of The Evidence Act- Family Court’s Original Side Jurisdiction- POSCO- Ocular Evidence, Medical Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Documentary Evidence, Police Investigation- Age Determination [Full PDF Judgment].

Raj Kumar Bhatia  Vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia- Civil Appeal No.-19400 Of 2017-3JBSC- 15.12.2017-Pleading- Amendment- CPC- O-VI, R-17- Observed: “Whether an amendment should be allowed is not dependent on whether the case which is proposed to be set up will eventually succeed at the trial. In enquiring into merits, the High Court transgressed the limitations on its jurisdiction under Article 227. [Full PDF Judgment].

Raj Kumar Goel Vs. Directorate Of Enforcement – Bail Appln. 350 Of 2018 – DelhC-10.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]

Raj Narain- State of UP vs Raj Narain]-Indian Evidence Act-Ss. 123 & 162-Scope of- 1975-AIR-865-1975-1975-SCC-4-428 [Full PDF Judgments].

Raj Talreja  Vs. Kavita Talreja-SC-24.04.2017- Civil Appeal No. 10719 OF 2013- Cruelty-S-13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Full PDF Judgment].

Rakesh Vs. State Of U.P.- JAIL APPEAL No. – 242 of 2013-AllHC-18.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]

Rakesh Baban Borhade Vs. State of Maharashtrahtra, Crl. Appeal Nos. 2446-2447/2014, Judgment Dated-19/11/2014, Bench-V. Gopala Gowda & R. Banumathi, JJ, Citations- 2015(2) SCC 313: 2014(13) JT 131: 2014(13) SCALE 93: 2014(8) Supreme 65: 2014(10) SLT 129: 2014(4) Crimes 269(SC)- Cancellation Of Bail [Full PDF Judgments].

Rakesh Kumar Paul Vs State Of Assam- Special Leave To Appeal – Crl. – No. 2009 Of  2017- SC-16.08.2017- Default Bail [Full PDF Judgment].

Ramakant Dwivedi Versus Rafiq Ahmad & Ors.- Civil Appeal No.4 Of 2016- SC-04.01.2016- Civil Appeal No.4 Of 2016- Mineral Law- Issue Of Grant Of Lease For Excavation Of Minor Minerals [Full PDF Judgment].

Ramanand Yadav vs. Prabhu Nath Jha And Ors., (2003) 12 SCC 606- Reviewing/ reappreciation of   the   evidence-  presumption of innocence of the accused- when two views are possible- miscarriage of justice- admissible evidence “21. There is no embargo on the appellate   court reviewing   the   evidence   upon   which   an   order   of acquittal is based.  Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and   the   other   to   his innocence, the   view   which   is favourable   to   the   accused   should   be   adopted.   The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast   upon   the   appellate   court   to   reappreciate   the evidence   in   a   case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not [Full PDF Judgment].

Rama Shanker & Others Vs. State of U.P-Criminal Appeal No. – 421 of 1992-AllHC- 24.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Ramdev Food Products Private Limited Versus State Of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No.600 Of 2007, Judgment Dated: 16.12.2015, T.S. Thakur, Adarsh Kumar Goel & R. Banumathi, JJ,  Delhi March 16, 2015, JJ, Supreme Court Of India [Full PDF Judgments].

Ramesh Gajanan Nigudkar Vs. The Bank Of Baroda – Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Writ Petition No.11359 Of 2013 – BomHC- 18.08.2016 [Full PDF Judgment]

Ramesh Sharma Vs  Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB Kolkata- C.R.R. 2160 of 2014- CalHC- 06.09.2016- Charges-Absence Of Framming Of Charge [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Rameshwar Prasad Versus Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 1: Held that Governors cannot be asked to join legal proceedings [Full PDF Judgment].

Rameshwari Photocopy Services [The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars Of The University Of Oxford & Ors. Vs.. Rameshwari Photocopy Services]- Cs-Os- 2439 Of 2012 – Delhc-16.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Ramgopal versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 13 SCC 540- Section 498-A- rampant misuse [Full PDF Judgments].

Ram Krishan Bhardwaj (Dr.) Vs. The State of Delhi- SC-16.04.1953- 1953 AIR 318- 1953 SCR 708- Preventive Detention Act, 1952- Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 21,22(5)- Writ Petition in the nature of habeas corpus- Detenu’s right to be supplied with full particulars- Vague ground- Right to be released- Vagueness of one of several grounds- Effect of- Preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal liberty and meagre safeguards that the Constitution provides against improper exercise of the power, must be jealously watched and enforced by the Court[Full PDF Judgment].  

Ramlila Maidan Incident DT.4/5.06.2011 [Suo Moto- Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt.4/5.06.2011 Versus Home Secretary, Union of India]- Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 122/2011, Judgment Dated- 23/02/2012, Bench: Swatanter Kumar & B.S. Chauhan, J., Supreme Court Of India, Citation- 2012(4) SCR 971: 2012(5) SCC 1: 2012(3) JT 1: 2012(2) SCALE 682: 2012(2) Supreme 36: 2012(2) SLT 229: 2012 CrLJ 3516: 2012(2) SCC(Cr) 241: 2012(1) Crimes 241(SC)- Fundamental rights- Constitution of India- Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) & 21- CrPC- S-144- Right to expression- Ramlila Maidan incident- Police action on sleeping crowd, justification- Prohibitory orders were passed is haste and executed with force- Forcible eviction of innocent public sleeping in the Maidan at midnight suffers from arbitrariness and abuse of power- Directions issued.- HELD: While directing the State Government and the Commissioner of Police to register and investigate cases of criminal acts and offences, destruction of private and public property against the police officers/personnel along with those members of the assembly, who threw bricks at the police force causing injuries to the members of the force as well as damage to the property, I issue the following directions:- a. Take disciplinary action against all the erring police officers/personnel who have indulged in brick-batting, have resorted to lathi charge and excessive use of tear gas shells upon the crowd, have exceeded their authority or have acted in a manner not permissible under the prescribed procedures, rules or the standing orders and their actions have an element of criminality. This action shall be taken against the officer/personnel irrespective of what ranks they hold in the hierarchy of police. b. The police personnel who were present in the pandal and still did not help the evacuation of the large gathering and in transportation of sick and injured people to the hospitals have, in my opinion, also rendered themselves liable for appropriate disciplinary action.  The police shall also register criminal cases against the police personnel and members of the gathering at the Ramlila ground (whether they were followers of Baba Ramdev or otherwise) who indulged in damage to the property, brick-batting etc. All these cases have already been reported to the Police Station Kamla Market. The police shall complete the investigation and file a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. within three months from today. I also direct that the persons who died or were injured in this unfortunate incident should be awarded ad hoc compensation. Smt. Rajbala, who got spinal injury in the incident and subsequently died, would be entitled to the ad-hoc compensation of Rs.5 lacs while persons who suffered grievous injuries and were admitted to the hospital would be entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/-each and persons who suffered simple injuries and were taken to the hospital but discharged after a short while would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.25,000/-each.- For breach of the legal and moral duty and for its contributory negligence, the consequences of financial liability would also pass, though to a limited extent, upon the respondent no.4Trust as well. Thus, I direct that in cases of death and grievous hurt, 25% of the awarded compensation shall be paid by the Trust. The said amount shall be paid to the Commissioner of Police, who in turn, shall issue a cheque for the entire amount in favour of the injured or the person claiming for the deceased. The compensation awarded by this Court shall be treated as ad-hoc compensation and in the event, the deceased or the injured persons or the persons claiming through them institute any legal proceedings for that purpose, the compensation awarded in this judgment shall be adjusted in those proceedings [Full PDF Judgments].

Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar- (AIR 1966 SC 740)- Constitution- Rights under Art.-19(1)(a)- Restrictions U/Art.-19(2)- Disturbance of law and order no ground [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Ram Narayan Singh Vs. The State of Delhi- AIR 1953 SC 277- Detenu- detainee- Arrestee-Confinee- Police Custody [PC]- Judicial Custody [JC]- S-167(2) CrPC- Art-21 of the Constitution- Detention beyond 60 days [Full PDF Judgment] 

Ramo Devi Vs. State- 2016(3) JCC 1579- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA)- Held, S-306 IPC is not a minor offence nor S-304B IPC and the ingredients of the two offences being different, in the absence of a charge under S-306 IPC, the Appellant could not be convicted under the said offence [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Ram Phal Versus State & Ors., Crl.A.1415/2012, Judgment Dated: 28.05.2015, S. Ravindra Bhat, Pradeep Nandrajog, Gita Mittal, JJ., Delhi High Court- Maintainability of Appeal by the “Victim” U/S-S-372 Of Cr.P.C.- Judgment, Namely, Chattar Singh V. Subhash And Ors., 176 (2011) DLT 356 Overruled- Criminal Appeals [Full PDF Judgments].

Ramrameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala Devi- Civil Appeal Nos.  4912 Of 2011-SC-04.07.2011- 2011 8 SCC 249- Warning- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2-Ex Parte Injunction- Mechanical Grant Of Injunction- Cost of Litigation- Provided that only realistic cost of litigation should be awarded [Full PDF Judgments].

Ramsiya Yadav-Gratuity Vs State of UP- WRIT-A No.- 36165 of 2014-AllHC-06.09.2016-Withholding- Justifiability  [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Ram Sukhi Devi [State Of U.P. And Ors. V. Ram Sukhi Devi]- ______- (2005) 9 SCC 733- O-39, R-1 & 2- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2-Ex Parte Injunction- Final Relief And Interim Relief [Full PDF Judgments]

  1. and M Trust Vs. Koramangla Residents Vigilance Group­ AIR 2005 SC 894- PIL- doctrine of Delay and laches [Full PDF Judgment].

Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441- Presumption of legally enforceable debt & liability U/S-139 of the NI Act & Right to rebuttal [Full PDF Judgments].

Ranjitsing   Brahmajeetsing   Sharma   Vs.   State   of Maharashtra- (2005) 5 SCC 294- – Bail in PMLA, ED, and Analogous Crimes Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999- Held, “44.  The wording of Section 21(4), in our opinion, does not lead to the conclusion that the Court must arrive at a positive finding that  the applicant for bail has not committed an offence under the Act. If such a construction is placed, the court intending to grant bail must arrive at a finding that the applicant has not committed such an offence. In such an event, it will be impossible for the prosecution to obtain a judgment of conviction of the applicant. Such cannot be the intention of the Legislature. Section 21(4) of MCOCA, therefore, must   be construed reasonably.   It   must   be   so construed that the Court is able to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial. Similarly, the Court   will   be   required   to   record   a   finding   as   to   the possibility   of   his   committing   a   crime   after   grant of bail. However, such an offence in futuro must be an offence under the Act and not any other offence. Since it is difficult to predict the future conduct of an accused, the court must necessarily consider   this   aspect   of   the   matter   having   regard   to   the antecedents of the accused, his propensities and the nature and manner in which he is alleged to have committed the offence. 45. It   is,   furthermore,   trite   that   for   the   purpose   of considering an application for grant of bail, although detailed reasons are not necessary to be assigned, the order granting bail must demonstrate application of mind at least in serious cases as to why the applicant has been granted or denied the privilege of bail. 46. The duty of the court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. However, while  dealing with a special statute like MCOCA having regard to the provisions contained in Sub­section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, the Court may have to probe into the matter deeper so as to enable it to arrive at a finding that   the   materials   collected   against   the   accused during   the   investigation   may   not   justify   a   judgment   of conviction. The findings recorded by the Court while granting or refusing bail undoubtedly would be tentative in nature, which may not have any bearing on the merit of the case and the trial court would, thus, be free to decide the case on the basis of evidence adduced at the trial, without in any manner being prejudiced thereby.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Ranjit Hazarika Vs. State of Assam- ( 1998) 8 SCC 635- Ulterior motive- Discrepancies not amounting to contradiction [Full PDF Judgments]. 

Ranju Gopal Mukherjee & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.- WP 441-W- of 2018-CalHC- 25.01.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P.-SC-11.12.2017- Civil Appeal No. 367 OF 2017-Education-College-School-Revaluation- Re-scrutiny of Answer-sheet-  “30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate – it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak Vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 2004 SC 23)- Evidence- Child Witness- competency of the child witness- Reliability of the evidence tendered by a child witness- The evidence tendered by the child witness has to be evaluated with greater circumspection, since a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell them and thus, a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring [Full Pdf Judgment].

Rattan Lal (since deceased) v. S.N. Bhalla and Anr. (AIR 2012 SC 3094)- Corporate, Business & Commercial Law- Commercial Contracts- Determinable Clauses- Termination Clause- Principle of “just, fair and devoid of arbitrariness” [Full PDF Judgment].

Rauavarapu Punnayya [State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Rauavarapu Punnayya & Another]- 1977 1 SCR 601- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA) [Full PDF Judgment].

Ravinder Vs. Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.- DelHC-W.P.(Crl.) 3317/2017-25.11.2017-Detentee/Detention- Confinee/Confinement- Arrestee/Arrest- CInstitute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS)- Mental Health Act, 1987 (MHA)- Mental Healthcare Act, 2017(Is to replace the MHA and is yet to be made operational) [Full PDF Judgment].

Ravinder Kumar Versus. Tihar Jail, New Delhi, CIC/SA/A/2015/001408, Judgment Dated: 15.01.2016 [Adjunct Order to decision dated: 21.1.2016], Bench: Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), IC – Held, “6. The Commission finds that there is a significant public interest behind the RTI application as accused should be allowed every opportunity to prove his innocence as per the cardinal principles of criminal justice. He believes that the medical records would help him to prove that with visual deficiency he could not have killed his wife as alleged, but that opportunity was denied by not certifying the medial records at first instance, destroying the records at second instance and finally denying him permission to attend the second appeal.”- “8. Because of the reasons explained above the Commission considers the Supdt, Central Jail-2 as deemed PIO and direct him to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon him for obstructing the appellant from securing his Right to information by denying permission to attend second appeal before CIC, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.   8.       Another   issue   brought   before the Commission was destruction of record after RTI application was filed. Appellant presented documents which showed that the DCP, North District, Civil Lines has destroyed medical record of the appellant vide order dated 17-­2­-2015, 14 days after the receipt of the RTI application on 3­-2-­2015. Destruction of records during pendency of RTI application would attract penalty under Section 20.- “11. The Commission directs the Superintendent, Central Jail­2 to initiate the efforts to find the medical records of the appellant if at all left out of the destruction process in the medical record room. In the alternative, the Commission requires the DCP/Civil Lines to search forany parallel entries of medical records or the bills for medical reimbursement or vouchers for payment made to the appellant or any other related document pertaining to medical history of the appellant, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. 12. The Commission directs the DGP (Prisons) to show cause why suitable compensation should not be awarded to the appellant for delaying, denying and destroying the medical records by the Public Authority.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare Vs. Indore Municipal Corporation & Ors. – Civil Appeal No. 11307 Of 2016- SC- 29.11.2016- 2017-1-SCC-667 [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. D. Upadhyay V. State Of Andhra Pradesh- Writ Petition (Civil)  559 Of 1994 – SC-13.04.2006- (1996) 3 SCC 8422- Prolonged Incarnation-Right To Bail [Full PDF Judgment].

Rev. Stainislaus Vs. Madhya Pradesh, SC-17.01.1977-_____- AIR 1977 SC 908=1977 SCC  (1) 677- Rules For Conversion Of Religion Be Framed [Full PDF Judgments].

Rehana Sultana Begum Versus Hashmi Syed Mujib- Criminal Writ Petition No. 544 OF 2003- BomHC- 11.08.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association [Union of India Vs. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association]- Civil Appeal No. 3067 Of 2004 Judgment Dated- 11.05.2010, Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.: R.V. Raveendran, J.: D.K. Jain, J.: P. Sathasivam, J.: J.M. Panchal, J., Citation- 2010(6) SCR 857: 2010(11) SCC 1: 2010(5) JT 553: 2010(5) SCALE 514: 2010(4) Supreme 193: 2010(4) SLT 211: 2010(156) CompCas 392: 2010(261) ELT 3- Quashing- Constitutional validity of Chapters 1B and 1C of the Companies Act, 1956 inserted by Companies (Second Amendment) Act 2002 providing for the constitution of National Company Law Tribunal  and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal- Following issues raised: (i) Parliament does not have the legislative competence to vest intrinsic judicial functions that have been traditionally performed by the High Courts for nearly a century in any Tribunal outside the Judiciary; (ii) The constitution of the National Company Law Tribunal and transferring the entire company jurisdiction of the High Court to the Tribunal which is not under the control of the Judiciary, is violative of the doctrine of separation of powers and independence of the Judiciary which are parts of the basic structure of the Constitution; (iii) Article 323B of the Constitution enables the appropriate Legislature to provide for adjudication or trial by Tribunals of disputes, complaints or offences with respect to all or any of the matters specified in clause (2). Clause (2) enumerate the matters in regard to which Tribunals can be constituted. The said list is exhaustive and not illustrative- The list does not provide for constitution of Tribunal for insolvency, revival and restructuring of the company. In the absence of any amendment to Article 323B providing for a National Tribunal for revival of companies and winding up companies, there is no legislative competence to provide for constitution of NCLT and NCLAT. (iv) The various provisions of Chapters IB and IC of the Act (sections 10FB, 10FD, 10FE, 10FF, 10FL(2), 10FO, 10FR(3), 10FT and 10FX) are defective and unconstitutional, being in breach of basic principles of Rule of Law, Separation of Powers and Independence of the Judiciary- Constitution of India- Articles 323-A & 323-B- Establishment of tribunals- Evasion of independence of judiciary- Gradual dilution of standards and qualifications prescribed for persons to decide cases which were earlier decided by High Court- Shrinking of space occupied by judiciary- Anguish expressed.- HELD: To start with, apart from jurisdiction relating to appeals and revisions in civil, criminal and tax matters (and original civil jurisdiction in some High Courts). The High Courts were exercising original jurisdiction in two important areas; one was writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 (including original jurisdiction in service matters) and the other was in respect to company matters.- After constitution of Administrative Tribunals under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the jurisdiction in regard to original jurisdiction relating to service matters was shifted from High Courts to Administrative Tribunals. Section 6 of the said Act deals with qualifications for appointment as Chairman, and it is evident therefrom that the Chairman has to be a High Court Judge either a sitting or a former Judge. For judicial member the qualification was that he should be a judge of a High Court or is qualified to be a Judge of the High Court (i.e. an advocate of the High Court with ten years practice or a holder of a judicial office for ten years) or a person who held the post of Secretary, Govt. of India in the Department of Legal Affairs or in the Legislative Department or Member Secretary, Law Commission of India for a period of two years; or an Additional Secretary to Government of India in the Department of Legal Affairs or Legislative Department for a period of five years. For being appointed as Administrative Member, the qualification was that the candidate should have served as Secretary to the Government of India or any other post of the Central or State Government carrying the scale of pay which is not less than as of a Secretary of Government of India for at least two years, or should have held the post of Additional Secretary to the Government of India or any other post of Central or State Government carrying the scale of pay which is not less than that of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India at least for a period of five years. In other words, matters that were decided by the High Courts could be decided by a Tribunal whose members could be two Secretary level officers with two years experience or even two Additional Secretary level officers with five years experience. This was the first dilution. The members were provided a term of office of five years and could hold office till 65 years and the salary and other perquisites of these members were made the same as that of High Court Judges. This itself gave room for a comment that these posts were virtually created as sine cure for members of the executive to extend their period of service by five years from 60 to 65 at a higher pay applicable to High Court Judges. Quite a few members of the executive thus became members of the “Tribunals exercising judicial functions”.- We may next refer to Information Technology Act, 2000 which provided for establishment of Cyber Appellate Tribunal with a single member. Section 50 of that Act provided that a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be, a Judge of a High Court, or a person who is, or has been, a member of the India Legal Service and is holding or has held a post in Grade I of that service for at least three years could be appointed as the Presiding Officer. That is, the requirement of even a Secretary level officer is gone. Any member of Indian Legal Service holding a Grade-I Post for three years can be a substitute for a High Court Judge.- The next dilution is by insertion of Chapters 1B in the Companies Act, 1956 with effect from 1.4.2003 providing for constitution of a National Company Law Tribunal with a President and a large number of Judicial and Technical Members (as many as 62). There is a further dilution in the qualifications for members of National Company Law Tribunal which is a substitute for the High Court, for hearing winding up matters and other matters which were earlier heard by High Court. A member need not even be a Secretary or Addl. Secretary Level Officer. All Joint Secretary level civil servants (that are working under Government of India or holding a post under the Central and State Government carrying a scale of pay which is not less than that of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India) for a period of five years are eligible. Further, any person who has held a Group-A post for 15 years (which means anyone belonging to Indian P&T Accounts & Finance Service, Indian Audit and Accounts Service, Indian Customs & Central Excise Service, Indian Defence Accounts Service, Indian Revenue Service, Indian Ordnances Factories Service, Indian Postal Service, Indian Civil Accounts Service, Indian Railway Traffic Service, Indian Railway Accounts Service, Indian Railway Personal Service, Indian Defence Estates Service, Indian Information Service, Indian Trade Services, or other Central or State Service) with three years’ of service as a member of Indian Company Law Service (Account) Branch, or who has `dealt’ with any problems relating to Company Law can become a Member. This means that the cases which were being decided by the Judges of the High Court can be decided by two-members of the civil services – Joint Secretary level officers or officers holding Group `A’ posts or equivalent posts for 15 years, can now discharge the functions of High Court. This again has given room for comment that qualifications prescribed are tailor made to provide sine cure for a large number of Joint Secretary level officers or officers holding Group `A’ posts to serve up to 65 years in Tribunals exercising judicial functions.- The dilution of standards may not end here. The proposed Companies Bill, 2008 contemplates that any member of Indian Legal Service or Indian Company Law Service (Legal Branch) with only ten years service, out of which three years should be in the pay scale of Joint Secretary, is qualified to be appointed as a Judicial Member. The speed at which the qualifications for appointment as Members is being diluted is, to say the least, a matter of great concern for the independence of the Judiciary [Full PDF Judgment].R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association [Union of India Vs. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association]- Civil Appeal No. 3067 Of 2004 Judgment Dated- 11.05.2010, Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.: R.V. Raveendran, J.: D.K. Jain, J.: P. Sathasivam, J.: J.M. Panchal, J., Citation- 2010(6) SCR 857: 2010(11) SCC 1: 2010(5) JT 553: 2010(5) SCALE 514: 2010(4) Supreme 193: 2010(4) SLT 211: 2010(156) CompCas 392: 2010(261) ELT 3- Quashing- Constitutional validity of Chapters 1B and 1C of the Companies Act, 1956 inserted by Companies (Second Amendment) Act 2002 providing for the constitution of National Company Law Tribunal  and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal- Following issues raised: (i) Parliament does not have the legislative competence to vest intrinsic judicial functions that have been traditionally performed by the High Courts for nearly a century in any Tribunal outside the Judiciary; (ii) The constitution of the National Company Law Tribunal and transferring the entire company jurisdiction of the High Court to the Tribunal which is not under the control of the Judiciary, is violative of the doctrine of separation of powers and independence of the Judiciary which are parts of the basic structure of the Constitution; (iii) Article 323B of the Constitution enables the appropriate Legislature to provide for adjudication or trial by Tribunals of disputes, complaints or offences with respect to all or any of the matters specified in clause (2). Clause (2) enumerate the matters in regard to which Tribunals can be constituted. The said list is exhaustive and not illustrative- The list does not provide for constitution of Tribunal for insolvency, revival and restructuring of the company. In the absence of any amendment to Article 323B providing for a National Tribunal for revival of companies and winding up companies, there is no legislative competence to provide for constitution of NCLT and NCLAT. (iv) The various provisions of Chapters IB and IC of the Act (sections 10FB, 10FD, 10FE, 10FF, 10FL(2), 10FO, 10FR(3), 10FT and 10FX) are defective and unconstitutional, being in breach of basic principles of Rule of Law, Separation of Powers and Independence of the Judiciary- Constitution of India- Articles 323-A & 323-B- Establishment of tribunals- Evasion of independence of judiciary- Gradual dilution of standards and qualifications prescribed for persons to decide cases which were earlier decided by High Court- Shrinking of space occupied by judiciary- Anguish expressed.- HELD: To start with, apart from jurisdiction relating to appeals and revisions in civil, criminal and tax matters (and original civil jurisdiction in some High Courts). The High Courts were exercising original jurisdiction in two important areas; one was writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 (including original jurisdiction in service matters) and the other was in respect to company matters.- After constitution of Administrative Tribunals under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the jurisdiction in regard to original jurisdiction relating to service matters was shifted from High Courts to Administrative Tribunals. Section 6 of the said Act deals with qualifications for appointment as Chairman, and it is evident therefrom that the Chairman has to be a High Court Judge either a sitting or a former Judge. For judicial member the qualification was that he should be a judge of a High Court or is qualified to be a Judge of the High Court (i.e. an advocate of the High Court with ten years practice or a holder of a judicial office for ten years) or a person who held the post of Secretary, Govt. of India in the Department of Legal Affairs or in the Legislative Department or Member Secretary, Law Commission of India for a period of two years; or an Additional Secretary to Government of India in the Department of Legal Affairs or Legislative Department for a period of five years. For being appointed as Administrative Member, the qualification was that the candidate should have served as Secretary to the Government of India or any other post of the Central or State Government carrying the scale of pay which is not less than as of a Secretary of Government of India for at least two years, or should have held the post of Additional Secretary to the Government of India or any other post of Central or State Government carrying the scale of pay which is not less than that of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India at least for a period of five years. In other words, matters that were decided by the High Courts could be decided by a Tribunal whose members could be two Secretary level officers with two years experience or even two Additional Secretary level officers with five years experience. This was the first dilution. The members were provided a term of office of five years and could hold office till 65 years and the salary and other perquisites of these members were made the same as that of High Court Judges. This itself gave room for a comment that these posts were virtually created as sine cure for members of the executive to extend their period of service by five years from 60 to 65 at a higher pay applicable to High Court Judges. Quite a few members of the executive thus became members of the “Tribunals exercising judicial functions”.- We may next refer to Information Technology Act, 2000 which provided for establishment of Cyber Appellate Tribunal with a single member. Section 50 of that Act provided that a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be, a Judge of a High Court, or a person who is, or has been, a member of the India Legal Service and is holding or has held a post in Grade I of that service for at least three years could be appointed as the Presiding Officer. That is, the requirement of even a Secretary level officer is gone. Any member of Indian Legal Service holding a Grade-I Post for three years can be a substitute for a High Court Judge.- The next dilution is by insertion of Chapters 1B in the Companies Act, 1956 with effect from 1.4.2003 providing for constitution of a National Company Law Tribunal with a President and a large number of Judicial and Technical Members (as many as 62). There is a further dilution in the qualifications for members of National Company Law Tribunal which is a substitute for the High Court, for hearing winding up matters and other matters which were earlier heard by High Court. A member need not even be a Secretary or Addl. Secretary Level Officer. All Joint Secretary level civil servants (that are working under Government of India or holding a post under the Central and State Government carrying a scale of pay which is not less than that of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India) for a period of five years are eligible. Further, any person who has held a Group-A post for 15 years (which means anyone belonging to Indian P&T Accounts & Finance Service, Indian Audit and Accounts Service, Indian Customs & Central Excise Service, Indian Defence Accounts Service, Indian Revenue Service, Indian Ordnances Factories Service, Indian Postal Service, Indian Civil Accounts Service, Indian Railway Traffic Service, Indian Railway Accounts Service, Indian Railway Personal Service, Indian Defence Estates Service, Indian Information Service, Indian Trade Services, or other Central or State Service) with three years’ of service as a member of Indian Company Law Service (Account) Branch, or who has `dealt’ with any problems relating to Company Law can become a Member. This means that the cases which were being decided by the Judges of the High Court can be decided by two-members of the civil services – Joint Secretary level officers or officers holding Group `A’ posts or equivalent posts for 15 years, can now discharge the functions of High Court. This again has given room for comment that qualifications prescribed are tailor made to provide sine cure for a large number of Joint Secretary level officers or officers holding Group `A’ posts to serve up to 65 years in Tribunals exercising judicial functions.- The dilution of standards may not end here. The proposed Companies Bill, 2008 contemplates that any member of Indian Legal Service or Indian Company Law Service (Legal Branch) with only ten years service, out of which three years should be in the pay scale of Joint Secretary, is qualified to be appointed as a Judicial Member. The speed at which the qualifications for appointment as Members is being diluted is, to say the least, a matter of great concern for the independence of the Judiciary [Full PDF Judgment-18.05.2007] [Full PDF Judgment-11.05.2010].

Riju Prasad Sarma Vs. State of Assam: (2015) 9 SCC 461- Writ- Jurisdiction- Held, when the High Court or the Supreme Court acts in its administrative capacity, then only it is considered to fall within the definition of “State” within the meaning of Article 12, “68. Hence, in accordance with such judgments holding that the judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction and for want of requisite governmental control, judiciary cannot be a State under Article 12, we also hold that while acting on the judicial side the courts are not included in the definition of the State….”. 

Riju Prasad Sarma Vs. State of Assam: (2015) 9 SCC 461- Writ- Jurisdiction- Held, when the High Court or the Supreme Court acts in its administrative capacity, then only it is considered to fall within the definition of “State” within the meaning of Article 12, “68. Hence, in accordance with such judgments holding that the judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction and for want of requisite governmental control, judiciary cannot be a State under Article 12, we also hold that while acting on the judicial side the courts are not included in the definition of the State….”. 

Ritesh Sinha v. State of UP and another-(2013) 2 SCC 357- Criminal Laws- Voice Sample- Court below has no power to direct the accused to give voice sample to the investigating agency for verification- In another Case, the SC had conflicting views and hence, the matter has already referred to a larger bench and the same is pending adjudication [Full PDF Judgment].

R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCR 947- Taxation Laws- Held, “every legislation particularly in economic matters is essentially empiric and it is based on experimentation or what one may call trial and error method and therefore, it cannot provide for all possible situations or anticipate all possible abuses.” [Full PDF Judgments].

R.K. Jain Vs. Union Of India-3JBSC-14.05.1993- 1993 AIR 1769= 1993 SCC  (4) 119- Constitutional Laws- Constitution of India- Art-75(3)- The principle of Collective   responsibility  under Art-75(3) of the Constitution [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta & ors., SC-24.10.2008- Crl. A.No. 1694 OF 2008- (2009) 1 SCC 516-Quashing of Proceedings- Quashing of FIR-Inherent power [Full PDF Judgments].

R.M.Malkani v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 1 SCC 471]- Criminal Law- Inquiry & Investigation- S-73- Evidence Act- absence of any specific provision- Practice & Procedure- inherent powers- ancillary powers- Tape recorded conversation is admissible in evidence  subject to certain certain conditions- Identification of the voice is a prerequisite- Without identification of voice, the tape recorded conversation is not admissible [Full PDF Judgments].

Robust Hotels Pvt. Ltd. &  Ors. – Vs. Eih Limited & Ors. – Civil Appeal Nos. 11886­11887 Of 2016- SC- 07.12.2016- CPC-O-39-R-2A-2017-1-SCC-622 [Full PDF Judgment].

Rohit Tandon Vs. The Enforcement Directorate, Criminal Appeal Nos.1878-­1879-3JBSC-10.11.2017-_______- Bail in PMLA, ED, and Analogous Crimes- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2012 (PMLA)- S-45- The Court was not called upon to consider the efficacy of Section 45 of the Act of 2002- Held, “18. The consistent view taken by this Court is that economic offences having deep­rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.  Further, when attempt is made to project the proceeds   of   crime   as   untainted   money   and   also   that   the allegations may not ultimately be established,  but having been made,   the   burden   of   proof   that   the   monies   were   not   the proceeds of crime and were not, therefore, tainted shifts  on the accused persons under Section 24 of the Act of 2002.”.- Further held, “19…. It has been expounded that the Court at the stage of considering the application for grant of bail, shall consider the question   from   the   angle   as   to   whether   the   accused   was possessed of the requisite mens rea.  The Court is not required to record a positive finding that the accused had not committed an offence   under   the   Act.   The   Court   ought   to   maintain   a delicate   balance   between   a   judgment   of   acquittal   and conviction   and   an   order   granting   bail   much   before commencement of trial. The duty of the Court at this stage is not   to   weigh   the   evidence   meticulously   but   to   arrive   at   a finding on the basis of broad probabilities.  Further, the Court is   required   to   record   a   finding   as   to   the   possibility   of   the accused committing a crime which is an offence under the Act after grant of bail. Further held, “27. Suffice it to observe that the appellant has not succeeded in   persuading  us about  the  inapplicability  of  the  threshold stipulation under Section 45 of the Act…… It   is,   therefore,   not   possible   for   us   to   record satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant is not guilty of such offence.  Further, the Courts below have justly adverted to the antecedents of the appellant for considering the prayer for bail and concluded that it is not possible to hold that the appellant is not likely to commit any offence ascribable to the Act of 2002 while on bail. Since the threshold stipulation predicated in Section 45 has not been overcome,   the   question   of   considering   the   efficacy   of   other points urged by the appellant to persuade the Court to favour the appellant with the relief of regular bail will be of no avail. In other words, the fact that the investigation in the predicate offence instituted in terms of FIR No.205/2016   or that the investigation   qua   the   appellant   in   the   complaint   CC No.700/2017 is completed; and that the proceeds of crime is already in   possession   of   the   investigating   agency   and provisional attachment order in relation thereto passed on 13th February, 2017 has been confirmed; or that charge­sheet has been filed in FIR No.205/2016 against the appellant without his   arrest;   that   the   appellant   has   been   lodged   in   judicial custody since 2nd January, 2017 and has not been interrogated or  examined   by   the   Enforcement   Directorate   thereafter;   all these will be of no consequence.” [Full PDF Judgment] Rohit-Tondan-DelHC-05.05.2017-Bail-Application-119-of-2017-Bail-in-PMLA-ED-and-Analogous-Crimes[Full PDF Judgments].

Roma Rajesh Tiwari Vs. Rajesh Dinanath Tiwari – Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Writ Petition No.10696 Of 2017 – BomHC- 12.10.2017- -S-19-1-A- DV Act- Restraint Orders Qua Residence [Full PDF Judgment]

Romesh Thappar Vs.The State Of Madras, SC-26.05.1950- Original Suit No.-16 of 1950- 1950 AIR  124-1950 SCR  594- Fundamental rights- Free speech and expression-Article 19(1)(a)-Restrictions, Extent & Scope [Full PDF Judgments]. 

  1. Paramasivan Vs. The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu – WRIT      APPEAL No. 1181 of 2016 – MadHC- 22.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
  2. P. KAPUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB-5JBSC-25.03.1960- 1960 AIR 862-1960 SCR (3) 311- Quashing of Proceedings- Quashing of FIR-Inherent power-In this Case the Supreme  Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge [Full PDF Judgments]. 

RPP Infra Projects Ltd. Versus. NTPC Tamil Nadu Energy, O.M.P. 924/2014, Judgment Dated: 16/12/2014, Bench: Deepa Sharma, J., Delhi High Court- Citation: 2015(3) R.A.J. 29: 2015(1) ArbLR 242- Banking & Finance- Bank Guarantee- Stipulation of amount payable without demure or objection, effect of- Held, bank guarantees in dispute, clearly in unequivocal terms and unconditionally recite that amount would be paid without demure or objection- Bank guarantee thus is an independent contract between bank and beneficiary and can be challenged only on ground of fraud and irreparable injury.- Hindustan Construction vs. State of Bihar, (1999) 8 SCC 436, Relied on (Para 12) [Full PDF Judgments].

  1. Rajagopal V. State Of T.N. (Auto Shankar Case)- (1994) 6 SCC 632- Relied Upon- Fundamental Rights- Protection Of Right Of Privacy Vis-A-Vis Defamation [Full PDF Judgment].`

R.Sakkrapani Whip, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Vs. Secretary Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly- WP Nos. 26017, 27853 to 27856 of 2017 – MadHC – 27.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

R.S. Dahiya  Vs. State- (Through Nct Of Delhi)- CRL.A. 54 of 2004- DelHC-03.01.2018- S-34 IPC- S-313 CrPC- To invoke Section-34 against the accused, active participation is a must- Unless a circumstance appearing against the accused is put to him in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the same cannot be used against him [Full PDF Judgments].

R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay-Criminal Appeal No. 658 of 1985- SC-17.04.1996-1986-AIR 2045-1986 SCC  (2) 716- Framing of Charge- Whether  a charge should be framed against the accused  or not- Test of prima facie case to be applied- Comparison between S-245(1), S-227, S-239, & S-245 CrPC- Ingredients      of  Cheating, U/S-415 IPC & 420 IPC explained- Ingredients  of  extortion-U/S-383 IPC & 384 IPC explained [Full PDF Judgment]. 

R.S. Raghunath Vs. State of Karnataka- Civil Appeal No. 5617 Of 1990-Sc-04.10.1991- AIR 1992 SC 81- Notwithstanding any laws to the contrary-  Non-Obstante Clause- Held, “the general rule to be followed in case of conflict between the two statutes is that the later abrogates the earlier one.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Ruby Begum Alias Rina Samina Vs. State (Nct) Of Delhi- Evidence- CRL.APPL. No.1074 Of 2016-  Family members- Interested witnesses- Presumption- U/S-106- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Full PDF Judgment]

Rufina D’ souza vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai- Civil Appeal No. 3798 OF 2017- 3JBSC-09.03.2017- (2017) 4 SCC 81- Judicial Review- Parameters- Permissible Grounds & Impediments- Disputed Question of Fact- Pendency of Unrelated Court Proceedings- Held, “5….The High Court may be right in observing that disputed questions need not be gone into in writ proceedings, but that does not preclude the writ petitioners from challenging the show cause notices issued by the statutory authority on permissible grounds. It is open to the Court to consider the challenge on the touchstone and parameters delineated for judicial review of such action. The fact that a suit for specific performance was pending between the private parties and they were unable to strike any settlement, cannot be a tangible reason to decline to examine the grounds of challenge put forth by the writ petitioners in relation to the impugned notices.”- Further held, “6. Suffice it to observe that the High Court ought to have examined the grounds of challenge and the reliefs claimed by the appellants in the writ petition concerning the action initiated by the statutory authority. That challenge will have to be examined, uninfluenced by the pendency of the suit for specific performance between the private parties.”. [Full PDF Judgment].

Rupali Gupta Vs. Rajat Gupta- MAT.APP.(F.C.) 143/2014- DHC- 05.09.2016- Professionally-Qualified, Capable Of Sustaining Self Spouse Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra-SC-10.04.2002- Writ Petition (civil) 509 of 1997- (2002) 4 SCC 388- Curative Petition- Issue, Whether the judgment of this Court dated March 10, 1997 in Civil Appeal No.1843 of 1997 can be regarded as a nullity- Also, whether a writ petition under Art-32 of the Constitution can be maintained to question the validity of a judgment of this Court after the petition for review of the said judgment has been dismissed [Full PDF Judgments- First Part | Second Part | Third Part | Fourth Part].

Rupali Lamba & Anr Vs Sukhwant Singh Lamba – L.P.A. 28 Of 2015 -DelHC-24.08.2018- Hc Lacks Such Jurisdiction [Full PDF Judgment].

Sabarimala-Temple-Issue-Title-Indian-Young-Lawyers-Association-Vs-State of Kerala.-SC-13.10.2017-Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 Of 2006 [Full PDF Judgment].

Sabu Mathew George Vs. Union Of India & Ors. – Writ Petition – Civil –    No. 341 of       2008 –  SC-19.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Sachin & Anr v Jhabbu Lal & Anr- RSA 136 Of 2016- DelHC- 24.11.2016- S-4- Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007- Tribunal does have jurisdiction to evict son and daughter-in-law from the house of a senior citizen [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Sadhna Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company-Appeal (Civil) 557 of 2003- 3JBSC-23.01.2003- Writ- Art-226 and 227- Jurisdiction- High Courts-Parameters- Held, the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction. In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or tribunal and it is not open to it to review or reassess the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal has passed an order. The Trial Court had in the considered exercise of its jurisdiction allowed the amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. There was no reason for the High Court to interfere under Article 227 [Full PDF Judgment-I] [Full PDF Judgment-II].

Sadhu Saran Singh Versus State Of U.P. And Ors., Criminal Appeal Nos. 1467-1468 Of 2005, Judgment Dated: 26.02.2016, Bench: DIPAK MISRA & N.V. RAMANA, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Criminal Appeals- Appeal against acquittal- Issue, extent & scope of the power of the Appellate Court in an Appeal against acquittal- “18…..This Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, in the case of Sambasivan and Others V. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412, has held : “18…..The principles with regard to the scope of the powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal are well settled. The powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible the appellate Court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial Court. It is only when the approach of the trial Court in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal”. – “20. This Court in Chandrappa V. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, after referring to a catena of decisions, has laid down the following general principles with regard to powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge : (1)An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, ‘substantial and compelling reasons’, ‘good and sufficient grounds’, ‘very strong circumstances’, ‘distorted conclusions’, ‘glaring mistakes’, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ‘flourishes of language’ to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.”.  – Resolving the issue of inconsistency between the medical and ocular evidence the court relied on the following legal proposition, “21(iii)….This Court in Darbara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 476, wherein this Court has held : “…. So far as the question of inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence is concerned, the law is well settled that, unless the oral evidence available is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral evidence would have primacy. In the event of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence and when medical evidence makes the oral testimony improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of such evidence. It is only when the contradiction between the two is so extreme that the medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all, that the ocular evidence is liable to be disbelieved.”.- Acquittal by the HC reversed, handing out life imprisonment, modifying the death penalty awarded by the trial court [Full PDF Judgment].

Sai Dr. Versus The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1381 Of 2015, Judgment Dated: 27.09.2016, Bench: A. V. Nirgude & V.L. Achliya, JJ, Delhi  High Court/ Supreme Court Of India- Quashing Of Criminal Complaint [Full PDF Judgments]. 

Sajjan Kumar-SC-20.09.2010-Framing of Charge-Discharge [Full PDF Judgments].

Sajjan-Kumar-Ors-04.11.2016-Issue- Recusal of a Judge from the case- Transfer-Of-Case from one Court to another [Full PDF Judgments].

Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India- Writ Petition (Civil) 496 of 2002-SC-02.08.2005-2005-6-SCC-344- Observed, “Construction of the rule or procedure which promotes justice and prevents miscarriage has to be preferred. The rules or procedure are handmaid of justice and not its mistress”. [Full PDF Judgment].

Salman Khan [State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan]- Appeal-Crl.-1508 of 2003-SC-18.12.2003- AIR 2004 SC 1189- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC.- The Court depreciated the practice of entertaining the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at a pre-mature stage. Held, “proceedings get protracted by the intervention of the superior courts.”.    Further held, “We are of the opinion that though it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the Code to quash charges framed by the trial Court, same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of charge can be done only at the stage of trial. We think the High Court was not justified in this case in giving a finding as to the non-existence of material to frame a charge for an offence punishable under Section 304, Part II, IPC, therefore so far as the finding given by the High Court is concerned, we are satisfied that it is too premature a finding and ought not to have been given at this stage.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Salman Khurshid Vs. Delhi Public School Society- FAO-OS-260 Of 2017 – DelHC – 01.06.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]

Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh-Appeal (Civil) 151 of 2004-SC-26.03.2007- (2007) 4 SCC 511- Divorce-HMA- S- 13(1)(a) [Full PDF Judgment].

Samarth Mittal Versus  Union Of India & Ors, W.P.(C) 6170/2015 & CM No.11211/2015, Judgment Dated: 06.07.2015, Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J, Delhi  High Court- Issue, quashing of Administrative Order/ Govt. Policy- Held, “Once a Bye-law admittedly stands on a higher footing than the administrative circular which has been issued, the understanding, if any, of the Controller of Examination thereof or the difficulties if any faced in introducing re-evaluation in all the subjects at the same time is irrelevant. Difficulty involved in implementing a law is no ground to apply the provision of law in a manner different from what the law means, as discussed by the Division Bench of which undersigned was a member in Amit Bhagat Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi MANU/DE/3351/2014.” [Full PDF Judgments].

Samir Vidyasagar Bhardwaj V. Nandita S Bhardwaj-Review Petition (C) No. 2842 OF 2017 IN Civil Appeal NO. 6450 OF 2017 -SC-16.01.2018- Civil Appeal NO. 6450 OF 2017-SC-09.05.2017- S-19-1-B- DV Act- Removal Of Husband Frm House [Full PDF Judgments].

Sampurna Behura  Vs. Union Of India & Ors.- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 473 OF 2005- SC-09.02.2018-Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015- the JJ Act- [Full PDF Judgment].

Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.- Appeal (Crl.)  1708 of 2007-SC-13.02.2007- (2007) 13 SCC 165 [Full PDF Judgments].

Sandeep Bera Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal & Ors., W. P. 24471 (W) of 2016, Judgment Dated: 12.05.2016, Bench: Dipankar Datta, J., Calcutta High Court/ Supreme Court Of India- Quashing Of Govt. Policies- Subversion of the rule of law.- Mixing of politics with religion- Arbitrary Decisions [Full PDF Judgments].

Sandhya Kumari Vs. Manish Kumar- Mat. App.-F.C.- 36 Of 2014- DelHC-21.10.2016- Divorce-False Allegations By the spouse against each other-Valid ground for divorce [Full PDF Judgment]

Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Sou. Vs. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade- Criminal Appeal No.271 OF 2011- SC-30.01.2011- 2011 (3) SCC 650- The legislature never intended to exclude female relatives of the husband or male partner from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Full PDF Judgment].

Sandhya Rani Debbarma & Ors. Vs. The National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. – Civil Appeal No. 9194 Of 2016 – Sc – 16.09.2016- Damages & Compensation-MV Act [Full PDF Judgment].

Sanjay Bansal and Another Vs. Jawaharlal Vats and Others- Appeal (Crl.)  1453 of 2007-SC-22.10.2007- (2007) 3 SCC 71- It is no more open to any Court to prematurely terminate a criminal case (Quash an FIR ) behind the back of the complainant/whistle blower without giving him an opportunity of being heard [Full PDF Judgment].

Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation- Criminal Appeal No.2178 OF 2011 – SC -23.11.2011- (2012) 1 SCC 40= (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 40- Bail in PMLA, ED, and Analogous Crimes [Full PDF Judgment].

Sanjay Gandhi [State Versus Sanjay Gandhi]- Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 1978-SC-05.05.1978- AIR 1978 SC 961=AIR 1978 SC 961- Cancellation Of Bail [Full PDF Judgment].

Sanjay Singh [State  Vs. Sanjay Singh]- Crl.A.766 Of 2017- DelHC-08.01.2018- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA) [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh- Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1278 of 2016 and 422 of 2017- SC-09.10.2017- Matrimonial- Divorce- Child Custody- Counselor- Settlement- Transfer Petition- Right of video conferencing- Family Court had been given ample power to modulate its own procedure [Full PDF Judgment].

Santosh Vs. The State Of Maharashtra – Criminal Appeal No.1759 Of 2017-SC-10.10.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Santosh Alias Ravi Vs. State- CRL.A. 855 of 2002- DelHC-04.01.2018- Adverse inference- Non-examination of material witnesses- Sole testimony- Onus to prove [Full PDF Judgment]

Santosh Kumar Dohare Vs. State of MP -MPGWLRHC-24.05.2018- State got to compensate the Accused for his malicious compensation [Full PDF Judgment].

Sapna Sinha Vs. GNCT, DHC-30.10.2017- W.P.-C- 765-2013- Cancelation Of Unutilized Chambers in Dwarka Court [Full PDF Judgments].  

Saraswati Sugar Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise- Civil Appeal No. 5295 OF 2003-SC-02.08.2011- 2011 (270) ELT 465 [Full PDF Judgments].

Sardul Singh Vs Pritam Singh- SC-18.03.1999- Appeal (Civil) 1763 of 1993- 1999 (2) SCR 22- Evidence & Witnesses- Proof & Proving- Pleading- Issues- Absence of specific pleading in the Plaint or WS or absence of issue being framed by the Court- Held: “It is well-settled that notwithstanding the absence of pleadings before a court or authority, still if an issue is framed and the parties were conscious of it and went to trial on that issue and adduced evidence and had an opportunity to produce evidence or cross examine witnesses in relation to the said issue, no objection as to want of specific pleading can be permitted to be raised later…” [Full PDF Judgment].

Sarojni Bhoi Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Writ Petition (S) No. 296 OF 2014, Judgment Dated: 30.11.2015, Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal, J, Chhattisgarh High Court- Policy of Compassionate appointment excluding married daughter for consideration is a retrograde policy of Welfare State and violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution [Full PDF Judgment].

Sarvesh Security Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. University Of Delhi- DelHC-08.12.2017-W.P.(C) 10931/2017- Tender- Bid- Technical Evaluation Stage- All Compliance complete- Certificates of statutory Registrations- Registration under Employee Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1952 (EPFMPA)- Registration under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI)- Registration under The Contract Labour (Regulation &Abolition) Act, 1970- Registration under the Private Security Agencies Regulation Act, 2005- Registration under GST,TIN/TAN/PAN- Registration with Labour Department of the State/Central Govt.- Any other, if required.
[Full PDF Judgment].

Sarwan Singh Vs. State, Bail Appln.No. 2102/2014, Judgment Dated- 20/01/2015, Bench- Manmohan Singh, J, Citation- 2015(1) JCC 703 [Full PDF Judgment].

Sashi Prasad Barohaa v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer (1977) 107 ITR 784 (SC)- – Taxation Laws- Held, “it is not unconstitutional for the legislature to leave it to the executive to determine details relating to the working of taxation laws, such as the selection of persons on whom the tax is to be laid, the rates at which it is to be charged in respect of different clauses of goods and the like.” [Full PDF Judgments].

Sasi Thomas Vs.State-SC-24.11.2006- Appeal (Crl.) 1211 of 2006-2006 (12) SCC 421- Fundamental Rights- Right of an accused to fair trial and fair investigation- Proper and fair investigation on the part of the investigating officer is the backbone of rule of law. A proper and effective investigation into a serious offence and particularly in a case where there is no direct evidence assumes great significance as collection of adequate materials to prove the circumstantial evidence becomes essential [Full PDF Judgment].

Satish Ahuja Versus Union Of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 580/2015, Judgment Dated: 27.04.2016, Bench: Manmohan, J, Delhi High Court- Issue Of Territorial Jurisdiction-  Petition seeking resitement of a retail outlet petrol pump allotted by the Indian Oil Corporation.- Judgments referred to & relied upon- Jagdambay Auto Station and Anr. v. UOI and Others, WP(C) 6398/2010, Judgment Dated: 01.11.2012, Bench: Vipin Sanghi, J, Delhii High Court [Full PDF Judgments].

Satvinder Kaur Vs. State, (1999) 8 SCC 728 [Full PDF Judgments].

Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, Government Of India- Writ petitions Nos. 230 of 1966 and 30 of 1967-SC-10.04.1967- SC-10.04.1967- 1967 AIR 1836- Visa & Passport- The right to travel abroad is a part of a person’s personal liberty of which he could not be deprived, except according to the procedure established by law in terms of Art-21 of constitution of India- S-6(1)(a) of the Passport Act, 1967- Passports Rules, 1980 [Full PDF Judgment].

Satya Narayan Tiwari @ Jolly & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. – Criminal Appeal No(S). 1168 Of 2005 – Sc – 28.10.2010 [Full PDF Judgment].

Satyawati Tondon [United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon]- Civil Appeal No. OF 2010- SC-26.07.2010- (2010) 8 SCC 110- SARFAESI Act- Invocation of the extraordinary power under Article 226/227 in challenging the actions taken under the SARFAESI Act [Full PDF Judgment].

Sayeeda Farhana Shamim Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.- Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Criminal Appeal NO. OF 2008 SC-16.05.2008- (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 218- Section- 91 Cr.P.C.- Summons to produce document or other thing [Full PDF Judgment].

S.B. Johari [State of M.P Vs. S.B. Johari]- SC-17.01.2000- 2000 SCC(Cri) 311)- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 245  &  246 CrPC [Full PDF Judgment].

Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya Vs. State Of Gujrat- GujHC- Criminal- CrPC, 1973- S- 195 & 340- Prosecution of a wife who deposed falsely on an Affidavit.- 20.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Setu Niket Versus Union Of India & Ors, W.P.(C) 1089/2013 & CM No.2073/2013, Judgment Dated- 19.11.2015, Bench- Chief Justice  & Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J, Delhi High Court [Full PDF Judgment]- Railway Claims [Full PDF Judgments].

Shafhi Mohammad Versus The State Of Himachal Pradesh- Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.2302 of 2017- SC-30.01.2018- Evidence Act- S-3, 63, 65, 65B(4), 65B- Electronic evidence- secondary evidence- Videography- Body-Worn Cameras- Document [Full Pdf Judgment]. 

Shahabuddin, Md. [State of Bihar Vs. Md. Shahabuddin]- SC-30.09.2016-Crl. Appeal-932 of 2016-Cancellation of Bail.

Shah Bano Begum [Mohd. Ahmed Khan Vs. Shah Bano Begum]- 5JBSC-23.04.1995- 1985 AIR  945- 1985 SCC  (2) 556- Maintenance- S-125 CrPC- Muslim Personal  Law [Full PDF Judgments].

Shaikh Farooq Vs. Shaikh Rafiq – Criminal Appeal No.172 Of 2014-BomHC-19.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment]

Shakil Ahmad Jalaluddin Shaikh Versus Vahida Shakil Shaikh & Anr., Criminal Writ Petition No. 2201 OF 2007, Judgment Dated: 20.01.2016, Bench: M. S. SONAK, J., Bombay High Court- S-125 Cr.P.C- Legality & Validity of Tripple Talaq Under Muslim Law- Legality & Validity of Talaqnama- Talaqnama alone not sufficient to prove Muslim Talaq [Full PDF Judgments].

Shakti Trading Co. V. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 871 (SC) Partnership Firm- Held, on the dissolution of a firm, where the business of firm is not discontinued and is taken over by other partners, the stock-in-trade of the firm can be valued at cost or market value, whichever is lower [Full PDF Judgments].

Shalini Soni Vs. Union of India- Writ Petition Nos. 4344, 1899 and 4500 of 1980.-24.10.1980- (1980) 4 SCC 544- Preventive Detention Act, 1952- Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 21,22(5)- Writ Petition in the nature of habeas corpus- Detenu’s right- Observed, the accused must have proper opportunity of making an effective representation [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Shamar Rimpoche [Holiness] V. Lea Terhune And Others- AIR 2005 Del 167- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2- Grant Of Ex Parte Injunction [Full PDF Judgments].

Shamim Ara  Versus State of U.P. & Anr.- Appeal (Crl.) 465 of 1996, Judgment Dated: 10.10.2002, Bench: R.C. Lahoti & P.Venkatarama Reddi, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, AIR 2002 SC 3551: Talaq Under Muslim Law- In This Case the Court held that for an effective and valid talaq, it must be actually pronounced and declared by the husband [Full PDF Judgments].

Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan- Criminal Appeal Nos.564-565 OF 2015-SC-06.04.2015, Bench: Dipak Mishra & Prafulla C Pant, JJ, Supreme Court Of India: Maintenance Of Wife & Children- Wife’s right to receive maintenance under section-125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is an absolute right, irrespective of religion: Muslim women are equally entitled for maintenance under Section-125 Cr.P.C.- Upholding a wife’s right to receive maintenance, the division bench of Dipak Misra and P.C. Pant, JJ., held that a wife’s right to receive maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973, is an absolute right, unless disqualified. The Court reiterated that grant of maintenance to a wife is a measure of social justice and a husband is under obligation to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead his inability to do the same due to financial constraint, as long as he is able- bodied and capable of earning [Full PDF Judgments].

Shankarlal Aggarwal And Ors. Vs. Shankarlal Poddar And Ors.- SC-24.01.1963- AIR 1965 SC 507- Company Law- Sale Confirmed by Company Judge- Set aside by Division   Bench- Administrative and judicial orders- Distinction- Whether the order of the Company judge confirming the sale was merely an administrative order passed in the course of the administration of the assets of the company under liquidation, and therefore not a judicial order subject to appeal under cl. 15 of the Letters Patent of the Calcutta High Court [Full PDF Judgment].

Shanta Kumar Vs. Council Of Scientific And Industrial Research (CSIR) & Ors – W.P.-C- 8149 Of 2010-DelHC-31.10.2017 [Full PDF Judgment]

Shantidevi P. Gaikwad, Her Highness Maharani Vs. Savijbhai Haribhai Patel- Appeal-Civil-3530  of  1998-SC-21.03.2001- (AIR 2001 SC 1462) – Corporate, Business & Commercial Law-  Commercial Contracts- Determinable Clauses- Termination Clause- Principle of “just, fair and devoid of arbitrariness” [Full PDF Judgment].

Shanti v. State of Haryana- (1991) 1 SCC 371- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA)- Held, unnatural death whether homicidal or suicidal would attract S-304B IPC [Full PDF Judgment].

Shashi Tharoor (Dr. ) Vs. Arnab Goswami- DelDC- 01.10.2017-CS(OS) 253/2017- CPC- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2- Publications- Print & Electronic Media- Hampering Course of investigation/inquiry [Full PDF Judgment].

Shaurya Gulati Versus Central Board of Secondary Education, W.P.(C) 6170/2015 & CM No.11211/2015, Judgment Dated: 06.07.2015, Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J, Delhi  High Court -Issue, quashing of Administrative Order/Govt. Policy- Held, “There is no rationale behind prohibiting the revaluation of the theory paper of Physical Education.” [Full PDF Judgments].

Shayara Bano V. Union Of India-SC- 22.08.2017- WP-C-No.118 Of 2016- Tripple Talaq [Full PDF Judgments].

Sheela Joshi Vs. Air India (Formly Known as National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL)- LPA No. 806/2012, Judgment: 19/02/2013, Bench: D. Murugesan, C.J. & V.K. Jain, J., Delhi High Court, Citation: 2013(4) AD(Delhi) 196- Aviation Involving The ID Act, 1947- Constitution of India- Article 226- Writ petition- Availability of efficacious alternative remedy, Maintainability of- Petitioners are working as Cabin Crew with the respondent Air India and duty time limitation and rest period for the Cabin Crew of Air India are regulated as per Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the parties- By office order, respondent communicated that FDTL/FTL applicable in case of officers shall be as per the latest DGCA requirements with immediate effect for all cabin crew/attendant for aircrafts of all types- Challenged by the appellants on the ground that it was in violation of CAR issued by Director General of Civil Aviation and without taking into consideration the Memorandum of Settlements- Held, no reason as to why the petitioners should not invoke the mechanism provided in the Industrial Disputes Act, for redressal of their grievance- Considering the availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioners under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, this is not an appropriate case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution- Writ petition as well as the appeal arising therefrom are hereby dismissed.- Food Corporation of India And Another versus Seil Ltd. And Others, (2008) 3 SCC 440, Distinguished (Para 17)- HELD: We see no reason as to why the petitioners should not invoke the mechanism provided in the Industrial Disputes Act, for redressal of their grievance. In the event of an industrial dispute being raised by them which could be referred for adjudication under Section 10 of the said Act or Central Government making a reference under Section 36A as to the interpretation of the provisions of the Settlement in question, the matter would be adjudicated by the Tribunal/Labour Court, as the case may be, and the party aggrieved from the order of the Tribunal/Labour Court may, if so advised, take the matter further to the High Court by way of a writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of this case, considering the availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioners under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, we are of the view that this is not an appropriate case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution (Para 17) [Full PDF Judgment].

Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar- Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 1982-SC-20.12.1986- AIR 1987 SC 877- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC.- Held, “It is a well-established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justifiable and based upon adequate evidence does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Sherish Hardenia Vs. State of M.P. – Criminal Appeal No. 2087 OF 2013- Framing of Charge- Discharge-S-498-A &  306 IPC [Full PDF Judgments].

Shibu Soren Vs. Dayanand Sahay- Appeal(Civil) 3538 of 2000- SC-19.07.2001- (2001) 7 SCC 425- Art.- 32, 102, 103, 102 of constitution of India- Challenge to the order of the Hon’ble President of India, as also to the opinion rendered by the Election Commission [Full PDF Judgment]

Shiva Kr. Pradhan Versus Meena Rawat & Anr., RP (Family Court) No.03/2015, Judgment Dated-01.12.10215, Bench: Sunil Kumar Sinha, CJ., Sikkim High Court- Petition under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, 1984- A Major Son not entitled to get maintenance from father [Full PDF Judgments].

Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi- Civil Appeal No. 3013 of 1987 -SC-12.11.1987- (1988) 1 SCC 105- Divorce-HMA- S- 13(1)(a)- Held, “the word ‘cruelty’ has not been defined”- Observed,  “It has been used in relation to human conduct or human behavior. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other.”- Further held, “cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional‟.- Further observed, where cruelty meted out is mental, firstly, an enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and its impact on the mind of the spouse is required to be ascertained on the basis of the behavior of the parties so to decide as to whether it had caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious for the wronged spouse to live with the other.- Further Held, “Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Shiv Kumar Yadav [State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav]- CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1187-1188 OF 2015 – SC-10.09.2015-(2016) 2 SCC 402- Held, lack of knowledge, maturity or experience on the part of counsel in cross-examining the prosecution witness cannot be a sufficient ground for invoking the provision of S-311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of the same witness [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Shrikant Jain [CBI Vs. Shrikant Jain & Ors.]- W.P. (CRL.) 2865 of 2017- DelHC- 29.01.2018- Judge- The qualities which a Judicial Officer would possess delineated in this Case.- A Judicial Officer must, apart from academic knowledge, have the capacity to communicate his thoughts, he must be tactful, he must be diplomatic, he must have a sense of humour, he must have the ability to defuse situations, to control the examination of witnesses and also lengthy irrelevant arguments and the like.-Cases cited: Delhi Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 159- K. H. Siraj Vs. High Court of Kerala & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 2339 [Full PDF Judgments].

Shrikant Madhav Karve Versus The Secretary (Parivahan IV), Public Interest Litigation No.28 Of 2013,  Judgment Dated: 18.02.2016, Bench: A.S. Oka & V.L. Achliya, JJ, Bombay High Court- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [MV Act]- Issue, mainly about the “transport vehicles” as defined under Sub­section (47) of Section 2 of the MV Act.- The main issue raised in this Public Interest Litigation is as regards the manner in which the transport vehicles are checked for the purposes of issuing fitness certificates under Sub­section (47) of Section 2.- The Court passed multiple directions.- Directed the Central Government to consider amending of Section 192 of the MV Act, providing for stringent penalty   which   will   be   deterrent [Full PDF Judgments].

Shrikant Tamrakar and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, Criminal Case No.2112/2015, Judgment Dated- 10.12.2015, Bench: C.V. Sirpurkar, J, MP High Court- Jabalpur Bench- Sought Quashing of FIR U/S-226 of the Constitution & S-482 of CrPC.- The FIR U/S- 498-A/34 IPC & Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Held, if there are no specific and credible allegations against the relatives of the husband, and there only omnibus allegations shorn of even basic details, they should not be made to suffer the ignominy of a criminal trial [Full PDF Judgments].

Shri Vithal Waman Shelke Vs. High Court of Bombay- Writ Petition No.1277 OF 2015- BomHC- 14.102.2016-Quashing-Recommendations For Judicial Appointment [Full PDF Judgment].

Shumita Didi Sandhu  Vs. Sanjay Singh Sandhu- DelHC-26.10.2010-FAO- (OS)- 341 Of 2007- Matrimonial Home- Shared-Household [Full PDF Judgment].

Shweta Gupta-AllHC-04.10.2017-Adoption- By Second Husband- Of Child of second wife from her first marriage [Full PDF Judgments].

Shyam Sharama Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another- Criminal Appeal No.1799 Of 2010- SC- 04.10.2017- (2017) 9 SCC, 362- Bail [Full PDF Judgment].

Shyam Singh @ Bhima Vs. State Of M.P.- Criminal Appeal No. 864 Of 2013 – SC- 01.09.2016- Death Sentence-Commuted to life [Full PDF Judgment].

Shyni Varghese vs State 147-2008-DLT 691- False Implication Becomes Fabrication Of False Evidence.- Chapter-XI IPC- S-191, 192, 193 [Full PDF Judgments].

Sidharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra– SC-02.12.2010- Criminal Appeal No.2271 of 2010- 2011-1 SCC 694= AIR-2011-SC 312- Bail Laws Internationally-Factors And Parameters [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Criminal Appeal No.-179 Of 2007, Judgment Dated: 19.04.2010, Bench: P. Sathasivam, Swatanter Kumar, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Criminal Appeals- Conviction Upheld [Full PDF Judgment].

Sidharth Vashisth alias Manu Sharma v. State of Delhi, 2004 Cri LJ 684 at p. 688 (Del) [Full PDF Judgments].

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Criminal Appeal No.-179 Of 2007, Judgment Dated: 12.05.2008, Bench: P. Sathasivam, Swatanter Kumar, JJ, Supreme Court Of India– Post Conviction Bail U/S-389 Cr.P.C.- “34. The mere fact that during the period of trial, the accused was on bail and there was no misuse of liberty, does not per se warrant suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail. What really necessary is to consider whether reasons exist to suspend execution of the sentence and grant of bail”.- “35. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, this is not a fit case to exercise power under Section 389 of the Code. Though the trial Court has acquitted the applicant-accused for the  offences with which he was charged, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted him under Section 302, IPC and ordered him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved by the said order, he has filed an appeal which has been admitted, is already on board and awaits final hearing. Hence, within ‘measurable distance of time’ the appeal is likely to be heard. Keeping in view the seriousness of offence, the manner in which the crime was said to have been committed and the gravity of offence, we are of the view that no case has been made out by the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed [Full PDF Judgments].

Sita Ram Vs. Balbir (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 489- Cancellation Of Bail [Full PDF Judgments].

Skipper [Delhi Development Authority V. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd.]- SC-06.05.19996- 1996 AIR 2005-1996 SCC  (4) 622- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2-Warning-Mechanical Grant Of Injunction [Full PDF Judgment].

S.N.Sahu Vs. Chairman, Rajya Sabha & Ors.-W.P.-C-No. 11146 of 2016-DelHC-05.12.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

S.N.R. Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh- Service Matter-A Government servant cannot hold two substantive posts at the same time [Full PDF Judgment].

SN Shukla  Versus Department of Justice,  Government of India, New Delhi, File No.CIC/SA/A/2014/000478 (Video­ Conference), Judgment Dated: 07.01.2014, M. S. ACHARYULU, IC, Central Information Commission- The  Appellant  had sought a copy of the National Judicial Appointments Commissions Bill as cleared by the cabinet & a copy of the note and order in the concerned file relating to the cabinet note about the settng up of the National Judicial Appointments Commissions [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Someshwar Dayal Versus Anupama Dayal, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 99/2014, Judgment Dated: 17.08.2016, Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog & Pratibha Rani, JJ, Delhi  High Court/ Supreme Court Of India: Child Custody- Issue, “whether a spouse who seeks custody of the children by moving a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act and obtains interim orders can one day withdraw the proceedings and continue to take benefit of the interim orders ?- Held, No [Full PDF Judgments].

Sonia-Gandhi-SC-12.02.2016-Exemption-from-Personal-Appearance [Full PDF Judgments].

Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta- 3JBSC-11.02.2015- Criminal Appeal Nos. 285-287 OF 2015- Quashing- Summoning Order [Full PDF Judgments].

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd Vs Prabhat Kumar Mishra- Appointment & Employment In Accordance With The Rehabilitation Policy-In Lieu Of Acquisition Of His Land [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. Panneer Selvam  Vs. State of Tamil Nadu- CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  6631-6632 of 2015-SC-17.08.2015- (2015) 10 SCC 292- A request for a revisit of Order cannot be entertained ad nauseam [Full PDF Judgments].  
  2. Patil- 2001 (1) Scc 416: “Having Regard To Certain Sporadic Instances Of Lack Of Probity And Integrity Among Some Of The Personnel Who Man This High Office, It Is High Time That Specific Standards Are Set With Regard To Value System To Be Adopted And Followed By The Members Serving In The Temple Of Justice. No Doubt, They Are More Self Imposed Than Imposed. While Dispensing Justice, The Messenger Is Also Important As The Message Itself. A Judge Is Judged Not Only By The Quality Of His Judgments, But Also By The Quality And Purity Of His Character And The Measurable Standard Of That Character Is Impeccable Integrity Reflected Transparently In His Personal Life As Well. One Who Corrects Corruption Should Be Incorruptible. That Is The High Standard, The Public Has Set In Such High Offices Of Institutional Integrity. Therefore, Any Departure From The Pristine Codes And Values Of Discipline And Disciplined Conduct On The Part Of The Judicial Officers Will Have To Be Viewed Very Seriously Lest The Very Foundation Of The System Would Be Shaken And, If So, That Will Be The Death Knell Of Democracy……… ………Honesty And Integrity Are The Hallmarks Of Judicial Probity. Dishonesty And Lack Of Integrity Are Hence The Basic Elements Of Misconduct As Far As A Judicial Officer Is Concerned. ……..We May End Up This Epilogue Quoting From The Decision Of The Supreme Court Regarding The Role Of The High Court In Such Situations, Reported In High Court Of Judicature Vrs. Shashikant Patel (Supra): “Dishonesty Is The Stark Antithesis Of Judicial Probity. Any Instance Of A High Court Condoning Or Compromising Within A Dishonest Deed Of One Of Its Officers Would Only Be Contributing To Erosion Of The Judicial Foundation. Every Hour We Must Remind Ourselves That The Judiciary Floats Only Over The Confidence Of The People In Its Probity. Such Confidence Is The Foundation On Which The Pillars Of The Judiciary Are Built.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Special Reference No.1 Of 2012- Civil Appeal No. 406 of 1976 – SC-15.02.1991- Re- Advisory Jurisdiction- Under Article 143-1- of the Constitution of India- Opinion-27.09.2012 [Full PDF Judgments]. 

Spences Hotel P. Limited Vs. State of West Bengal (1991) 2 SCC 154- Taxation Laws [Full PDF Judgment].

S.P. Gupta vs President Of India-7JB-SC-30.12.1981- AIR 1982 SC 149= 1981 Supp (1) SCC 87= 1982 2 SCR 365- Several issues of great constitutional importance affecting the independence of the judiciary- constitutional validity of a govt. circular, and many more [Full PDF Judgments].

SPS-rathore-IPC-S-354-509 [Full PDF Judgments].

  1. Rajaseekaran (II) (Dr.) Vs. Union of India & Ors.- SC-30.11.2017- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 OF 2012- Road Safety Norms- Accident Victims [Full PDF Judgment].
  2. Rangarajan Vs. P.Jagjivan Ram- Civil Appeal Nos. 1668 and 1669 of 1988-SC-30.03.1989- [(1989)2 SCC 574]- Constitution- Rights under Art.-19(1)(a)- Restrictions on the exercise of the said right under Art.-19(2)- Disturbance of law and order no ground [Full PDF Judgment].

S.R. Batra and Anr. Vs. Tarun Batra, Appeal (Civil)  5837 of 2006, Judgment dated: 15.06.2006- AIR 2007 SC 1118, Supreme Court of India- Shared Household, as defined under section-2(s) of D V Act- In laws’ property not covered under Shared Household. Held, the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a `shared household’ would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member [Full PDF Judgments].

S.R. Bommai Vs. Union of India-SC-11.03.1994- 1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1- Centre-State Relations- Art-356 of Constitution of India [Full PDF Judgments].

S.R. Chaudhari Vs. St. of Punjab- (2001) 7 SCC 126- Observed, Governors must remain conscious of their constitutional obligations and not sacrifice either political responsibility or parliamentary conventions on the altar of “political expediency [Full PDF Judgment].

Star Sports India Private Limited Versus  Prasar Bharati & Ors., Civil Appeal No.5252 Of 2016, Judgment Dated: 27.05.2016, Bench: A.K. Sikri & Prafulla .C. Pant, JJ, Delhi  High Court- Issue, writ of certiorari sought seeking to quash and set-aside the communication dated 06th April, 2013 issued by Prasar Bharti- Outcome- Declined [Full PDF Judgment].

St. Xaviers College Society,Ahmedabad Vs State Of Gujrat-SC-26.04.1974- Quashing- Legislation-Gujarat  University Act [Full PDF Judgment].   

Subhan Tours & Travel Services Versus Union of India, Writ Petition No. 239 OF 2016, Judgment Dated: 18.05.2016, Bench: Abhay Manohar Sapre & Ashok Bhushan, JJ, Delhi  High Court/ Supreme Court Of India- (a) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to accept application for registration and issue Registration Certificate as PTO under Category II for conducting Haj Tour, 2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Subhash Chandra Agrawal Versus S.N. Murthy Vaddadi, Senior Additional Director, Construction Industry Development Council, F.No.CIC/SS/C/2013/000275, Judgment Dated-25.06.2015, Sharat Sabharwal, IC, Yashovardhan Azad, IC, & Vijai Sharma, CIC Issue pertaining the Construction Industry Development Council (the CIDC)- CIC held the CIDC to be a ‘public authority’ under section 2 (h) of the Act. The CIDC directed to appoint a Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) and a First Appellate Authority under the relevant provisions of the Act [Full PDF Judgment].

Subhash Chandra Agrawal Versus Delhi & District Cricket Association [DDCA], File No. CIC/LS/C/2012/000714, Date of Decision : 13.04.2015, M.Sridhar Acharyulu, IC- IC held the Delhi & District Cricket Association [DDCA] to be a ‘public authority’. The DDCA directed to appoint PIO and create necessary infrastructure to receive and respond the RTI applications, in compliance of legal duties under RTI Act as public authority [Full PDF Judgment].

Subhash Chandra Agrawal & Others Versus Indian National Congress (INC)/ All India Congress Committee (AICC); 2. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP); 3. Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM); 4. Communist Party of India (CPI); 5. Nationalist Congress Party (NCP); 6. Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), F.No.CIC/CC/C/2015/000182, Date of Decision-16.03. 2015, Manjula Prasher, IC, Sharat Sabharwal, IC, Vijai Sharma, IC- Backdrop of the Case is as follows: Mr. Agrawal in application dated 16.05.2011 had asked the Presidents/ General Secretaries of the INC/AICC and the BJP to supply information, inter alia, relating to election manifestos, fulfilment of promises, receipts and payments, proposals to Government and Election Commission about electoral reforms, etc.; Mr. Bairwal, in his application dated 29.10.2010, had asked the six national political parties, i.e., INC/AICC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP, to provide information about the sources, for a certain period, of the ten largest voluntary contributions; CIC has  already held the aforementioned national political parties as public authorities vide the order dated 03.06.2013; All the parties were directed by the CIC to comply with the provisions of section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act- No Compliance till date.- CIC held, the respondents are not in compliance with the Commission’s order of 03.06.2013 and the RTI Act. The respondents, as public authorities, have not implemented the directions contained in the Commission’s order and there is no evidence of any intention to do so [Full PDF Judgment].

Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Dr. Vs. State Of Maharashtra- Criminal Appeal No.416 Of 2018- SC-20.03.2018- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 [Full PDF Judgment].

Subhash Photographics Vs. Union of India- 1993 Suppl (3) SCC 323- Held, a distinction had to be drawn between taxing statutes and other statutes [Full PDF Judgments].

Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State Of Maharashtra-SC-17.09.2004- Appeal (Crl.) 1253 of 2002- AIR 2004 SC 4711- Quashing-Summoning Order-138 NI Act- In this case, while upholding the ratio of Adalat Prasad’s case (supra), the Court held, “As observed by us in Adalat Prasad’s case the only remedy available to an aggrieved accused to challenge an order in an interlocutory stage is the extraordinary remedy under Section 482 of the Code and not by way of an application to recall the summons or to seek discharge which is not contemplated in the trial of a summons case.” [Full PDF Judgments].

Subramanian Swamy Versus Union Of India, Ministry Of Law & Ors.,- SC- 13.05.2016- Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 184 Of 2014-(2016) 7 SCC 221- Constitutionality of S-499 & 500 IPC-Upheld [Full PDF Judgments].

Subrata Chattoraj Vs. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 768- Bail in PMLA, ED, and Analogous Crimes [Full PDF Judgment].

Subrata-Roy-Sahara-SC-06.05.2014-Challanging-SC-Order-by-way-of-a-Writ-Petition [Full PDF Judgments].

Sucha Singh Vs. Ajmer Singh and another- CR 182-2017 (O&M)-P&HHC-17.05.2018- Issue, Recording of statement of the Petitioner through Video Conferencing like Facetime, Whatsapp, Skype and other similar applications- In this Case, the Petitioner happen to be a resident of USA- The Court had confronted with the similar situation in CR 6571 of 2014 where it had allowed the parties to do the needful vide its order dated 16.10.2015 by observing as follows: (i) witness can be confronted with the documents with close proximity to the camera-  (ii) the Petitioner to choose a place which shall be a public authority where  such facility is available, (iii) the Petitioner to identify the Indian Consulate in the nearest place from his residence, (iv) the Petitioner to produce before the Indian consulate the Court order to secure the permission for hearing, (v) the Petitioner to make himself available during the Court working hours in India, the Petitioner to give a date which is mutually convenient to the Court and the Consulate or the Public Office. The Court however modified its order passed in CR 6571 of 2014 by observing as follows: The Petitioner is allowed to examine himself by way of Video Conferencing through Mobile or Computer on an application, which shall be intimated to the trial Court and which shall be installed on the Computer, Laptop or I Pad.  [Full PDF Judgment].

Sucha Singh Sodhi (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Baldev Raj Walia & Anr. – Civil Appeal No.3777 Of 2018-Arising Out Of Slp (C) No.13256 Of 2014- Sc-13.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]

Sudama Pandey Vs. State of Bihar- Appeal -crl.-654-655  of  2000-SC-05.12.2001- (2002) 1 SCC 679- Circumstantial Evidence [Full PDF Judgment].

Sudha Mishra Vs. Surya Chandra Mishra, RFA No.299 of 2014, Order Dated: 25.07.2014, passed by A K Pathak,J, Delhi High Court- Shared Household U/S-2(s) of D V Act [Full PDF Judgment].

Sudha Mishra Vs. Surya Chandra Mishra– Special Leave Appeal No. 23519 of 2014, Order dated: 25.02.2015, passed by Madan B Lokur & Uday Umesh Lalit,JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Shared Household U/S-2(s) of D V Act [Full PDF Judgment].

Sudhansu Sekhar Misra [State Of Orissa Vs. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra]- Civil Appeals No. 625-630 of 1967- SC-17.11.1967- 1968 AIR 647-  1968 SCR (2) 154- Interpretation of statutes- Referred: Earl of Halsbury L.C. in the celebrated pronouncement of the House of Lords in the decision reported as [1901] A.C. 495 Quinn v. Leathem- Quotation is as follows: “Now, before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood [1898] A.C. 1 and what decided therein, there are two observation of a general character which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have very often said before, that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expression which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Sudhir Vohra Vs. The Union Of India- W.P. (C)- 3319 of 2017- DelHC-05.01.2018- Interpretation Of Statutes- General Clauses Act- Held, “13. A juxtaposed reading of the various Clauses of Section 13(2) of the Act reveals that the words “from” and “of” have selectively and, apparently, deliberately-been used in different clauses thereof. Clauses (c), (d), (e) and (h) used the word “from” whereas Clauses (b), (f) and (k) used the word “of”. Where different words are used by the legislature in the same statutory provision, the use of such different words have necessarily to be regarded as deliberate, and it would be interpretative folly, on our part, to attribute, to such different words, the same meaning. (Ref: CIT v. East West Import & Export (P). Ltd, Jaipur, AIR 1989 1 SC 836, Shri Ishal Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswalas Neco Ltd, (2001) 3 SCC 609, Kailash Nath Agarwal v. Pradeshiya Indust and Inv Corp. of U.P. (2003) 4 SCC 305, D.L.F.”- Further held, “14. Venkatarama Aiyar, J. speaking for the Bench in Member, Board of Revenue v. Arthur Paul Benthall ,1955 (2) SCR 842, ruled that “when two words of different import are used in a statute in two consecutive provisions, it would be difficult to maintain that they are used in the same sense”.  [Full PDF Judgment]

Sujata Mukherjee vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee, (1997) 5 SCC 30 [Full PDF Judgments].

Sujatha Etc. Etc.  Versus State Of Kerala And Ors., Appeal (Crl.) 652 of 1989, Date Of Judgment: 19/09/1994 Bench: Madan Mohan Punchhi & K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 1994 SUPPL. (3) SCR 646- Held, “A judge should take special care in making disparaging remarks against a judge of a subordinate court or against a person or authority whose conduct comes in for con-sideration before him in cases to be decided by him. Making uncalled for remarks against the said persons or authorities would be violation of judicial discipline,” [Full PDF Judgments].

Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar [State Of Maharashtra Vs  Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar]- SC- 19.09.2008-Criminal Appeal No. 1492 OF 2008- CrPC- Section-378. Appeal in case of acquittal.- Section-378(3)- Leave of the High Court to Appeal- Held, “22. In our opinion, however, in deciding the question whether requisite leave should or should not be granted, the High Court must apply its mind, consider whether “prima facie” case has been made out or arguable points have been raised and not whether the order of acquittal would or would not be set aside [Full PDF Judgments]. 

Sujit Kumar Rana: State of W.B. Vs. Sujit Kumar Rana – (2004) 4 SCC 129 = AIR 2004 SC 1851- Paras 33 and 46- – Extent & Scope of Section 482 Cr.PC & Section 482 Cr.PC discussed [Full PDF Judgments].

Suman Singh Vs. Sanjay Singh- Civil Appeal- 7114 of 2014- 08.03.2017- (2017) 4SCC 85- Family & personal Laws- Divorce- HMA,1955- Mental Cruelty- S-13(1)(i-a)- Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 Cited- Isolated Incident Theory- Subsisting Cause of action of recurring and continuing nature in near proximity of filing of Petition, is the requirement of law [Full PDF Judgments].

Sunil Vs State of Maharashtra- Criminal Appeal No.212 of 2013- BomHC- 25.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Sunil Alias Dev Vs. State (NCT Of Delhi)- CRL. Appeal 404 of 2011- DelHC-08.01.2018- Criminal Law- Test Identification Parade [TIP]-Held, “11. This court is of the view that the trial court coming to the conclusion that the accused were duly identified is a wrong finding. The admission of PW3 and PW4 that they had seen the appellant /accused in the police station and their identification pursuant thereto in the court is no identification in the eye of law [Full PDF Judgment].

Sunny Paul & Anr v State NCT of Delhi & Ors- DelHC-15.03.2017- S-4- Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007- Tribunal does have jurisdiction to evict son and daughter-in-law from the house of a senior citizen [Full PDF Judgment].

Supriya Subhash Bhatmare Vs. Shivanand Babaso Swami – Second Appeal No. 851 Of 2015-BomHC-27.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]

Sushil Kumar V. Ram Parkash- (1988) 2 SCC 77-S-41(H) Of The Specific Relief Act, 1963- O-XXXIX, R-1,2- Injunction When Refused [Full PDF Judgment].

Sunil Kumar  Vs. Union Of India And Ors- W.P.(C) 3810 of 2016- DelHC-05.01.2018- Disciplinary Authority had already made up its mind to hold the petitioner guilty- the procedure adopted by the Disciplinary Authority is contrary to the procedure elucidated by the Supreme court in the cases of Punjab National Bank and Others v. Kunj Behari Mishra reported as (1998) 7 SCC 84 and Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and Anrs reported as (1999) 7 SCC 739. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Rajpal Singh v. UoI & Ors. bearing W.P.(C) No.19696/2005. [Full PDF Judgment]

Sunil Kumar v. Vipin Kumar, Criminal Appeal No. 1664/2014 , Judgment Dated- 07/08/2014),  Citations- 2014 AIR(SC) 3400= 2014(8) SCC 868= 2014(9) JT 1= 2014(9) SCALE 234= 2014(6) Supreme 446=  2014(6) SLT 743=  2014 CrLJ 4171=  2014(4) Crimes 17(SC) Bench- Dipak Misra & V. Gopala Gowda, JJ [Full PDF Judgment].

Sunil Kumar [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar]-3JBSC-24.11.2017- Civil Appeal No. 9694 Of 2013- MV Act [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988]-S-163-A- Negligence- Insurer cannot raise plea of negligence as defence [Full PDF Judgment].

Sunita Chopra Vs. Dte of Education (North), GNCTD, CIC/SA/A/2015/001934, Judgment Dated: 25.02.2014, Bench: Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), Information Commissioner, Information Commissioner, Central Information COmmission- RTI application with respect to inadequate maintenance amount paid to her by her husband who has deserted her and her two sons. She sought latest salary slip of Shri Naresh Kumar Chopra, his residential address, copy of service book, latest GPF statement, details of assets owned by him. She also sought name of nominee appointed by her husband in GPF & Family Pension, group insurance schemes, CGHS, death & retirement gratuity etc.- Held, “9. The Commission thus holds that a. The husband in this case, has no duty to provide the personal information listed above to the appellant, and the appellant­ wife has no right to his private information as there is no longer any marital relationship nor any dispute over  maintenance  which forms basis for disclosure of personal information under Section 8(1)(j) and larger public interest cannot be invoked. b. Thus, deductions from  salalry are private information  and it cannot  be  disclosed. Details  of   nominee,   residential   address  is  also private information and not to be disclosed. The appellant is however entitled to have access to the salary related information. The Commission finds that the information that can be given under Section 4(1)(b) was provided to the appellant. The CPIO is directed to provide to the appellant, salary related details of Shri Naresh Kumar Chopra without deductions and annual status of assets and liabilities if held by the public authority. The other information relating to the service book, GPF and other details which fall under the exceptions laid down under Section 8(1)(j) need not be disclosed [Full PDF Judgment].

Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. Vs. Anil Kachwaha, Criminal Appeal No. 2310 of 2014 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 2659/2012, Order Dated: October 28, 2014, Bench: T S Thakur & R. Banumathi, JJ- The proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature. In a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary for the court to ascertain as to who was in wrong and the minute details of the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife need not be gone into. While so, the High Court was not right in going into the intricacies of dispute between the appellant-wife and the respondent.- Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of maintenance to the wife.- The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her.- Merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance [Full PDF Judgment].

Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 917 OF 2011- SC-11.04.11- (2011) 11 SCC 301 [Full PDF Judgment].

Suo Moto Vs.  Outrage As Parents End Life After Child’s Dengue Death- SMW (C) No(s). 1/2015- Pending- Environment Law- management of solid waste- sites for setting up of solid waste processing facilities- door collection of segregated waste- Swachh Bharat Mission- Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016- Central Pollution Control Board- State Level Advisory Body (SLAB)- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986[Full PDF Judgment-SC-12.12.2007].

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Vs. Union of India-9JBSC-06.10.1993- (1993) 4 SCC 441- Issue, Appointment and Transfer of the Judges- Recommendation Consultations- Consultation is to be effective and primacy has to be given to the views of the persons consulted [Full PDF Judgment].

Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association And Another Versus Union Of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 Of 2015, Judgment Dated: 16.10.2015, Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, J, J. Chelameswar, J Madan B. Lokur, J, Kurian Joseph, J, Adarsh Kumar Goel, Supreme Court Of India- The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, as also the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 declared unconstitutional and void; the system of appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court, and Chief Justices and Judges to the High Courts; and transfer of Chief Justices and Judges of High Courts from one High Court, to another, as existing prior to the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 (called the “collegium system”), is declared to be operative. The Petition was however, kept pending to consider introduction of appropriate measures, if any, for an improved working of the “collegium system” [Full PDF Judgment].

Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association And Another Versus Union Of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 Of 2015, Judgment Dated: 07.04.2015, Jagdish Singh Khehar, J, J. Chelameswar, J Madan B. Lokur, J, Kurian Joseph, J, Adarsh Kumar Goel, Supreme Court Of India- Vide this judgment matter was referred to Constitution Bench to examine the legality and validity of the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 [Full PDF Judgments].

Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association And Another Versus Union Of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 Of 2015, Judgment Dated: 16.12.2015, Jagdish Singh Khehar, J, J. Chelameswar, J Madan B. Lokur, J, Kurian Joseph, J, Adarsh Kumar Goel, Supreme Court Of India [Full PDF Judgment].

Suraj Bhan Meena and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan- SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.6385 OF 2010-SC-07.12.2010- (2011) 1 SCC 467- A request for a revisit of Order cannot be entertained ad nauseam [Full PDF Judgments].

Suresh Chand Gautam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh- (2016) 11 SCC 113- A request for a revisit of Order cannot be entertained ad nauseam [Full PDF Judgments].

Suresh Kalmadi Vs. CBI- Crl.M.C. No.2143/2015-DelHC-22.05.2015- Bail Appln. 1692/2011(19/01/2012)- 2012(1) JCC 734= 2012(187) DLT 575= 2012(1) AD(Delhi) 889= 2012(127) DRJ 588: [Mukta Gupta, J.] [Full PDF Judgments].

Suresh Kaushal: State of M.P. Vs. Suresh Kaushal and Anr., (2003) 11 SCC 126 [Full PDF Judgments].

Suresh Singh Versus State, W.P. (Crl.) 494/2010, Judgment Dated: 27.04.2012, Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed & V.K. Jain, JJ, Delhi High Court, Comparative Citations: 2012(189) DLT 460: 2012(5) AD(Delhi) 173- Child Custody- NRI & Foreigner-Guardianship- Visitation Rights [Full PDF Judgments].

Surinder Kaur Sandhu v. Harbax Singh Sandhu, (1984) 3 SCC 698- Child Custody- NRI & Foreigner-Guardianship- Visitation Rights [Full PDF Judgments].

Surjeet Singh Vs. State & Anr., W.P. (Crl.) 494 of 2010, Order Dated-27.04.2012, Bench: Badar Durej Ahmed & V K Jain, JJ, Delhi High Court- Child Custody- NRI & Foreigner-Guardianship- Visitation Rights [Full PDF Judgments].

Surya Kirti Thapar Vs. State Of NCT Of Delhi- BAIL APPLN. 334/2014, Judgments Dated-24/11/2014, Bench- Ved Prakash Vaish, J, Citations- 2015(1) AD(Delhi) 37 [Full PDF Judgments].

Surya Vadanan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Appeal No.395 of 2015-SC-27.02.2015. Bench- Child Custody- NRI & Foreigner-Guardianship- Visitation Rights- Jurisdiction- Observed, it is in accord with the “principle of comity” as well as the welfare of the child– who is a foreign citizen, that the child returns back to his/her native land from where the child has been removed [Full PDF Judgments].

Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. State Of  NCT Of  Delhi & Anr.- Special Leave Petition      – Criminal- Nos.7281-7282 Of 2017-SC-15.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Sushil Ansal [Association Of Victims Of Uphaar Tragedy Vs. Sushil Ansal]- Review Petition – Criminal – Nos. 712-714 Of 2015 In Criminal Appeals Nos. 600-602 Of 2010 – SC- 09.02.2017 [Full PDF Judgment]

Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India– SC-19.07.2005-Writ Petition (Civil)  141 of 2005- (2005) 6 SCC 281- Quashing- Legislation- Section 498-A- rampant misuse- S-498A is not unconstitutional and ultra vires- Guidelines issued so that the innocent persons are not victimized at the hands of unscrupulous persons [Full PDF Judgment].

Swapan Kumar Guha [State Of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors.]- Civil Appeal No. 1129 of 1981- SC-02.02.1982- 1982 AIR 949- 1982 SCC (1) 561-Condition precedent to commencement of investigation- Police have no unfettered discretion to commence investigation- Power to investigate- quashing of investigation- quashing of proceedings- quashing of FIR [Full PDF Judgment].

Swaraj Abhiyan–(I) Versus Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 857 OF 2015 , Judgment Dated: 11.05.2016, Bench: Madan B. Lokur & N.V. Ramana, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- PIL on drought issue- SC issued several directions to the States and UOI [Full PDF Judgments].

Swaraj Abhiyan–(II) Versus Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 857 OF 2015 , Judgment Dated: 13.05.2016, Bench: Madan B. Lokur & N.V. Ramana, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- PIL on drought issue- SC issued several directions to the States and UOI [Full PDF Judgments].

Swaraj Abhiyan–(III) Versus Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 857 OF 2015 , Judgment Dated: 13.05.2016, Bench: Madan B. Lokur & N.V. Ramana, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- PIL on drought issue- SC issued several directions to the States and UOI [Full PDF Judgments- 11.05.2016 | 13.05.2016-I | 13.05.16-II .

Swatanter Kumar V. Indian Express Ltd.- O-XXXIX, R-1,2- Grant Of Ex Parte Injunction [Full PDF Judgments- 15.01.2014 | 16.01.2014].

Syed Shahid Yousuf  Vs. National Investigation Agency – Crl-A-426 Of 2018 & Crl – M.A. 7469 Of 2018 – DelHC- 31.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Versus Hasan Raza Khan & 6 Ors, Consolidation No. – 534 of 2002,  Judgment Dated: 22.01.2016, Bench: Dr Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice & Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya & Rajan Roy, JJ, Allahabad High Court- The matter fell for consideration of the full bench on a reference from the same Court- Question of law, “Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be filed by a power of attorney holder.”- Held, “For the reasons which we have indicated earlier, we hold that we cannot subscribe to the broad principle of law which has been enunciated in the following decisions: (1) Dr Prabhu Nath Prasad Gupta Vs State of U P, 2003 (52) ALR 520; (2) Rustam Khusro Shapoor Ji Gandhi Vs State of U P, 2010 (80) ALR 25; and (3) Gurmeet Kaur Kwatra Vs Vice Chairman, Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi, CMWP No 44007 of 1998 (decided on 14 December 2009). When a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is instituted through a power of attorney holder, the holder of the power of attorney does not espouse a right or claim personal to him but acts as an agent of the donor of the instrument. The petition which is instituted, is always instituted in the name of the principal who is the donor of the power of attorney and through whom the donee acts as his agent. In other words, the petition which is instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution is not by the power of attorney holder independently for himself but as an agent acting for and on behalf of the principal in whose name the writ proceedings are instituted before the Court. Having held so, we must, at the same time, emphasize the necessity of observing adequate safeguards where a writ petition is filed through the holder of a power of attorney. These safeguards should necessarily include the following: (1) The power of attorney by which the donor authorises the donee, must be brought on the record and must be filed together with the petition/application; (2) The affidavit which is executed by the holder of a power of attorney must contain a statement that the donor is alive and specify the reasons for the inability of the donor to remain present before the Court to swear the affidavit; and (3) The donee must be confined to those acts which he is authorised by the power of attorney to discharge. For these reasons, we hold and have come to the conclusion that the question referred for adjudication before the Full Bench must be answered in the affirmative and is accordingly answered, subject to due observance of the safeguards which we have indicated above. The question of law is answered accordingly [Full PDF Judgment].

Tamding Dorjee Vs. Govt Of India Ministry Of External Affairs-DelHC-07.11.2017- W.P.(C) 7577/2017- Issue, whether the passport facilities can be denied to the Indian citizens who are staying in designated Tibetan refugee settlements. – Held, “9. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 expressly provides that the passport can be denied only on the ground listed therein and “no other ground” [Full PDF Judgment].

Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat-Appeal Criminal 290 of 1984-SC-06.05.1997- (1997) 7 SCC 156- Circumstantial Evidence [Full PDF Judgment].

Tarak Singh V/S Jyoti Basu, 2005(1) Scc 2001- Appeal-Civil-6707 Of 1999-SC-19.11.2004- Judicial Discipline- “Integrity Is The Hallmark Of Judicial Discipline, Apart From Others. It Is High Time The Judiciary Took Utmost Care To See That The Temple Of Justice Does Not Crack From Inside, Which Will Lead To A Catastrophe In The Judicial-Delivery System Resulting In The Failure Of Public Confidence In The System. It Must Be Remembered That Woodpeckers Inside Pose A Larger Threat Than The Storm Outside.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Tarun Chandrakar Vs Kumari Bai- Court fees-Ad valorem [Full PDF Judgment].

Tata Sons Limited & Ors. Vs. John Doe(S) & Ors- CS(COMM) 1601/2016- Dhc-27.04.2017- Service of Summons- Whatsapp- E-mail And, directed to file affidavit of service. [Full PDF Judgment].

Tattu Lodhi @ Pancham Lodhi Vs, State Of Madhya Pradesh- Criminal Appeal Nos.        292-293 Of 2014 – SC- 16.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Teesta Atul Setalvad Vs. The State Of Gujarat- Criminal Appeal No. 1099 Of 2017- SC-15.12.2017- Seizure- Power to Seize- S-102- CrPC- Gujarat Riot Victims- Gulberg Co-Operative Housing Society Case- Absence of due procedure as specified in S-102- Question whether the police officer investigating any offence can issue prohibitory orders in respect of bank accounts in exercise of power under S-102. [Full PDF Judgment].

Texmaco Ltd. v. State of Delhi, Crl. M.C. 1783/2012 & Crl. M.A. 6262/2012(19/11/2013)- 2013(139) DRJ 375 [J.R. Midha, J.] [Full PDF Judgment].

Thermax Ltd. & Ors. Vs. K.M. Johny & Ors.-Criminal Appeal No.  1868   OF 2011-SC-27.09.11- (2011) 13 SCC 412- Quashing- In this Case the complainant was trying to circumvent period of limitation for moving the Civil Court, by filing a delayed criminal case.- Held,  power to quash criminal prosecution is justified where a criminal proceeding is instituted with malafide or ulterior motives [Full PDF Judgment].

Thulia Kali Vs. State of Tamil Nadu- Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 1971-SC-25.02.1972- AIR 1973 SC 501- Criminal Law- Recovery- the Supreme Court declined to believe the recovery since the person from whose house the recovery was made was not examined as a witness. [Full PDF Judgment].

T K Rangarajan v State of Tamil Nadu- wherein it was held that public servants must resist from carrying out strikes or actions that hamper the performance of their official duties because government servants are part and parcel of the governing body and owe a duty to the society [Full PDF Judgment].

T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. Versus State Of Karnataka & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) 317 Of 1993, Judgment Dated: 31.10.2002 & 25.11.2002, Bench: (i) B N Kirpal, CJI, (ii) G.B. Pattanaik, (iii) S. Rajendra Babu, (iv) K.G. Balakrishnan, (v) P. Venkatarama Reddi (vi) Arijit Pasayat, (vii) V.N.KHARE (viii) Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri (ix) S.N. Variava (x) Ashok Bhan, (xi) Ruma Pal, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, Citation: (2002) 8 SCC 481- Eleven questions considered in this Case:- Q.No.1: What is the meaning and content of the expression “minorities” in Article 30 of the Constitution of India?- Q.No.2: What is meant by the expression “religion” in Article 30(1)? Can the followers of a sect or denomination of a particular religion claim protection under Article 30(1) on the basis that they constitute a minority in the State, even though the followers of that religion are in majority in that State- Q.No.3(a) What are the indicia for treating an educational institution as a minority educational institution? Would an institution be regarded as a minority educational institution because it was established by a person(s) belonging to a religious or linguistic minority or its being administered by a person(s) belonging to a religious or linguistic minority?- Q.No.3(b)To what extent can professional education be treated as a matter coming under minorities rights under Article 30?- Q.No.4. Whether the admission of students to minority educational institution, whether aided or unaided, can be regulated by the State Government or by the University to which the institution is affiliated?- Q.No.5(a) Whether the minority’s rights to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice will include the procedure and method of admission and selection of students?- Q.No.5(b) Whether the minority institutions’ right of admission of students and to lay down procedure and method of admission, if any, would be affected in any way by the receipt of State aid?- Q.No.5(c) Whether the statutory provisions which regulate the facets of administration like control over educational agencies, control over governing bodies, conditions of affiliation including recognition/withdrawal thereof, and appointment of staff, employees, teachers and Principals including their service conditions and regulation of fees, etc. would interfere with the right of administration of minorities?- Q.No.6(a) Where can a minority institution be operationally located? Where a religious or linguistic minority in State ’A’ establishes an educational institution in the said State, can such educational institution grant preferential admission/reservations and other benefits to members of the religious/linguistic group from other States where they are non-minorities?- Q.No.6(b)   Whether it would be correct to say that only the members of that minority residing in State ’A’ will be treated as the members of the minority vis-vis such institution?- Q.No.7 Whether the member of a linguistic non-minority in one State can establish a trust/society in another State and claim minority status in that State? A. This question need not be answered by this Bench; it will be dealt with by a regular Bench.- Q.No.8. Whether the ratio laid down by this Court in the St. Stephen’s case(St. Stephen’s College vs. University of Delhi [(1992) 1 SCC 558] is correct? If no, what order?- Q.No.9 Whether the decision of this Court in Unni Krishnan J.P. vs. State of A.P.[(1993) 1 SCC 645] (except where it holds that primary education is a fundamental right) and the scheme framed thereunder require reconsideration/modification and if yes, what?- Q.No.10    Whether the non-minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institution under Articles 21 and 29(1) read with Articles 14 and 15(1), in the same manner and to the same extent as minority institutions?- Q.No.11    What is the meaning of the expressions “Education” and “Educational Institutions” in various provisions of the Constitution? Is the right to establish and administer educational institutions guaranteed under the Constitution? [Full PDF Judgments- 31.10.2002-I 31.10.2002-II 31.10.2002-III | 31.10.2002-IV | 31.10.2002-V].

Trump Vs. International Refugee Assistance Project- Issue, Travel Ban order that imposes a ban on entry of individuals from six countries namely, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syriya, and Yemen, etc.- Intl.- USA- United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) [Full PDF Judgment] Other Related Orders  Trump Vs. Hawaii- Order Dated-26.06.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]

Turnaround Logistics (Pvt.) Ltd v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd- DelHC-30.05.2006- (MANU/DE/8741/2006) – Corporate, Business & Commercial Law- Commercial Contracts- Determinable Clauses- Termination Clause- Principle of “just, fair and devoid of arbitrariness” [Full PDF Judgment].

Judgments-Index

Udhav Singh- 1997(5) SCC 129- Judicial Discipline – “…….Maintenance Of Discipline In The Judicial Service Is A Paramount Matter. Acceptability Of The Judgment Depends Upon The Credibility Of The Conduct, Honesty, Integrity And Character Of The Officer. The Confidence Of The Litigating Public Gets Affected Or Shaken By Lack Of Integrity And Character Of Judicial Officer.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Ujjal Kumar Das V. State Bank Of India- Sarfaesi Act 2002 [Full Pdf Judgment].2.    Gurcharan Singh And Others /Vs/ State (Delhi Administration) 1978 (1) Scc 118- Bail [Full PDF Judgment].

Ultratech Cement Limited- DelHC-07.12.2017- W.P.(C) 6589 of 2016 Vs. State Of Gujarat- AAIFR- SICA- Tax Exemptions [Full PDF Judgment].

Umakant Kisan Mane Versus The Dean & Others, Writ Petition No.431 Of 2003, Judgment Dated: 21.12.2015, Bench: K.R.Shriram & A.S.Oka, , JJ, Bombay High Court- Consumer Laws- Medical Negligence- Issue, petitioner attributed direct negligence on the part of the doctor/ hospital- Held, “30 In our view, the cause for the petitioner losing the fingers of his right hand is directly attributable to the gross and direct negligence on the part of the doctors and nursing staff of Rajawadi Hospital run by the respondent-State. There has been gross negligence on the part of the respondents in performing its duties. The petitioner, therefore, is certainly entitled to compensation in the nature of exemplary damages from the respondents. The petitioner in the petition has stated that fitters earn in the region of Rs.5000/- – Rs.7000/- per month, which in our view is rather reasonable. This was the position in 2002/2003 when the petition was filed. Based on this, the petitioner has claimed Rs.10,00,000/-. Factoring inflation and the changed economic scenario, the petitioner should be entitled to higher compensation. The petitioner, however, is claiming only Rs.10 lakhs. We are, therefore, granting this amount as compensation. The respondents are, therefore, directed to pay the amount of Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner. The respondents also to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the said amount for the period beginning from 1 st November, 2002 until payment/realisation. The principal and interest amount shall be deposited in this court with the Protho notary and Senior Master within two months from today. Failure to do so will attract further interest @ 9% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.10 lakhs and the accumulated interest.”.

Umar-Khalid-DHC-12.10.2017-Quashing-Disciplinary-Authority-Proceedings [Full PDF Judgments].

Umed Ram Sharma [State Of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Umed Ram Sharma]- 3JBSC-11.02.1986- 1986 AIR  847- 1986 SCC (2)     68- Writ- Constitution of India- Art- 226 & 32- Art-19(1)(d), 21 & 38- Basic Amenities- Water- Food- Road- Education- Articles- Right to life embraces not only physical existence of life but the     quality of  life –  For residents  of hilly  areas Access    to   road,  access   to  life  itself  –  Roads   for communication –     Provision of  –  Constitutional  obligation Court –    Whether entitled  to give  directions in  cases  of executive inaction or slow action.

Umesh Kumar Versus State of Andhra Pradesh-SC-06.09.2013-Criminal Appeal No.1305 of 2013- _______- Quashing- FIR- Chargesheet- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC.- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC- Sufficient ground for proceeding- At the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused-The court was not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced were sufficient or not for convicting the accused- The Court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further- The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that accused committed the particular offence. Held, “11. Allegations against any person if found to be false or made forging some one else signature may affect his reputation. Reputation is a sort of right to enjoy the good opinion of others and it is a personal right and an enquiry to reputation is a personal injury. Thus, scandal and defamation are injurious to reputation. Reputation has been defined in dictionary as “to have a good name; the credit, honor, or character which is derived from a favourable public opinion or esteem and character by report”. Personal rights of a human being include the right of reputation. A good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property”.- “Therefore, it has been held to be a necessary element in regard to right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 recognizes the right to have opinions and the right of freedom of expression under Article 19 is subject to the right of reputation of others. Reputation is “not only a salt of life but the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life.” (Vide: Smt. Kiran Bedi & Jinder Singh v. The Committee of Inquiry & Anr., AIR 1989 SC 714; Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 109; Nilgiris Bar Association v. TK Mahalingam & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 398; Dr. Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 2573; Vishwanath Sitaram Agrawal v. Sau Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, AIR 2012 SC 586; and Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2013) 2 SCC 398).”- “Once criminal law is put in motion and after investigation the charge sheet is filed, it requires scrutiny in the court of law.”- “The scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well defined and inherent powers could be exercised by the High Court to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C.; to prevent abuse of the process of court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This extraordinary power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae. However, in exercise of such powers, it is not permissible for the High Court to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate material documents on record to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence of sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused and the court cannot look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial.”- Any document filed along with the petition labelled as evidence without being tested and proved, cannot be examined. Law does not prohibit entertaining the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet even before the charges are framed or before the application of discharge is filed or even during its pendency of such application before the court concerned. The High Court cannot reject the application merely on the ground that the accused can argue legal and factual issues at the time of the framing of the charge.”- Held, “It may be relevant in an appropriate case. My view is that entertaining the writ petitions against charge-sheet and considering the matter on merit on the guise of prima facie evidence to stand on accused for trial amounts to pre-trial of a criminal trial It is not to suggest that under no circumstances a writ petition should be entertained . The charge-sheet and the evidence placed in support thereof form the base to take or refuse to take cognizance by the competent Court. It is not the case that no offence has been made out in the charge sheets and the First Information Report.”- When the charges are framed, the court makes an endorsement till that stage. So charges are framed on the materials produced by the prosecution for framing the charges “at that stage”. Such indication is necessary otherwise the provisions contained in Sections 216, 323, 386, 397, 399, 401 etc. Cr.P.C., would be rendered nugatory and denuded a competent court of the powers under those provisions. The court cannot be restrained from exercising its powers either under Section 323 or Section 216 Cr.P.C.- Further held, “It is a settled legal proposition that even if a document is procured by improper or illegal means, there is no bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved. If the evidence is admissible, it does not matter how it has been obtained. However, as a matter of caution, the court in exercise of its discretion may disallow certain evidence in a criminal case if the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against the accused. More so, the court must conclude that it is genuine and free from tampering or mutilation.”- Further held, “30. Attestation of the undated affidavit is in utter disregard to the provisions of Section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (Hereinafter referred to as the `CPC’). The Supreme Court Rules 1966 under Order XI, Rule 7 also require adherence to the provisions of Section 139 CPC. Hence, his reply is not worth taking on record and being undated, renders the same to be a piece of waste paper. The definition of ‘affidavit’ in Section 3(3) of the General Clauses Act 1897 provides that it “shall include affirmation and declaration in the case of persons by law allowed to affirm or declare instead of swearing” [Full PDF Judgments].

Unnikrishnan @ Unnikuttan Vs. State Of Kerala -Crl Mp No. 18630 Of 2016-Sc-01.03.2017- Compounding of Case [Full PDF Judgment].

Uphar Tragedy [Association Of Victims Of Uphaar Tragedy Vs. Sushil Ansal]- Review Petition – Criminal – Nos. 712-714 Of 2015 In Criminal Appeals Nos. 600-602 Of 2010 – SC- 09.02.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

U.P.SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma- (2010) 6 SCC 555- Service Law- Labour Law- Natural Justice- Inquiry- Dismissal- Termination- Acts of corruption & misappropriation cannot be condoned, even in cases where the amount involved is meagre.

Ushaben [Suo Motu Versus Ushaben Kishorbhai Mistry]- GujHC-27.11.2015- Criminal Reference No. 6 Of 2015 In Special Criminal Application No. 5313 Of 2015, Judgment Dated- 27.11.2015, Bench- Jayant Patel, ACJ, N.V.Anjaria, J. Gujrat High Court- D V Act- S-482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked by High Courts for quashing a DV Act Complaint Case before the Magistrate [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. Sree  Vs. U. Srinivas- SC-11.12.2012- Civil Appeal Nos. 8927-8928 Of 2012- Cruelty-S-13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Full PDF Judgment].

Utility Users [State Of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Utility Users’ Welfare Association]- Civil Appeal No.14697 Of 2015 – SC- 12.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar- (2012) 7 SCC 1- A request for a revisit of Order cannot be entertained ad nauseam [Full PDF Judgment].

Uttar Pradesh Sugar Corporation Vs. Sumac International Limited- (1997)- 1- SCC -568- S-14 & S-41(e)- S-9-Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996- Specific Relief Act- S-35(3) CPC- Termination of contract- Invocation of bank guarantees- Blacklisting of the petitioner- Held, “14. On the question of irretrievable injury which is the second exception to the rule against granting of injunctions when unconditional bank guarantees are sought to be realized the court said in the above case that the irretrievable injury must be of the kind which was the subject matter of the decision in Intex Corpon Vs. First National Bank of Boston 566 Fed Supp. 1210- Other related case, Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation Limited v. Three Circles (2009) 10 SCC 374 [Full PDF Judgment].

Judgments-Index

Vaaan Infra Pvt. Ltd.  Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation- W.P.(C)- 11348 of 2017- Conflict of interest clause- Award of public contracts- Tenders- The allegations of mala fides, or illegality, or procedural irregularity, is only what the court considers under this jurisdiction- Held, “20. This Court is of opinion that the limited role and discretion it possesses, under Article 226 in adjudging issues relating to award of public contracts, from the lens of public law parameters, is insufficient for it to don the role of evaluating whether the tender conditions, which facially bar the petitioners, were unfairly drawn…”. [Full PDF Judgment]- conflict of interest clause- Award of public contracts- Tenders- The allegations of mala fides, or illegality, or procedural irregularity, is only what the court considers under this jurisdiction- Held, “20. This Court is of opinion that the limited role and discretion it possesses, under Article 226 in adjudging issues relating to award of public contracts, from the lens of public law parameters, is insufficient for it to don the role of evaluating whether the tender conditions, which facially bar the petitioners, were unfairly drawn…”. [Full PDF Judgment]

Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke Vs State of Maharashtra and Another- Criminal Appeal No. 765 OF 2018- SC-17.05.2018- Quashing of FIR- S-306 IPC- Abetment to commit suicide- [Full PDF Judgment].

Vangaveeti Nagaiah [State of A.P. Vs. Vangaveeti Nagaiah]- 3JBSC-15.04.2009-Criminal Appeal No. 1190 OF 2003-AIR 2009 SC 2646- Quashing of Proceedings- Quashing of FIR-Inherent power- “Held, 6. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the Section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [ 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335]…..”[Full PDF Judgment].

Vasant Narayan Sardal Vs. Ashita Tham & Ors. – Notice Of Motion No. 74 Of 2015 In Testamentary Suit No. 14 Of 2004 In Testamentary Petition No. 80 Of 2004-BomHC-03.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat- SC-19.11.1993- (1994) 1 SCC 337= 1994-AIR-710=Jt=1993-6-428=1993-Scale-4-488-Divorce-HMA- S- 13(1)(a)-  Held, “Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party, such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together.” [Full PDF Judgment].
  2. Chitambaresh & K.P.Jyothindranath, JJ.- WP(Crl) No. 178 of 2018- KerHC-01.06.2018- Marriage- Live-in Relationships- Live-in Partners [Full PDF Judgment]. 
  3. C. Shukla Vs CBI- SC-07.12.1979- 1980 CrLJ 690, 732- Order Framing Charge-Interlocutory Order [Full PDF Judgments].

Ved Pal Vs. State Of U.P.- 1987 (Supp) SCC 596 [Full PDF Judgment].

Venture Global Engineering Llc  Vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd & Anr Etc. – Civil Appeal No. 17753-17755 Of 2017 – Sc- 01.11.2017- Arbitration-Estoppel, Public Policy, & fraud [Full PDF Judgment].

Vesa Holdings P. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, Criminal Appeal No. 2341/2011, Judgment Dated-17/03/2015, 2015(3) SCALE 782, 2015(3) SLT 501, 2015(2) Crimes 114(SC) Bench-V. Gopala Gowda & J.: C. Nagappan, JJ [Full PDF Judgment].

Vichar Kranti International- State Of Jammu And Kashmir Versus Vichar Kranti International & Anr., Civil Appeal No .10286 Of 2016, Judgment Dated: 21.10.2016, Bench: T S Thakur, AM Khanwilkar & Dr. D Y Chandrachud, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Quashing of Govt. Policy- Direction to reconsider [Full PDF Judgment].

Vithu C. Agaskar Vs. Rama Gajanan Agaskar – First Appeal No. 916 Of 1991 –     BomHC-15.06.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Vijay Kumar Mishra, Samastipur  Versus Central Board of Secondary Education, Patna, File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/000014­SA, Judgment Dated: 03.12.2015, M. S. ACHARYULU, IC, Central Information Commission- The father of a student seeks copies of the answer sheets of his son for the subjects Maths and Science of 12th Class examination appeared in 2013 and the related matters.Claiming non- furnishing of information by the respondent authority, the appellant approached the Commission in second appeal after exhausting the first appeal with the respondent authority [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Vijay Laxmi Sadho (Dr. ) Vs. Jagdish, (2001) 2 SCC 247- Procedural Laws- Substantive laws- Held “Rules framed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 225 of the Constitution of India are only Rules of procedure and do not constitute substantive law.”.

Vikas Yadav Vs. State Of  U.P. And Ors. Etc. Etc. – Criminal Appeal Nos. 1531-1533 Of 2015- SC- 03.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Vikash v. State, Crl. M.C. 3172/2014(22/07/2014), 2014(3) JCC 1919 [Sudershan Kr. Misra, J.] [Full PDF Judgment]

Vikram Deo Singh Tomar Vs. State of Bihar- 3JBSC-02.08.1988- 1988 AIR 1782- Writ- Constitution of India- Writ- Art- 226 & 32- Art-19(1)(d), 21 & 38- Basic Amenities- Water- Food- Road- Education [Full PDF Judgment]

Vikramsinh Dattusinh Chauhan [The State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikramsinh Dattusinh Chauhan]- BomHC-10.11.2017- Criminal Writ Petition No. 718 OF 2016- Criminal Law- Right of Accused- Right of Prisoner- Home Food- Held, “4. Since every accused person is presumed to be innocent person till he is held guilty, the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny him the facilities available to all the under-­trial prisoners unless there are special reasons for denying so.”. [Full PDF Judgment]Vineet Narain Vs.  Union of India [1988 (1) SCC 226 [Full PDF Judgment].

Vineet Narain Vs. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226- SC-18.12.1997-Quashing- Appointment- CBI- Challenge to Appointment of CBI Director [Full PDF Judgment].

Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit, (2006) 3 SCC 778- Divorce-HMA- S- 13(1)(a) [Full PDF Judgment].

Vineet Kacker Vs.The State Of Maharashtra – Criminal Writ Petition No. 2713 Of 2009-BomHC-26.09.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Vinod Bhandari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 220/2015 Judgment Dated- 04/02/2015, Bench- T.S. Thakur, J.& Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ Citations- 2015(2) SCALE 195= 2015(2) SLT 66=  2015(1) Crimes 160(SC)= 2015 CrLJ 1547= 2015(2) JCC 1127= 2015(1) JT 600 [Full PDF Judgment]

Vinod Kumar Versus State Of Haryana & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 392 OF 2008, Judgment Dated: 24.10.2013, Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya & A.K. Sikri,, JJ, Supreme Court Of India-Power of Review by an administrative authority- Held, “17.We would like to make certain comments, at this juncture, on the powers of the successor DGP, Haryana in over turning the decision of his predecessor who had accepted the representation and expunged the adverse remarks in a petition which was not maintainable and wholly unwarranted. The general principle is that merely because there is a change in the regime or when the successor assumes the office, he would not be entitled to review and reopen the cases decided by his predecessor. That would apply in those cases where the predecessor had passed the orders which he was empowered to pass under the Rules and had exercised his discretion in taking a particular view. Therefore, this proposition applies in a situation where order of the predecessor resulted in legal, binding and conclusive decision. However, the position would be different when it is found that the order of the predecessor was without jurisdiction or when a palpably illegal order was passed disregarding all the cannons of administrative law viz. when the predecessor’s decision was without jurisdiction or ultra vires or when it was exfacie an act of favoritism. In the present case we find that not only the order passed by earlier DGP, Haryana was ultra vires, as that was not backed by any authority vested in it under the Rules as the representation/ mercy petition was not maintainable, even while exercising its discretion in passing that order, the alleged reasons are abhorrent to the good administration/ governance and in fact there was no valid reason or justification shown in exercise of the non existent power. It was, thus, not a case of mere discretion which the DGP was empowered to exercise or the exercise of power on rational basis. Undue sympathy, that too without stating any such sympathetic grounds would be anathema to fairness. There has to be fairness in the administrative action and it should be free from vice of arbitrariness. We may usefully refer to the judgment of the English Court in the case of Roberts v. Hopwood; 1925 All E.R. 24 laying down the law in the following terms: “…. A person in whom is vested a discretion must exercise his discretion upon reasonable grounds. A discretion does not empower a man to do what her likes merely because he is minded to do so – he must in the exercise of his discretion do not what he likes but what he ought. In other words, he must, by use of his reason, ascertain and follow the course which reason directs. He must act reasonably…..”-  Further held, “18. The matter can be looked into from another angle as well. In those cases where Courts are concerned with the judicial review of the administrative action, the parameters within which administrative action can be reviewed by the courts are well settled. No doubt, the scope of judicial review is limited and the courts do not go into the merits of the decision taken by the administrative authorities but are concerned with the decision making process. Interference with the order of the administrative authority is permissible when it is found to be irrational, unreasonable or there is procedural impropriety. However, where reasonable conduct is expected, the criterion of reasonableness is not subjective but objective; albeit the onus of establishment of unreasonableness rests upon the person challenging the validity of the acts. It is also trite that while exercising limited power of judicial review on the grounds mentioned above, the court can examine whether administrative decisions in exercise of powers, even if conferred in subjective terms are made in good faith and on relevant considerations. The courts inquire whether a reasonable man could have come to the decision in question without misdirecting himself on the law or facts in a material respect.(See: M.A.Rasheed & Ors. v. The State of Kerala; (1974) 2 SCC 687). The decision of the administrative authority must be related to the purpose of the enabling provisions of Rules or Statutes, as the case may be. If they are manifestly unjust or outrageous or directed to an unauthorized end, such decisions can be set aside as arbitrary and unreasonable. Likewise, when action taken is ultra vires, such action/decision has no legal basis and can be set aside on that ground. When there are Rules framed delineating the powers of the authority as well as the procedure to be followed while exercising those powers, the authority has to act within the limits defined by those Rules. A repository of power acts ultra vires either when he acts in excess of his power in the narrow sense or when he abuses his power by acting in bad faith or for an inadmissible purpose or on irrelevant grounds or without regard to relevant considerations or with gross unreasonableness. This was so explained in S hri Sitaram Sugar Co.Ltd. v. Union of India (1990) 3 SCC 223 in the following manner: “A repository of power acts ultra vires either when he acts in excess of his power in the narrow sense or when he abuses his power by acting in bad faith or for an inadmissible purpose or on irrelevant grounds or without regard to relevant considerations or with gross unreasonableness. See Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, [1948] 1 K.B. 223. In the words of Lord Macnaghten in Westminster Corporation v. London and North Western Railway, [1905] AC 426: “…It is well settled that a public body invested with statutory powers such as those conferred upon the Corporation must take care not to exceed or abuse its powers. It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith. And it must act reasonably. The last proposition is involved in the second, if not in the first….” In Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Anr. v. The Company Law Board and Ors., : [1966] Supp. SCR 311, this Court states: “…Even if (the statutory order) is passed in good faith and with the best of intention to further the purpose of the legislation which confers the powers, since the Authority has to act in accordance with and within the limits of that legislation, its order can also be challenged if it is beyond those limits or is passed on grounds extraneous to the legislation or if there are no grounds at all for passing it or if the grounds are such that no one can reasonably arrive at the opinion or satisfaction requisite under the legislation. In any one of these situations it can well be said that the authority did not honestly form its opinion or that in forming it, it did not apply its mind to the relevant facts.” In Renusagar, AIR1988SC1737 , Mukharji, J., as he then was, states: “The exercise of power whether legislative or administrative will be set aside if there is manifest error in the exercise of such power or the exercise of the power is manifestly arbitrary. Similarly, if the power has been exercised on a non-consideration or nonapplication of mind to relevant factors the exercise of power will be regarded as manifestly erroneous. If a power (whether legislative or administrative) is exercised on the basis of facts which do not exist and which are patently erroneous, such exercise of power will stand vitiated”. The true position, therefore, is that any act of the repository of power, whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial, is open to challenge if it is in conflict with the Constitution or the governing Act or the general principles of the law of the land or it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair minded authority could ever have made it.”- Further held, “19. Thus, if wrong and illegal acts, applying the aforesaid parameters of judicial review can be set aside by the courts, obviously the same mischief can be undone by the administrative authorities themselves by reviewing such an order if found to be ultra vires. Of course, it is to be done after following the principles of natural justice. This is precisely the position in the instant case and we are of the considered opinion that it was open to the respondents to take corrective measures by annulling the palpably illegal order of the earlier DGP, Haryana.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Vinod Kumar Kanojia Vs. UOI- WP(C) No.6302/2010- DelHc-22.09.2010- Ban on Screening of film- Ban on film- Ultra vires the Art.-19(1) of Constitution of India- Fundamental Right of Freedom of Expression in Cinematographer Act of 1952 [Full PDF Judgment]

Vinod Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi- 2011(3) JCC 2041- Criminal Law- Test Identification Parade [TIP]- Held, “It is true that the refusal of an accused to participate in TIP without a reasonable explanation may give rise to an adverse inference against him and may be taken as a reason to accept the dock identification of the accused by the witnesses. This, however, is not an absolute tule. Before drawing an adverse inference on account of refusal to participate in TIP, the Court is under obligation to scrutinize the evidence carefully to satisfy its conscience that there are circumstances justifying the drawing of adverse presumption.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Vinod Surha & Anr. Vs. State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi – Crl. M.C. No. 1143 Of 2017 – DelHC-11.07.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel Vs. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel & Others-SC-16.05.2018- Dispensation of criminal justice system- bar and the bench- cross examination- law   and   order- Unlawful assembly- S-141, 143, 149 IPC [Full PDF Judgment].

Vishak Bhattacharya. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors., W.P. 7326(W) of 2013, Judgment Dated: 01.06.2015, Bench: Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice & Ashim Kumar Banerjee, JJ, Calcutta High Court At Calcutta- Appointment of Parliament Secretaries-Legality, Validity & Justifiability Of Their Appointments- Issue, appointments of Parliamentary Secretaries in the State of West Bengal.- HC quashed the West Bengal Parliamentary Secretaries (Appointment, Salaries, Allowance and Miscellaneous Provision) Act of 2012, holding the same as ultra vires the Constitution of India [Full PDF Judgment]

Vishaka Vs State of Rajasthan-SC-13.08.1997- AIR 1997 (SC) 3011- [(1997) 6 SCC 241- Enforcement of the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India- Sexual Harassment [Full PDF Judgment].

Vishwa Mitter V. O. P. Poddar : Air 1984 Sc 5- Bail- Anticipatory Bail [Full PDF Judgment].  

Vishwanath   Maranna   Shetty [State   of   Maharashtra   Vs. Vishwanath   Maranna   Shetty]- (2012) 10 SCC 561- Bail in PMLA, ED, and Analogous Crimes- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 [Full PDF Judgment].

Vitusah Oberoi Vs Court Of Its Own Motion, Criminal Appeal No.1234 Of 2007, Judgment Dated-02.01.2017, Bench-T.S. Thakur, CJI, & A.M. Khanwilkar- Contempt Of Court- Cognizance of- Mid Day- Justice Sabharwal’s son [Full PDF Judgment]

Vivek Batra Vs. Union Of India And Others – Criminal Appeal No. 2491 Of 2014  – Sc – 18.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. Krishnakumar Versus State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors- SC-01.07.2015- Civil Appeal No. 8065 Of 2009, Judgment Dated: 01.07.2015, Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar & S.A. Bobde, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Consumer Laws- Medical Negligence-  Issue, cross Appeals preferred against the judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NCDRC’) rendering a finding of medical negligence against the State of Tamil Nadu, its Government Hospital and two Government Doctors and awarding a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to V. Krishnakumar.- Held, “13. In the circumstances, we agree with the findings of the NCDRC that the respondents were negligent in their duty and were deficient in their services in not screening the child 12 Page 13 between 2 to 4 weeks after birth when it is mandatory to do so and especially since the child was under their care. Thus, the negligence began under the supervision of the Hospital i.e. Respondent No.2. The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who checked the baby at his private clinic and at the appellant’s home, respectively, were also negligent in not advising screening for ROP. It is pertinent to note that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 carried on their own private practice while being in the employment of Respondent No. 2, which was a violation of their terms of service.- 25. Accordingly, we direct that the said amount i.e. Rs.1,38,00,000/- shall be paid, in the form of a Fixed Deposit, in the name of Sharanya. We are informed that the said amount would yield an approximate annual interest of Rs. 12,00,000/-.” [Full PDF Judgment]

Voluntary Health Association Vs. Union Of India And Others – Writ Petition -Civil- No. 349 Of 2006 – SC-08.11.2016- Female Foeticide [Full PDF Judgment]

  1. Sreeramachandra Avadhani (D) BY L.Rs. Versus Shaik Abdul Rahim & Anr., Civil Appeal No.2364 OF 2005, Judgment Dated: 21.08.2014, Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar & Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ, Supreme Court Of India: In This Case, the Court dealt with Muslim Law and the concept of Gift Deed [Full PDF Judgment].

Vyapam Case-Nidhi Kaim Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh- Civil Appeal No. 1727 OF 2016-SC-13.02.2017-(2017) 4 SCC 1 [Full PDF Judgment]

Judgments-Index

Whole Woman’s Health Et Al. Versus. Hellerstedt, Commissioner, Texas Department Of State Health Services, ET AL.- Certiorary, Judgment Dated: 27.06.2016, Bench: Breyer & Ginsburg & Thomas & Alito, JJ, US Supreme Court- Writ Of Certiorari- Issue, woman seeking an abortion.- Several observations made, striking down the strict Texas legislation [Full Pdf Judgment].

World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. Vs. Reshma Collection & Ors., FAO (OS) 506/2013- The website of the appellant/plaintiff refers to various goods and services. It is not an offer but an invitation to an offer, just as a menu in a restaurant. The invitation, if accepted by a customer in Delhi, becomes an offer made by the customer in Delhi for purchasing the goods “advertised” on the website of the appellant/plaintiff. When, through the mode of the software and the browser, the transaction is confirmed and payment is made to the appellant/plaintiff through its website, the appellant/plaintiff accepts the offer of the customer at Delhi. Since the transaction between the two takes place instantaneously, the acceptance by the appellant/plaintiff is instantaneously communicated to its customer through the internet at Delhi. Therefore, in such a case, part of the cause of action would arise in Delhi [Full Pdf Judgment].

Judgments-Index

X, Dr. Husband Versus Dr. ­Y Wife, Family Court Appeal No.13 Of 2008, Dated Judgment 21.01.2016, R.M. Borde, A.I.S. Cheema, JJ. Bombay Bench At Aurangabad- “23. Only   because the   husband   had   filed divorce petition, would be no licence for the wife to file criminal   cases   making   wild   allegations   which   she is unable to prove.”- Marriage  dissolved by decree of divorce under   Section- 13(1)(i­a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.- Husband was however, directed to   pay permanent alimony of Rs.25,00,000/­ (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

X (Changed name) Versus State & Anr., CRL.M.C.2120/2015 & CRL.M.A.No.1567/2016, Judgment Dated: 04.03.2016, Bench: S.P.GARG, J, DelHC- Sexual harassment Case- Held, “16. Petitioner’s counsel has failed to impress as to for what purpose, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. While granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, safeguarding the petitioner’s interest and that of the Investigating Agency, stringent conditions have already been imposed upon the accused. This Court finds no manifest error in the matter of grant of bail by the Trial Court. “- Cancellation Of Bail [Full PDF Judgment].

X, Mrs. Vs. Vs. The State Of Telangana And Anr.- 3JBSC-17.05.2018- Cancellation of the Bail [Full PDF Judgment].

Judgments-Index

Yahoo Inc. Vs. Sanjay Patel- DHC-01.09.2016-CS (OS) 949 of 2015- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2 CPC- Trade Mark Petition [Full PDF Judgments].

Yash Thomas Mannully, Advocate Vs. Union Of India & Others, WP(C).No. 27960 of 2011 (S), Judgment Dated- 21.08.2015, Ashok Bhushan, CJ, A.M.Shaffique, J, Kerla High Court- Civil Liability For Nuclear Damage Act, 2010- Sections 3(1), 4(2) and proviso, 4(4), 5, 6, 9(2), 15(2),16(5), 18(b), 19, 20, 32(10), 35 and 38(1)- Constitutional Validity of the said procisions Challenged- The said provisions were alleged to be ultra vires the Constitution of India, further contending that the same interfere with the right to life of the citizens guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and are also violative of Article 14, being arbitrary and unreasonable. Also contended that the provisions vest with the authorities unbridled powers without appropriate checks and balance- HC upholds the Constitutional Validity of the Act, 2010- Judgment Citation: Yash Thomas Mannully, Advocate Vs. Union Of India & Others, WP(C).No. 27960 of 2011 (S), Judgment Dated- 21.08.2015, Ashok Bhushan, CJ, A.M.Shaffique, J, Kerla High Court [Full PDF Judgment].

Yogesh Neema Vs. State Of M.P. – SC-12.01.2016- Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S). 10742 Of 2008- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013- Section 24- Compensation Not paid- Validity of  Land Acquisition-Whether Acquisition lapsed?- Or higher interest U/S-Section 34 of the 1894 Act entails? [Full PDF Judgment].

Yogish Arora Vs.  Jennette Yogish Arora @ Miss Jennette Dsouza – Matters under Article 227 No. – 2313 of 2018 – AllHC-30.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Yogita Dasgupta  Vs. Kaustav Dasgupta- DelHC-27.07.2016-Mat.App.-(F.C.)-7 Of 2014- Property- Husband- Wife- In the name of wife- Relevant Factors- (1) Intention of the parties- whether the parties intended that the property is for the benefit of the wife exclusively or for the family as a whole. (2) Whether the husband wished that the property was to belong to the wife or that the property had been purchased for her benefit- (3) The nature of the transaction and the surrounding circumstance (4) From the nature of the transaction and the surrounding circumstance, the husband is the actual owner of the suit property that had been purchased benami in the name of his wife- (5) Whether there acted a statutory presumption under S-3(2) of the Act of 1988 that property was purchased exclusively for the benefit of the wife or for the family as a whole- (6) Whether the onus is on the husband to rebut the statutory presumption– (7) Whether the property was purchased by the husband “out of love and affection” or some other reasons, if any- (8) There cannot be general assumption that where parties live together in a matrimonial home and there is no property owned by either of them, the purchase of premises in the name of the wife, has to necessarily be for her benefit- (9) If a fair inference can be drawn that the property is for the benefit of the family, the husband is deemed to have discharged the onus cast on him- Held, “18. Here it would be important to recognize that a plain interpretation of Section 3 would be firstly, that benami transactions are barred; the exception would be, inter alia, where the husband acquires the property in the wife’s name. Secondly, this exception has an attendant presumption that the property had been purchased for the wife’s benefit. However, the presumption is rebuttable, as the contrary (i.e. that the property was not for the benefit or the wife, or was for the benefit of another or others) can be proved. What is the net result if the contrary is proved? Would the property then be treated as benami and suffer the bar under Section 4? We think not. The structure of Section 3 is such that two categories of what would otherwise be benami acquisitions are kept out from its sweep-purchase in the name of wife, and purchase in the name of unmarried daughter. It would indeed be anomalous if it were held that Parliament.- Further held: “The correct interpretation would be, in our opinion that the class of transactions covered by Section 3 is treated as a class apart. It is only the inter se rights of the disputing parties, which is dependent upon the party asserting that the acquisition was not for the benefit of the wife/daughter, proving it to be so. Thus, for instance, if a dishonest debtor were to use all or substantial monies under threat of imminent legal action by the creditors to recover dues, for the purchase of property in his wife’s name, and the creditor were to prove that it was not for the benefit of the wife, but to defeat their rights, Section 4 cannot be said to bar the relief. In such event, the relief of securing a decree to recover money, which can be traced to the purchase of property, or an appropriate decree of cancellation or declaration and sale, would lie. Therefore, in any given case if the party asserts that the purchase was not for the benefit of the wife or unmarried daughter, it only means that he discharges the onus of proof and qualifies for the relief he seeks, because the controlling part of Section 3 (2) operates and treats the transaction as not a benami transaction.- The Husband entitled to the injunctive relief- Legal Provisions involved: Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988- Judgments Relied On:- Nand Kishore Mehra Vs. Sushila Mehra, AIR 1995 SC 215- Jaydal Poddar Vs. Mst. Bibi Hazra, AIR 1974 SC 171- Gapadibai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980) 2 SCC 327- Harihar Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs. Balmiki Prasad Singh and Ors. (1975) 1 SCC 212- Prakash Rattan Lal v. Mankey Ram, ILR 2010 (3) Delhi 11- Valliammal Vs. Subramaniam & Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 233- G. Mahalingappa Vs. G.M. Savitha (2005) 6 SCC 441- V. Shankaranarayana Rao & Ors. Vs. Leelavathi & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 732 [Full PDF Judgment].

Youth Bar Association Of India Versus Union Of India And Others- Writ Petition-Crl.- No.68 Of 2016 – Sc-07.11.2016 not uploaded in the SC Portal [Full PDF Judgment].

Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation-Criminal Appeal No.-  730 Of 2013-SC-09.05.2013- (2013) 7 SCC 439- Bail in PMLA, ED, and Analogous Crimes [Full PDF Judgment].

Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar- Civil Appeal No. 459 of 1980- SC-11.12.1986- (1987) 1 SCC 204- 1987 AIR 558- HUF- Hindu Succession Act 1956- Beneficial legislation-Whether it should be read reasonably and justly- Jurisdiction of appellate authority to admit additional evidence- Also, held, merely on account of inheritance of ancestral property an HUF does not come into existence [Full PDF Judgment].

Judgments-Index

Zakir Abdul Karim Naik Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors Criminal Writ Petition No. 5002 Of 2017- BomHC- 20.06.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]

Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque- Criminal-No-1241 of 2004-SC-01.11.2004- 2005 AIR(SC) 9= 2005(1) SCC 122- Quashing of FIR.

Zorawar Singh & Anr. Vs. Gurbax Singh Bains & Ors.- Criminal Appeal No. 2530 Of 2014-SC- 04.12.2014- 2017-1-SCC-270- CrPC-S-173 [Full PDF Judgment].

Judgments-Index

  • Abati Bezbaruuah V. Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India-Appeal (Civil)  5193- 1997- SC-14.02.2003- Citation- AIR 2003 SC 1817- Interest- Held that interest is a compensation for forbearance from detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools Vs. Directorate Of Education – W.P.-C- 448 Of 2016 -Delhc-04.02.2016 [Full PDF Judgment]- Second Round Of Litigation- Directorate Of Education Vs. Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools – Lpa 89 Of 2016 – Delhc- 16.02.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. B. K. Jha and another- SC-09.02.1987- Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1987- 1987 AIR 725- 1987 SCC (2) 22- Preventive Detention- Detenu- Constitutional and Statutory safeguards- Successive detentions- Validity of- Whether the section be read down so that it does not offend the mandate of Article 22(4) of the Constitution-Procedural requirements stricts compliance of, reiterated [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Abdulla Versus State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi), Bail Appln. No. 72 of 2015- DHC-30-01-2015., Bench: Manmohan Singh, J, Delhi High Court- Proclaimed offender not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Abdulrahim Abdulmiya Pirzada & 1 Other Versus State Of Gujarat & 2 Others, Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 3993 of 2014,  Judgment Dated: 21.01.2016, Bench: J.B.Pardiwala, JJ, Gujrat High Court-Issue, maintenance rights of the wife against her in-laws- Held, “From the principles enunciated in the above referred decisions, it is apparent that any right which the wife has during the subsistence of her marriage and during the lifetime of her husband is against the husband and she has no right to claim any relief against the father-in-law or sister-in-law or any of the relatives of her husband inasmuch as the obligation to maintain her lies only on her husband. The complaint in question, therefore, appears to have been filed with the malafide intention to wreak vengeance for the purpose of settling personal scores and would fall within the ambit of Illustration (7) of the Illustrations delineated by the Supreme Court in the celebrated case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, viz. that the proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. For the aforesaid reasons, this application is allowed. The impugned order is hereby ordered to be quashed so far as the applicants are concerned. “. [Full PDF Judgment]. 
  • Abhiram Singh Vs. C.D. Commachen (Dead) By Lrs.& Ors.- Civil Appeal No – 37 Of 1992-02.01.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Abhishek Shukla Vs. High Court Of Judicature, Allahabad, AllHC-08.11.2017- Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 13243 of 2017- Encroachment- Unauthorised Construction- Religious freedom guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of Constitution [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Abrar Ali [Central Industrial Security Force Vs. Abrar Ali]- Civil Appeal No. 2148 of 2015-SC-14.12.2016- (2017) 4 SCC 507- Courts are not supposed to act as an appellate court- Reassessing of the evidence led in the domestic Inquiry not permissible- Ground that another view is possible on the material on record not permissible- Grounds available for challenge- (i) Inquiry not held fairly and properly- (ii) The findings based on no evidence- (iii) Question of adequacy of the evidence not open for reassessment- (iv) Perverse Findings- The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, based on the material on record- (v) Observance of the Principles of natural justice- (vi) violation of statutory regulations- (vii) If, the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, malafide or based on extraneous considerations- (viii) Penalty of dismissal from service disproportionate with the delinquency [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari Vs. State of Maharashtra and another- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 990 OF 2006-SC-10.09.2010-Citation-2011-11-SCC-214- Extradition Treaty [Full PDF Judgment].  
  • Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal- SC-25.08.2004- Appeal (Crl.) 91 of 2002- AIR 2004 SC 4674- Quashing-Crl. Complaint-Cheating Case- Summoning Order- The Only remedy against summoning order u/s 204 Cr.P.C. for the accused is to invoke the inherent power of the High Court- Held: “Hence in the absence of any review power or inherent power with the subordinate criminal courts, the remedy lies in invoking Section 482 of Code.”- Issue, the Appellant were summoned by a Magistrate in a Criminal Complaint under sections 120A, 120B, 405, 406, 415, 420, 463, 465 and 468 of the IPC.- Being aggrieved by the said order of issuance of process the appellant and some of the accused moved the Delhi High Court and the High Court in the said petition directed the petitioners therein to move the trial court against the order of summoning.- Pursuant to the said order of the High Court the appellant herein filed an application purported to be under section 203 Cr.P.C. and the learned trial Judge recalled the said summons- The said order of the learned Magistrate recalling the summons originally issued by him was challenged before the High Court on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to recall a summons issued under section 204 of the Code. The High Court by the impugned order has allowed the revision petition holding that while the trial court was justified in taking cognizance of the offences punishable under section 420 read with 120B IPC it erred in recalling the consequential summons issued because the said court did not have the power to review its own order.- Cases on which reliance made & referred to: K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala & Anr., 1992 1 SCC 217.- The correctness of the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Mathew’s case was considered and decided in this Case. This bench was unable to agree with the legal proposition, as laid down in Mathew’s Case. The Courts observations were as follows: “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the judgment of this Court in the case of Mathew (supra) we are unable to agree with the law laid down by this Court in the said case. If we analyse the reasons given by this Court in the said case of Mathew then we notice that the said view is based on the following facts : (a) The jurisdiction of the Magistrate to issue process arises only if the complaint contains the allegations involving the commission of a crime;(b) If the process is issued without there being an allegation in the complaint involving the accused in the commission of a crime it is open to the summoned accused to approach the court issuing summons and convince the court that there is no such allegation in the complaint which requires his summoning; (c) For so recalling the order of summons no specific provision of law is required.”.- Held, “It is true that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, issues process without there being any allegation against the accused or any material implicating the accused or in contravention  of provision of Sections 200  & 202, the order of the Magistrate may be vitiated, but then the relief an aggrieved accused can obtain at that stage is not by invoking section 203 of the Code because the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate a review of an order. Hence in the absence  of any review power or inherent  power  with the subordinate  criminal courts, the remedylies  in invoking  Section 482 of Code. Therefore,  in our opinion the observation of this Court in the case of Mathew (supra) that for recalling an order of issuance of process erroneously, no specific provision of law is required would run counter to the Scheme  of the Code which has not provided  for review  and prohibits interference at inter-locutory stages.  Therefore, we are of the opinion, that the view of this Court  in Mathew’s case (supra) that no specific  provision is required  for recalling an erroneous  order, amounting to one without jurisdiction,  does not lay down the correct law. In view of our  above conclusion, it is  not necessary for us to go into the question whether order issuing a process amounts to an interim order or not.”[Full PDF Judgments].
  • Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors. – Writ Petition- Civil – No. 129 Of 2018 – SC – 16.12.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Adarsh Raj Singh Vs. Bar Council Of India- W.P.(C) 5062 Of 2018-DelHC-06.07.2018- Issue, Shortage of attendance [Full PDF Judgment]. 
  • Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar Vs. Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi- Appeal (Civil) 6534-6536 of 1995-SC-06.11.2001-Matrimonial- Desertion- What is? [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Adil Vs. State- CRL.M.C. 4159 Of 2009- DelHC-20.09.2010- DV Act Complaint- Maintainability- Enforcement of property rights-DV Act cannot be resorted-Resort to Domestic Violence Act can be done only where there is urgent requirement of wife to be maintained and provided residence when because of domestic violence, she had been rendered homeless and she had lost source of maintenance–Legal rights of property cannot be enforced by DV Act–No proof of domestic relationship–MM shall record evidence first and decide whether a domestic relationship existed between the parties and whether the applicant fell within the scope of `aggrieved person’ [Full PDF Judgment].
  • ADM [Additional District Magistrate], Jabalpur Vs. S. S. Shukla- SC-28.04.1976- 1976 AIR 1207 1976=1976 SCC (2) 521- 1976 SCR 172- Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj) Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj) Khanna, Hans Raj Beg, M. Hameedullah Chandrachud, Y.V. Bhagwati, P.N., Jj, Supreme Court Of India- Quashing-MISA, 1971- Issues, Locus standi to move habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India-effect of the Presidential order dared June 27 1975- Constitution of India Articles 19 21 25, 226 and 359(1A).) read with Maintenance Of Internal Security Act (Act 26 of 1971),1971, section 3- Remedy way of writ petition to challenge the legality of an order of detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act is not open to a detenu during the emergency. Maintenance of Internal Security Act (Act 26 of 1971), 1971 Section 16A(9) is a rule of evidence and constitutionally valid-Not open to challenge oh the ground of any violation of Part III of the Constitution fn view of the provisions of article 359(1A). Maintenance of Internal Security Act (Act 26 of 1971), 1971-Section 18 applies to all orders of detention a valid piece of legislation and docs not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation Not open to challenge on the ground of the theory of basic structure re. Constitution of India-Article 21 is the sole repository of rights to life and liberty. Constitution of India Articles 358 and 359-Distinction between. Constitution of India Articles 20 and 21-Difference between. Disclosure to court section 16A(9) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (Act 26 of 1971) 1971 is an exception and constitutes an encroachment. on the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Eclipse theory of-Applicability to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Art. 359(1). Good return theory of-Not applicable to the practiced of Indian courts. Obiter dictum-When a decision] becomes an obiter dictum. Constitution of India article 256-Non-compliance with Article 256 by the State-Grievance at the instance of a private party not entertainable by courts. Rule Of Law-Constitution itself is the rule of law and the mandate. Judicial review-scope of during the period of emergency. Constitution of India Article 12-whether State Includes judiciary. Constitution of India 372-Law in force whether includes laws included fn Part 111 of the Con Construction of Article 372. Maintenance of Internal Security Act (Act 26 of 1971) 1971 Section 16 Leaves open a remedy by way of a suit for damages for wrongful confinement scope of Section. 16 173 Basic structure theory-Constitution of India Article 368-Emergency provisions themselves are to be regarded as the basic structure of the Constitution. objects of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (Act 26 of 1971), 1971 and the Amending Acts 31 of 1975 and 14 of 1976 thereto Presidential order under Art 359(1) and Martial Law under Articles 23 and 73 of the Constitution-Distinction Constitution of India Art. 359(1) 359(1A) 53 and 73 read with Art. 355 scope of. Constitution of India Article 226-extent of the powers of inquiry by the High Courts in a petition for writ of habeas corpus when once a prima facie valid detention order is shown to exist. Rule of law Concept of is inapplicable to emergency provisions since the emergency provisions themselves contain the rule of law for such situations. Separation of powers-Principles of-Preventive detention being placed exclusively within the control of the Executive authorities of the State for the duration ,. Of the emergency does not violate any principle of separation of powers. ’ Basic structure theory is nothing more than a mode of construction of documents of the Constitution. Jurisdiction of courts under Articles 136 and 226- Nature of. Constitution of India Articles 34 and 359, effect Whether powers of the courts to issue writ of habeas corpus during the period of Martial Law are taken away,. Rule of construction-decision of the Supreme Court and the other high judicial authorities-constitution of India Article 141 explained. Rights under s. 8 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (Act 26 of 1971), 1971-Nature of vis-a-vis rights under Constitution of India Article 22(5)-Rights under Article 22(5) do not bar the enforcement of right under Reflection theory of is not applicable to 5. 8 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (Act 26 of 1971), 1971. Practice-Place of dissent in the court of last resortdesirability of unanimity among judges Constitution of India Article 141. Fundamental Rights-object of guaranteed Fundamental Right. Natural justice Rules of law being on the same footing as Fundamental Rights do not override the express terms of a statute.- Maxims: (1) Expression Facit cessare tacitum”- Applicability to Art. 21 of the Constitution. (ii) Ut res magis valeat quam pereat . (iii)Salus populi est supreme le.- Words and phrases: (a) Purported to be made under s. 3″ in s. 18 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (Act 26 of 1971), 1971. (b) For any other purpose in Art. 226 of the Constitution-meaning of. (c) Conferred by Part III of the Constitution in Art. 359(1)-Intent- HELD . (Per majority A.N. Ray C.J. M.H. Beg. Y.V. Chandrachud and P.N. Bhagwati JJ.) (Khanna, J. dissenting): (1) In view of the Presidential Order. Dated June 27, 1975, under Clause (1) of Art. 359. no person has any locus standi to move any writ petition under Art 226 before a High Court for habeas corpus or any other writ or order or direction to challenge the legality of an order. Of detention on the ground that the order is not under or in compliance with the Act or is illegal or is vitiated by mala fides factual or legal or is based on extraneous considerations. [477 E-F]. (2) Section 16A(9) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 is constitutionally valid. [477 F] (3) Section 18 of the Maintenance of’ Internal Security Act, 1971 is not invalid. [240 A-D, 342 F-G, 414 D] 176 (4)Article 21 of the Constitution is the sole repository of rights to life and personal liberty against State. [246 B] [Full PDF Judgments]. 
  • A G C R Co-Op Housing Building Society Ltd Vs. Pankaj Kumar- FAO 426 of 2016- DelHC-08.01.2018-Commissioner under Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923- Held, the employment must be a contributory cause (solely or in addition to a disease) or acceleratory cause of injury or death, Cases referred,-Jyothi Ademma Vs. Plant Engineer, Nellore- 2006 (5) SCC 513 [Full PDF Judgment]
  • Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing Cum-Processing Service Society Limited, ______, (1999) 6 SCC 82- Issue, period of limitation in ID Act/ Labour Cases- ―It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages.” [Full PDF Judgment].
  • A Jayachandra Vs. Aneel Kaur- Appeal-Civil-7763-7764 of 2004-SC-02.12.2004-Citation- 2005-2-SCC-22- AIR 2005 SC 534- Divorce- HMA- S-13(1)(a)- Held, “….legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other.”- Further held, the cruelty should be “grave and weighty” and that too of such a nature that “the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse”. – Further held, “…It must be something more serious than “ordinary wear and tear of married life” and “..The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law.” [Full PDF Judgment]. 
  • Ajay Bansal Versus Anup Mehra & Others, Civil Appeal No.230 of 2007, Judgment Dated-16.01.2007, Bench: S B Sinha & Markandey Katju, JJ, Supreme Court Of India AIR 2007 SC 909 [Full PDF Judgment]- Application U/A-227 of Constitution against the Order dismissing application for “Leave to defend” not tenable, as the said order is Appealable U/S-96 CPC.- “Theory of dependent order does not apply- The Supreme Court however directed the High Court to convert the instant Petition into Appeal to avoid further multiplicity of litigation [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Ajay Bhardwaj Vs. Jyotsna and others – Crl. Revision No. -F- 166 of 2015 -O&M- P&HHC – 23.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Ajay Maken-Vs.- UOI-10.08.2016-W.P.(C) No.6681/2015- (2015) 7 SCC 1- Kejriwal Ads-Government Advertisement Guidelines, 2014 [PDF Judgment]
  • Ajaysingh Kuvarsingh Dahiya Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.- Criminal Writ Petition NO. 5301 OF 2017- BomHC- 18.06.2018- Issue, Prison Conditions in India- Rights of Prisoners/ Inmates/ Detainees/ Accused- Observed: “It is the duty of the State to take care of the petitioner who is in their custody”- The Following directions were also issued: “Prison Authorities and the State will continue to provide necessary medicines, injections and treatment to the petitioner free of cost and if found necessary, the petitioner will be admitted in the hospital”.- Cases referred to and relied upon- Pt. Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India and ors. – (1989) 4 SCC 286-  Rama Murthy vs. State of Karnataka – (1997) 2 SCC 642- Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons – (2017) 10 SCC 658 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • A K Balaji [Bar Council Of India [BCI] Vs. A K Balaji]- Foreign law firms/companies or foreign lawyers- Cannot practice profession of law in India either in the litigation or in nonlitigation side- there was no bar for the foreign law firms or foreign lawyers to visit India for a temporary period on a “fly in and fly out” basis for the purpose of giving legal advice to their clients in India regarding foreign law or their own system of law and on diverse international legal issues. We hold that the expression “fly in and fly out” will only cover a casual visit not amounting to “practice” [Full PDF Judgment]. 
  • Akshay Chaudhary & Anr. Versus University Of Delhi & Anr.- W.P.(C) No.1897 of 2010- DelHC-08.09.2010- School & College- Ragging- Rustication [Full PDF Judgment].
  • A.L.A. FIRM Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS- Civil Appeal No. 570 of 1976- SC-21.02.1991- Citation-1989-189-ITR-285-SC=1991-SCR -1- 624= 1991 SCC-2- 558- Held, in the case of dissolution of a partnership firm, if the business is discontinued then stock-in-trade has to be valued at market price only [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj & Others Versus Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly & Another, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 455 OF 2015, Judgment Dated: 12.02.2016, Bench: J. Chelameswar & Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Sought a writ of order declaring the resolution passed in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, as unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.- Further pleaded, the petitioners’ fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution have been violated by the impugned resolution- Also pleaded, the term ‘occupation’ under Article 19(1)(g) is of the widest amplitude, and includes the office of a member of legislative assembly.- Held, “24. In T.M.A Pai Foundation (supra) , this court held that “Article 19(1)(g) employs four expressions viz. profession, occupation, trade and business. … Article 19(1)(g) uses the four expressions so as to cover all activities of a citizen in respect of which income or profit is generated, and which can consequently be regulated under Article 19(1)(6)”. The amplitude of the term ‘occupation’ is limited by the economic imperative of livelihood generation. Therefore, all the activities contemplated under Article 19(1)(g) are essentially activities which enable a citizen to generate economic benefits. The primary purpose and thrust of Article 19(1)(g) is to generate economic benefit and to protect the fruits of one’s labour. 25. The right to contest an election to the legislative bodies established by the Constitution is held not to be a fundamental right. Therefore, logically it would be difficult to accept the submission that the right to participate in the proceedings of the legislative bodies can be a fundamental right falling under Article 19(1)(g). No citizen is entitled as of right either to become or continue for the whole lifetime as member of a legislative assembly. Acquisition of the membership depends on the decision of the electorate and is conferred by a process established by law. Even after election, the tenure is limited. Fundamental rights do not come into existence upon the volition of others. They inhere in the citizens and are capable of being exercised independently without the need for any action or approval of others subject only to the restrictions imposed by law. Any member of a legislative assembly holds office until such membership comes to an end by some process established by law. Constitutional offices commencing from the office of the President of India are meant for and established for securing the goals adumbrated in the preamble to the Constitution. Each of these offices is a component in larger machinery established to make it possible for the people of this country to realise the goals indicated in the preamble of the Constitution. Any monetary benefit incidental to the holding of such offices is only to compensate for the time and energy expended by the holder of the office in the service of the nation. It is for this very reason that a member of a legislative assembly cannot be treated as holding office for the purpose of eking out a livelihood. 26. The economic underpinnings of an ‘occupation’ under Article 19(1)(g) and the transient and incidental nature of economic benefits flowing from the office of a legislator must inevitably lead to the conclusion that a member of the legislative assembly cannot be treated as pursuing an ‘occupation’ under Article 19(1)(g). We, therefore, reject the contention that the issue at hand involves the rights of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g).” [Full PDF Judgment].
  • A L Agarwal Versus Delhi University, CIC/RM/A/2014/000313­SA, Judgment Dated: 09.12.2015, Bench: Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), IC- Copy of the complaint lodged any victim, alleging sexual harassment, as also other related documents, if any,  got to be supplied to the Accused under RTI. The excuse that disclosing identity of complainant to the accused would endanger the life of complainant is irrelevant & wrong [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Allianz Convergence Private Limited Vs State Bank Of India- SARFAESI Act 2002 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Allokam Peddabbayya And Another Vs. Allahabad Bank And Others – Civil Appeal        Nos. 2763-2764 Of 2008 – SC – 19.06.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Alok Kumar Jain  Vs. Purnima Jain- CM(M) No.367 Of 2007- DHC- 17.04.2007- 2007(96) DRJ 115- Matrimonial- maintenance, pendentelite- What factors to be taken in account [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Amandeep Singh Johar Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr- W.P.-C- 7608 Of 2017 – DelHC- 07.02.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]
  • Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur- SC- 12.09.2017- Civil Appeal No. 11158 Of 2017- Issue, whether the minimum period of six months stipulated under Section-13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a motion for passing decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent is mandatory or directory, and whether the same can be relaxed in exceptional situations- Held, “18…where the Court dealing with a matter is satisfied that a case is made out to waive the statutory period under Section 13B(2), it can do so after considering the following : (i) the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself; (ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA Rule 3 CPC/Section 23(2) of the Act/Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts; (iii) the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties; (iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony. 19. The waiver application can be filed one week after the first motion giving reasons for the prayer for waiver. 20. If the above conditions are satisfied, the waiver of the waiting period for the second motion will be in the discretion of the concerned Court. 21. Since we are of the view that the period mentioned in Section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directory, it will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation. 22. Needless to say that in conducting such proceedings the Court can also use the medium of video conferencing and also permit genuine representation of the parties through close relations such as parents or siblings where the parties are unable to appear in person for any just and valid reason as may satisfy the Court, to advance the interest of justice.” [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Amarmani Tripathi-State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi- Appeal – Crl.- 1248 of 2005-SC-26.09.2005-Citation- 2005- 8- SCC-21- Bail [Full PDF Judgments].
  • Amarsang Nathaji As Himself And As Karta And Manager Vs. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel And Others – Civil Appeal No. 11120 Of 2016 – SC- 23.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State Of Gujarat- Civil Appeal Nos. 4250-4251 of 1986-SC-11.12.1986-1987 AIR 1073-1987 SCC (1) 213- Interpretation of Statutes- Interpretation must sub-serve and help implement intention of Act- Constitution of India-Art.-141- Precedent–Ratio of a decision to be understood in the background of facts of the case- Observed, the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Ambrish Kumar Shukla Versus Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No. 97 Of 2016, Judgment Dated: 07.10.2016, Bench: D.K. Jain, President, V.K. Jain, Dr. B.C. Gupta, JJ, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- Consumer Protection Act- Consumer Complaint under Section 12(1)(c).- Maintainability of Class Action Suits.
  • Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   1407 OF 2012-SC-13.09.2012-Citation-2012-9-SCC-460- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC- Relative scope of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C.- Held, “17. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless the accused is discharged under Section 227 of the Code. Under both these provisions, the court is required to consider the “record of the case” and documents submitted therewith and, after hearing the parties, may either discharge the accused or where it appears to the court and in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the facts and ingredients of the section exists, then the court would be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed against the accused and frame the charge accordingly [Full PDF Judgments].
  • Amit Kumar Vs. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi- Bail Application No.848 Of 2014, Order Dated-14.10.2014, Bench- Sunita Gupta, J, High Court Of Delhi [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors.- Criminal Appeal Nos. 1171 Of 2016-SC-02.02.2017- S-173(8) CrPC [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Ananthesh Bhakta Represented By Mother Usha A.Bhakta Vs. Nayana S. Bhakta & Ors.- Civil Appeal No.10837 Of 2016 – Sc – 15.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraja- Civil Appeal No. 5387 OF 2014- SC-07.05.2014- (2014) 7 SCC 547- The cruel and torturous practice of “Jallikattu”, held to be illegal and unconstitutional [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Anil Grover, Dr. Medical Council Of India Vs.  Dr Anil Grover & Ors .- LPA 577 Of  2017-DelHC-27.10.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Anil Kumar Shrivastava Versus Shaurya Sunil, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.718 of 2016, Judgment Dated- 20.01.2016, I. A. Ansari, ACJ., & Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J, Patna High Court [Full PDF Judgment].- Whether a Division Bench of a High Court can exercise its power of superintendence, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against an order made, in a suit, by a Single Bench? [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Anil Sharma [State Rep. By The C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma- SC-03.09.1997- Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail [Full PDF Judgment]. 
  • Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das – Transfer Petition-Civil-No. 191 Of 2005-SC-29.08.2005 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Anju Choudhary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh- SC-13.12.2012- Criminal Appeal No. 2039 OF 2012- 2013- Cr.L.J. 776- S-156(3)-CrPC-Applicability of the Rule of Audi Alteram Partem- Accused is not entitled to hearing prior to registration of the FIR [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Ankathil Ajayakumar [State Of Kerala Vs. Ankathil Ajayakumar]- WA Nos. – 2012, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018 & 2163 Of 2016 – KelHC-30.08.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Ankit Sharma Versus Versus
Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar and another, Civil Writ Petition No.11226 of 2005, Judgment Dated: 01.08.2016, Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia, JJ, Punjab & Haryana High Court- Consumer Law- Issue, Education- Consumer Matter with regard to refund of Case: Held, admission brochure or the prospectus has a force of law which is to be strictly followed. The following Judgments were referred to and relied upon: Amardeep Singh Sahota Vs. State of Punjab 1993(4) S.C.T. 328; Raj Singh Vs. Maharishi Dayanand University 1994(2) S.C.T. 766; Sachin Gaur Vs. Punjabi University 1996(1) S.C.T. 837; Rahul Prabhakar Vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar 1997(3) S.C.T. 526; Indu Gupta Vs. Director of Sports, Punjab 1999(4) S.C.T. 113; and Rupinder Singh and others Vs. The Punjab State Board of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Chandigarh and others 2001(2) S.C.T. 726.- Finding of this Case: Refund denied.
  • Annie Nagaraja And Ors. Versus Union Of India & Ors., W.P(C) 7336/2010, Judgment Dated- 04.09.2015, Kailash Gambhir & Najmi Waziri, Delhi High Court- Constitution of India- Art-15- A Case Of sexiest bias against Navy women Officers [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Anokha (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (2004) 1 SCC 382- – Adoption- CARA- HAMA [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Anoop Singh [State Of MP Vs. Anoop Singh]- CrlA- 442 Of 2010- SC-03.07.2015- POSCO- Ocular Evidence, Medical Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Documentary Evidence, Police Investigation- Age Determination [Full PDF Judgment]. 
  • Ansari Vs. Shiji- Crl.MC.No. 6784 of 2017- KerHC-18.06.2018- DV Act, 2005- S-19 & S-23 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • A. P. Versus M. P., Mat.App. 7/2014, Judgment Dated; 05.01.2016, Bench: Vipin Sanghi, J, Delhi High Court- The Act Of The Husband In Living And Begetting A Child With Another Women Tantamount To Immense Mental Cruelty To Any Wife, In Terms Of Under S-13 (1) (Ia) Of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Hma], And Therefore Forms A Sufficient Ground For Dissolution Of Marriage By A Decree Of Divorce. Such Conduct Also Gives Rise To An Independent Ground For Dissolution Of Marriage By A Decree Of Divorce Under S-13 (1) (I) Of The Hma- High Court Dismissed The Appeal Of The Husband Subject To An Examplinary Cost Of Five [5] Lac.
  • A.R. Antulay Vs. Ramadas Sriniwas Nayak- SC-16.02.1984-1984 (2) SCC 500= 1984 AIR 718- Quashing- Order of summoning- Private Complaint- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections-4, 6,  190, 200,  202, 238- Offences committed by Public Servants- Criminal Jurisdiction shall have all powers except those specifically  excluded. Legislation by in corporation, doctrine applied. [Full PDF Judgments]. 
  • Arial I Kumar Vs Shikha Kumar- FAM No. 103 of 2015- CHHHC- 07.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Arjun Mallik vs. State of Bihar- Criminal Appeal No. 367 of 1992-SC-02.03.1994-Citation-1994 Supp-2-SCC-372=JT 1994-2-627=1994-SCALE-  1-821- Criminal Law- Motive- Held, “mere absence of proof of motive for commission of a crime cannot be a ground to presume the innocence of an accused if the involvement of the accused is otherwise established. But it has to be remembered that in incidents in which the only evidence available is circumstantial evidence then in that event the motive does assume importance if it is established from the evidence on record that the accused had a strong motive and also an opportunity to commit the crime and the established circumstances along with the explanation of the accused, if any, exclude the reasonable possibility of anybody else being the perpetrator of the crime then the chain of evidence may be considered to show that within all human probability the crime must have been committed by the accused.” [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Arnesh Kumar Vs. State Of Bihar– SC-02.07.2014- Criminal Appeal No. 1277  OF 2014- (2014) 8 SCC 273- Anticipatory Bail- U/S-438 CrPC- Offence- IPC-S-498A- S-4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961- Observed as follows: “There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. “Crime in India 2012 Statistics” published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is a battle between the law makers and the police and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the Cr.PC. It has not come out of its colonial image despite six decades of independence, it is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been emphasized time and again by Courts but has not yielded desired result. Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive. Law Commissions, Police Commissions and this Court in a large number of judgments emphasized the need to maintain a balance between individual liberty and societal order while exercising the power of arrest. Police officers make arrest as they believe that they possess the power to do so. As the arrest curtails freedom, brings humiliation and casts scars forever, we feel differently. We believe that no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-bailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for the police officers to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing, the justification for the exercise of it is quite another. Apart from power to arrest, the police officers must be able to justify the reasons thereof. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness of the allegation. Despite this legal position, the Legislature did not find any improvement. Numbers of arrest have not decreased. Ultimately, the Parliament had to intervene and on the recommendation of the 177th Report of the Law Commission submitted in the year 2001, Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.PC), in the present form came to be enacted. It is interesting to note that such a recommendation was made by the Law Commission in its 152nd and 154th Report submitted as back in the year 1994. The value of the proportionality permeates the amendment relating to arrest. As the offence with which we are concerned in the present appeal, provides for a maximum punishment of imprisonment which may extend to seven years and fine.- No Arrest Guidelines Issued ”- Issue, impending arrest in a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.- Observed, our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the Following direction: (1) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the  parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC; (2) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);(3) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;(4) The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;(5) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;(6) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;(7) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.(8) Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court [Full PDF Judgments].
  • Vimal Kumar Vs SO UP- Allahabad High Court Judgment- 28.01.2021- Observed, In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following directions: 11.1. The State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. 1973.- 11.2. All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii)- 11.3. The police officer shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention; 11.4.- The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;- 11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A CrPC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing- Relied upon- Arnesh Kumar Vs SO Bihar-   
  • Arti Gujar Vs. State Of  U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home And Anr. – Misc. Bench No. – 22997 Of 2016 – High Court Of Judicature At AllHC-23.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Arun Kumar Agrawal Versus CPIO, SEBI, F.No.CIC/SM/A/2012/001020, Judgment Dated: 28.11.2014, Bench: M.A. Khan Yusufi, IC, Manjula Prasher, IC, Vijai Sharma, IC- The names and addresses of the entities (name of individuals, partners, directors and major shareholders if companies) involved in the short sale of shares of Reliance Petroleum & the name of the brokers cannot be disclosed, as it might impede the ongoing enquiry by SEBI against RIL [Full PDF Judgment]. 
  • Aruna Rodrigues Vs. Union of India-Writ Petition-Civil- No. 260 of 2005-SC-10.05.2012-Citation-2012-4-SCR-553=2012-5-SCC-331= 2012-5-JT 319=2012-5-SCALE 262=2012-3-Supreme-644-2012-4-SLT-45- Environmental Law- Constitution of India- Article 32- Public interest litigation- Regarding bio-safety concerns- Appointment of expert committee, direction for- Release of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the environment without examining the biosafety concerns- Challenged- Imposition of an absolute ban sought for in release of GMOs- Appointment of Expert Committee to advise on the issue- Parties were ad idem on the constitution of expert committee and terms of reference as suggested in the ministry’s meeting dt. 15.3.2011- Directions issued for constitution of Expert Committee- Consent order passed (Para 6).
  • Arun Jaitley Vs. Arvind Kejriwal-DelHC-29.04.2016-CPC-O-VI-R-16- Striking Out Of Pleadings [Full PDF Judgment]
  • Arun Jaitley Vs. Arvind Kejriwal-DelHC-08.02.2016-CPC-O-VII-R-11- Rejection Of Plaint [Full PDF Judgment]
  • Arun Jaitley Vs. State Of U.P., Application U/S 482 No.- 32703 of 2015, Order & Judgment Dated- 05.11.2015: Bench- Honb’le Yashwant Varma, J.- Quashing- Judicial Order & Summoning Order- Allahabad High Court quashes and sets aside Mahoba Judicial Magistrate’s order summoning Finance Minister  Arun Jaitley in a sedition case [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Arushi Talwar-Nupur Talwar-Rajesh Talwar-AllHC-12.10.2017-Crl. Appeal No.-293 of 2014-IPC-S-302-Acquittal.
  • Arvind Kejriwal-Case No.-No.- 6779 of 2016-Lucknow HC-21.10.2016- Quashing of FIR [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Arvind Kejriwal & Ors Versus Amit Sibal & Anr, Crl.M.C. 5245/2013, Judgment Dated: 16.01.2014, Bench: J.R. Midha, J, Delhi High Court- Issue, Challenge To Summoning Order in a defamation Case- Inherent jurisdiction U/S-482 Cr.P.C.of the HC invoked- Issues, a challenged to the summoning order/ Extent & Scope of the Section 199(1) Cr.P.C. “aggrieved person”/ Quashing of criminal complaint/ Personal Exemption from appearing before the Court- Held, “20. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Bhushan Kumar (supra), Krishna Kumar Variar (supra) and Maneka Gandhi (supra) and of this Court in Raujeev Taneja (supra), Urrshila Kerkar (supra) and S.K.Bhalla (supra), the accused are entitled to hearing before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C in all summons cases arising out of complaints and the Magistrate has to frame the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. only upon satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused. However, in the event of the learned Magistrate not finding a prima facie case against the accused, the Magistrate shall discharge/drop the proceedings against the accused. Since there is no express provision or prohibition in this regard in the Code of Criminal Procedure, these directions are being issued in exercise of power under Section 482 read with Section 483 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution to secure the ends of justice; to avoid needless multiplicity of procedures, unnecessary delay in trial/protraction of proceedings; to keep the path of justice clear of obstructions and to give effect to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhushan Kumar (supra), Krishna Kumar Variar (supra) and Maneka Gandhi (supra). 21. Applying the aforesaid principles to this case, the petitioners are permitted to urge the pleas raised in this petition before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. whereupon the learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall consider them and pass a speaking order. The learned Magistrate shall frame the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. only upon satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate shall be empowered to discharge/drop the proceedings against the petitioners if no case is made out against them. Needless to say, if the learned Magistrate chooses to frame notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., the petitioners would be at liberty to avail the remedies as available in law. 22. This petition and the applications are disposed of on the above terms. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the contentions of the parties on merits which shall be considered by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 23. The petitioners seek exemption from personal appearance before the learned Trial Court till the passing of the order on notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. The learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the petitioners should approach the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 Cr.P.C. in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in TGN Kumar v. State of Kerala, (2011) 2 SCC 772 and Narinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 210. In view of the objections raised, the petitioners are directed to file the appropriate application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. for exemption before the Metropolitan Magistrate and upon such an application, disclosing sufficient grounds, being filed, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall not insist the personal appearance till the passing of the order under Section 251 Cr.P.C. subject to the petitioners being represented by a duly authorised counsel who shall not seek any adjournment.” [Full PDF Judgments]
  • Arvind Kejriwal Vs Arun Jaitley- DelHC-19.10.2016- Crl.M.C. 2417 of 2016-Quashing- Judicial Order- Interlocutory Order- Defamation Case [Full PDF Judgments]
  • Arvind Kejriwal Versus The State Of U.P And Ors.-AllHC-27.08.2015- U/S-482/378/407 No.- 4136 of 2015,- Bench: Aditya Nath Mittal, JJ, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench- Case, Quashing Petition.- Arising out of Criminal Case No.360 of 2014, Titled as “State of U.P. vs. Arvind Kejriwal”  Case Crime No.608 of 2014, under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, Police Station-Kotwali Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Musafirkhana, District-Amethi.- Outcome- Held, “No substantial ground has been made out which may justify interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C”.- While disposing of the petition, the HC was pleased to grant the following relief: “Considering the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is provided that if the petitioner, Arvind Kejriwal, surrenders before the court below within four weeks from today and moves an application for bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law and in terms of law laid down in the case of Smt. Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P., 2005; Cr.L.J.755, which has been affirmed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2009) 4 SCC 437. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.” [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Arun Jaitley Vs. Arvind Kejriwal- DelHC- 12.12.2017- CS-(OS)- 236 Of 2017-O-6, R-16, CPC- Striking out of pleadings- Abuse Of The Process Of The Court- Unnecessary, Scandalous, Frivolous Or Vexatious Pleadings- Pleadings Which May Tend To Prejudice, Embarrass Or Delay The Fair Trial [Full PDF Judgment].
  • A. Satyanarayana Reddy And Others Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Others- Civil Appeal No. 3053 Of 2008-SC-29.04.2008 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Asgar Yusuf Mukada and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another- 2004 CRI. L. J. 4312 (Bom High Court)- Criminal Law- Right of Accused- Right of Prisoner- Home Food.
  • Ashik Muhammad Mohiyudheen A.M. Vs. State Of Kerala- Bail Appl. No. 2150 of 2018- KerHC-29.05.2018- Bail- Anticipatory Bail- POCSO [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Ashok Vs State of Maharashtra- Criminal Appeal No.216 OF 2013-BomHC-14.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh-SC-05.04.2011- Criminal Appeal No.1438 OF 2008-(2011) 5 SCC 123- Non-production of seized contraband- Fatal for the case for prosecution [Full PDF Judgment]
  • Ashok Chaturvedi Vs.Shitul H Chanchani- SC-13.08.1998-1998 (7) SCC 698 =AIR 1998 SC 2796- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC [Full PDF Judgments].
  • Ashok Chawla Vs. Ram Chander Garvan, Inspector CBI- – W.P.-Criminal- No. 1429 of 2010-HC-28.02.2011- Citation- MANU/DE/1243/2011; 2011 Cri LJ 2353 (Delhi High Court)- Section- 91 Cr.P.C.- Summons to produce document or other thing [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Ashok Kumar Vs. Mona – Mat. A. – F.C.- 59 Of 2015-DelHC- 16.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Ashok Kumar Vs. State Of Bihar & Ors – Civil Appeal No. 9092 Of 2012 – SC -21.10.2016- Quashing-Selection Process  [Full PDF Judgment]
  • Ashok Shankarrao Chavan Vs. His Excellency Shri. Ch. Vidyasagar Rao, The Hon’ble Governor Of Maharashtra–Writ Petition No. 776 Of 2016- BomHC-22.12.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Ashok Sharma Vs UOI- DelHC- 02.12.2016- W.P.-C-11130 of 2016-Quashing-Administrative Order-Demonetisation [Full PDF Judgment]. 
  • Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. Vs. Director Of Income Tax, ITA No.131 Of 2003 with ITA No.134 Of 2003-DHC-31.01.2011- Appeals Under The Income Tax, 1961- Following substantial questions of law were involved in this Case: ―(i) the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amounts received by the Appellant (a non-resident) from its non-resident customers for availing transponder capacity was chargeable to tax in India where the satellite was not stationed over Indian airspace and in directing how much income is to be determined? (ii) the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellant had a business connection in India through or from which it earned income? (iii) the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount paid to the Appellant by its customers represented income by way of royalty as the said expression is defined in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) (vi) of the Income Tax Act? (iv) the Tribunal was justified in holding that the customers of the Appellant were either carrying on business in India or had a source of income in India and, hence, the amount received by the Appellant from its customers were chargeable to tax in India? (v) Whether the Tribunal was justified in admitting the additional ground raised by the revenue seeking to assess the amounts received by the Appellant as fees for technical services in terms of Section 9(1)(vii)? (vi) Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the expenditure relatable to India only whilst computing the income chargeable to tax in India? (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in holding that depreciation was admissible to the appellant only on a proportionate basis?- (viii) Whether the ITAT is right in law in holding that the interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be calculated by giving benefit to the assessee of tax deductible under Section 195 by the payer though no such deduction in fact was made? (ix) Whether Ld. ITAT is right in law in holding that sec.9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable in the case of the assessee? (x) Whether the Ld. ITAT has erred in not deciding the issue whether income of the assessee is taxable u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (xi) Whether ITAT is right in holding that transponders cannot be regarded as equipment under Explanation 2 clause (iva) to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? [Full PDF Judgments].
  • Asian Resurfacing Of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation- Criminal Appeal Nos. 1375-1376 Of 2013- SC-28.03.2018- Civil Proceedings- Criminal Proceedings- Stay/ Injunction- There cannot be a stay/ injunction of Civil or Criminal proceedings beyond six months. A speaking order would be needed to be passed if stay/ injunction prolongs beyond six months. [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Asraf Ali Vs. State of Assam, (2008) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 174 OF 2001-SC-17.07.2008-Citation-16-SCC-328-Cr.PC-S-313 [Full PDF Judgements].
  • Atanu Chattopadhyay Vs. Debangsu Basak, The Hon’ble Justice Of High Court At Calcutta & Ors.- W.P. 28879(W) Of 2017 -CalHC-04.01.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Atlas Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (126 (2006) DLT 504) – Corporate, Business & Commercial Law- Commercial Contracts- Determinable Clauses- Termination Clause- Principle of “just, fair and devoid of arbitrariness”.
  • ATV Projects (India) Ltd Vs. Union Of India & Ors.- W.P.- C – 4340 Of 2017 – DelHC – 05.12.2017-Quashing-Legislation-SICA-S-4 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Avinash Kumar Vs. State- Crl.A. 74 Of 2001-DelHC-14.12.2017- Custody- Custodial Death [Full PDF Judgment].
  • AVINDER SINGH ETC.Vs.STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. ETC.- Writ Petitions-Civil-Nos. 4038 of 1978-SC-19.09.1978-CITATION-1979-AIR-321=1979-SCR-1-845 = 1979 SCC-1-137- Constitution  of India-Articles 14,265- Vice of excessive  delegation- Absence of  guidelines- What  can  be delegated- Delegation of essential legislative functions- Excessive delegation of legislative powers- Judgment came in a taxation Case  [Full PDF Judgments].
  • Aveek Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal- Criminal Appeal No.902 Of 2004-SC-03.02.2014- Quashing of FIR- Obscenity Case-Boris Becker Case [Full PDF Judgment]
  • Azadi Bachao Andolan [Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan]- SC-07.10.2003- Appeal (civil)  8161-8162 of 2003= Appeal (civil)  8163-8164 of 2003- (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC)- Tax Matters- Quashing Of a CBDT Circular- Whether circular is/ was ultra vires the provisions of Section 90 and S-119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Held, the Court to examine the merits or demerits of such a policy and how the provisions of the statute can best be implemented [Full PDF Judgment

Judgments-Index

  • Babloo Chauhan Alias Dabloo  Vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi- DelHC- 30.11.2017- Crl.A. 157/2013-  S-389 (1) & (3) CrPC- Suspension of sentence- Fines- Default sentences- Remedies for wrongful incarceration  [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Babubhai Versus State of Gujarat- SC-26.08.2010-Crl. Appeal-1599 of 2010- 2010-12-SCC-254- Quashing of Second FIR/ Cross FIR- Right of an accused to fair trial and fair investigation- Held, “34…Not only the fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. Investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in tainted and biased manner. Where non-interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must interfere’ [Full PDF Judgments].
  • Baij Nath Prasad Vs. Madan Mohan Das, AIR 1952 All 108– Judge & Judiciary- Held, that a party making a private communication in the form of private letters was totally out of place in Courts, as it is likely to give rise to a feeling that he has familiarity with the presiding Magistrate  [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Balbir Singh Vs. UOI And Ors.- W.P.(C) 2925 of 2013-DelHC-07.01.2015-2015 SCC OnLine Del 6418- Relevant considerations for grant of compassionate allowance are (i) years of service rendered by an employee, (ii) means of sustenance, and (iii) number of family members to support etc. [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Baldev Singh- State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172- Seminal constitution bench judgment on S-50 of NDPS [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Baljeet Singh (Dr.) Vs. State NCT Of Delhi & Anr.-W.P.- Crl.- 503 of 2013, DelHC- 02.05.2013- Bench: Pratibha Rani, J, Delhi High Court [Full PDF Judgment].- Judgments On Quashing Of FIR- Seeking Quashing of FIR- under Article-226 of the Constitution & S-482 of CrPC.- The FIR U/S- 498-A/406/34 IPC  [Full PDF Judgments].
  • Balkrishna Porwal v. PIO, Department of Posts- CIC-POSTS-A-2018-102584- CIC-25.06.2018- It Is A Human Right Of Person Accused Of Sexual Harassment To Get Information To Defend Himself- Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 [Full PDF Judgment]. 
  • Balwant Singh And Another V. State Of Punjab’ Air 1995 Sc 1785- Bail- S-121-A IPC- Waging Of War Against The State [Full Pdf Judgment].
  • Balmukund Singh Gautam Vs. Smt. Neena Vikram Verma- Election Petition No.23 of 2014- MPHC- 18.06.2018- Allegations of corrupt practice- ” ‘Gods do not sit in the High Court”- Observed- “..mere criticism of the judgment of the High Court in public speech, in the opinion of this Court, shall not tantamount to corrupt practice as defined under section 123 of the R.P. Act”.- Test to be applied, reiterated, observing that the R.P.Act does not accept the doctrine of constructive knowledge. [Full PDF Judgment].
  • (The) Bar Association, Dhamtari Vs. The High Court Of Chhattisgarh – Writ Petition -C -No.3385 Of 2017 – ChHC – 05.01.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Bilquis Zakiuddin Bandookwala Vs. Shehnaz Shabbir Bandukwala- REVIEW PETITION NO. 41 OF 2010- BomHC-16.12.2010- Defendant Had A Right To Begin” The Evidence [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. R. Rajappa- SC-21.02.1978, 1978 AIR 548= (1978) 3 SCC 213- Issue, period of limitation in ID Act/ Labour Cases- S-33C- ID Act- Held, clubs were also industries. A reading of the said judgment makes it clear that the applicability of the Act was exempted only in a case in which the enterprise was clearly charitable in nature, without any financial transaction being involved [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana, 1978 Cri LJ 472 at p. 477 (P & H) [Full PDF Judgment].
  • BCI [Bar Council Of India] Vs. A K Balaji- Foreign law firms/companies or foreign lawyers- Cannot practice profession of law in India either in the litigation or in nonlitigation side- there was no bar for the foreign law firms or foreign lawyers to visit India for a temporary period on a “fly in and fly out” basis for the purpose of giving legal advice to their clients in India regarding foreign law or their own system of law and on diverse international legal issues. We hold that the expression “fly in and fly out” will only cover a casual visit not amounting to “practice” [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Basavaraj R. Patil and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others-Case No. 3828 of 1999-SC-11.10.2000-Citation-2000-8-SCC-740-CrPC-S-313- under certain exigent circumstances, the trial Court may allow the accused to answer the questions put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. through his advocate in a written form by way of affidavit, instead of answering in the Court by his physical presence [Full PDF Judgment]
  • Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.- 2148 of 1977-SC-11.09.1978-Citations-1979-AIR-262=1979-SCR-1-590=1979-SCC-2-88- Notwithstanding any laws to the contrary- Non-Obstante Clause- “23…..“Inconsistent”, according to Black’s Legal Dictionary, means “mutually repugnant or contradictory; contrary, the one to the other so that both cannot stand, but the acceptance or establishment of the one implies the abrogation or abandonment of the other”. “…These social projections and operational limitations of the two statutory provisions must be grasped to resolve the legal conundrum………”  [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Bela Kapoor & Ors Vs. Vandana Kapoor & Ors.- Cs – Os – 1375 Of 2010 Ia No.8887 Of 2010 – Delhc-21.03.2013 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • BEST Worker’s Union Vs. Union of India- Writ Petition No.  2334   OF  2014 – BomHC- 14.10.2016-Quashing-Legislation [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State Of Gujarat & Another- Criminal-Appeal Nos. 1134-1135 Of 2015-SC-01.09.2015- Bench: A.K. Sikri & Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ, Supreme Court Of India: Cancellation Of Bail- Cancellation of Bail/ Anticipatory Bail- Provision of anticipatory bail enshrined in S-438 CrPC. is conceptualised under Art-21 of the Constitution which relates to personal liberty. [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Bhagwat Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police-Contempt Petition No. 4998 of in Criminal WP No. 6607 Of 1981-SC-25.04.1985CItations-2-SCC 537=AIR-1985-SC-1285- It is no more open to any Court to prematurely terminate a criminal case (Quash an FIR) behind the back of the complainant/whistle blower without giving him an opportunity of being heard [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Bhajan Lal: State of Haryana and Others Versus. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others– SC-21.11.1990- 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; 1992 Cri LJ 527; AIR 1992 SC 604- Quashing-FIR- If the first information report prima facie does not disclose any offence, then the high court can quash the first information report- Law on the question of ultimate jurisdiction of High Court in exercise of the power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the CrPC was settled in this Case- Held, the power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.- The High Court could exercise its discretion favorably in the following eventualities: “8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guide- 3 myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (c) where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or ’complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose 265 the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”. [Full PDF Judgments].
  • Bharat Aluminium Co. Versus Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc., Civil Appeal No.7019 OF 2005, Judgment Dated: 06.09.2012, Bench: S.H.Kapadia, CJI, D.K.Jain, Surinder Singh Nijjar, Ranjana Prakash Desai & Jagdish Singh Khehar, JJ, Supreme Court OF India [Five Judge Constitutional Bench  PDF Judgment] [Residual PDF Judgment of the Constitution Bench Judgment]- Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996- Extent & Scope Of The Part-I-International Commercial Arbitration- The Issue which fell for consideration of the Constitutional bench arose out the following arbitration Clause, as contained in an Agreement: “Article 17.1 – Any dispute or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be in the first instance, endeavour to be settled amicably by negotiation between the parties hereto and failing which the same will be settled by arbitration pursuant to the English Arbitration Law and subsequent amendments thereto. Article 17.2 – The arbitration proceedings shall be carried out by two Arbitrators one appointed by BALCO and one by KATSI chosen freely and without any bias. The court of Arbitration shall be held wholly in London, England and shall use English language in the proceeding. The findings and award of the Court of Arbitration shall be final and binding upon the parties. Article 22 – Governing Law – This agreement will be governed by the prevailing law of India and in case of Arbitration, the English law shall apply.”- Consequently, the arbitration in this case took place in England- Indian courts- District Court, as also the concerned High Court, i.e. the High Court of Judicature at Chattisgarh, Bilaspur declined to entertain the Application seeking setting aside of the award- Held, “198. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Arbitration Act, 1996 has accepted the territoriality principle which has been adopted in the UNCITRAL Model Law. Section 2(2) makes a declaration that Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 shall apply to all arbitrations which take place within India. We are of the considered opinion that Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 would have no application to International Commercial Arbitration held outside India. Therefore, such awards would only be subject to the jurisdiction of the Indian courts when the same are sought to be enforced in India in accordance with the provisions contained in Part II of the Arbitration Act, 1996. In our opinion, the provisions contained in Arbitration Act, 1996 make it crystal clear that there can be no overlapping or intermingling of the provisions contained in Part I with the provisions contained in Part II of the Arbitration Act, 1996.”- Further held, “199….the provision contained in Section 2(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is not in conflict with any of the provisions either in Part I or in Part II of the Arbitration Act, 1996. In a foreign seated international commercial arbitration, no application for interim relief would be maintainable under Section 9 or any other provision, as applicability of Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is limited to all arbitrations which take place in India. Similarly, no suit for interim injunction simplicitor would be maintainable in India, on the basis of an international commercial arbitration with a seat outside India.”- Further held, Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is applicable only to all the arbitrations which take place within the territory of India.- Overruled the three-Judge Bench decisions of this Court in Bhatia International Versus Bulk Trading S.A. and another, (2002) 4 SCC 1052, as also in Venture Global Engineering Vs. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. & Anr., 2008 (4) SCC 190.- Exercising its the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Constitution Bench however, held that the law declared by it would only operate prospectively. In other words, all agreements executed prior to 06.09.2012 were to be governed by the decision in Bhatia International.- The three Judge Bench held, “the court cannot adopt an approach for interpreting a statute. The terms of the contract will have to be understood in the way the parties wanted and intended them to be. In that context, particularly in agreements of arbitration, where party autonomy is the grundnorm, how the parties worked out the agreement, is one of the indicators to decipher the intention, apart from the plain or grammatical meaning of the expressions and the use of the expressions at the proper places in the agreement. Contextually, it may be noted that in the present case, the respondent had invoked the provisions of English law for the purpose of the initiation of the unsettled disputes. It has hence, while interpreting an agreement, to be kept in mind that the parties, intended to avoid impracticable and inconvenient processes and procedures in working out the agreement [Full PDF Judgments].
  • Bhartiben Bipinbhai Tamboli Vs. State Of Gujarat & 3.- Special Criminal Application -Domestic Violance – No. 5672 Of 2016 – AhdHC-08.01.2018- [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Bharat Sales Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India- (1998)-Case No.– SC-05.02.1998-Citation-3-SCC-1- Sub-letting and its Attributes [Full PDF Judgments]
  • Bharati Press Vs. Chief Secretary- PatHC-13.10.1950- 1951 CriLJ 309- AIR 1951 Pat 12- Fundamental rights- Free speech and expression-Article 19(1)(a)- “If a person were to go on inciting murder or other cognizable offences either through the press or by word of mouth, he would be free to do so with impunity”- Later these observations attracted severe flak from the SC, where Justice Mahajan said that Prasad’s judgment revealed “a complete lack of understanding of the precise scope” of the Romesh Thapar and Brij Bhushan decisions [Full PDF Judgments].
  • Bharwada Bhogin Bhai Harji Bhai Vs. State of  Gujrat – 1983 CrLJ 1096= AIR 1983 SC 753- Ulterior motive- Discrepancies not amounting to contradiction  [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Bher Chand Tikaji Bora [Enforcement Officer, Ted, Bombay Vs Bher Chand Tikaji Bora And Anr.-SC-09.04.1999- (1999) 5 SCC 720 – Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail [Full PDF Judgment].
  • B. Himmatlal Agrawal Vs. Competition Commission Of India & Anr.- Civil Appeal No. 5029 Of 2018- SC-18.05.2018- Competition Commission of India- CCI- Pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Bhupendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh- Criminal Appeal No. 1774 of 2008- SC-11.11.2013- (2014) 2 SCC 106- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA)- Held, unnatural death whether homicidal or suicidal would attract S-304B IPC [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Bimal Gurung Vs. Union Of India & Ors.- Writ Petition -Criminal- No. 182 Of 2017 – SC-16.03.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Bimolangshu Roy (Dead) Through Lrs Vs. State Of Assam & Another – Transferred Case (Civil) No.169 Of 2006-SC-26.07.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Bina K. Ramani Versus State- DelHC-5.2.2010-M.C. No.3605 Of 2009 [Full PDF Judgments].
  • Bimal Krishna Kundu [The State Of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bimal Krishna Kundu & Anr.- SC-03.10.1997- Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar, Crl. Appeal No. 2327/2014- SC-30.10.2014, Bench- T.S. Thakur, J.: R. Banumathi, JJ, Citations- 2014(10) SCC 663: 2014(12) JT 286: 2014(12) SCALE 465: 2014(8) Supreme 112: 2014(9) SLT 684: 2014(4) Crimes 305(SC): 2015(1) JCC 664  [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Binoy Viswam Vs. Union Of India & Ors.- SC-09.06.2017- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 247 Of 2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • B Karunakar [Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar]- (1993) 4 SCC 727- Service Law- Labour Law- Natural Justice- Inquiry- Dismissal- Termination- A delinquent employee has a right to receive the report of the inquiry officer before the disciplinary authority takes a decision regarding his guilt or innocence. Denial of a reasonable opportunity to the employee by not furnishing the inquiry report before such decision on the charges was found to be in violation of principles of natural justice.- Held, “[v] ……..When the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non-furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him. Hence to direct reinstatement of the employee with back-wages in all cases is to reduce the rules of justice to a mechanical ritual. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to an “unnatural expansion of natural justice” which in itself is antithetical to justice.” [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Board of Auqaf, West Bengal  Vs Golam Mustapha- MAT 901 of 2016- CalHC- 15.06.2018- Waqf tribunal has no supervisory jurisdiction on waqf boards State of West Bengal [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Board Of Control For Cricket Versus Cricket Association Of Bihar, Civil SC-21.10.2016-Appeal No.4235 Of 2014 [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Bobbili Ramakrishna Raju Yadav & Ors. Versus State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 45 OF 2016, Judgment Dated: 19.01.2016, Bench: Thakur, A.K. Sikri, R. Banumathi, JJ,, Supreme Court Of India- Criminal prosecution for the offence U/Ss. 498A, 304B IPC and under Sections 3, 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.- “13. Giving of dowry and the traditional presents at or about the time of wedding does not in any way raise a presumption that such a property was thereby entrusted and put under the dominion of the parents-in-law of the bride or other close relations so as to attract ingredients of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act…”- The FIR U/S- 498-A/406/34 IPC [Full Bench PDF Judgment].
  • Bobby Art International etc. Vs. Om Pal Singh Hoon & Others- Civil Appeal Nos. 7523-7525-27 AND 7524-SC-01.05.1996-Citation-AIR 1996 SC-1846-Central Board of Film Certification-Film Certification Appellate Tribunal [FCAT] [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Bodhisattwa Gautam Vs Subhra Chakraborty- Writ Petition(Criminal) 2675 Of 1995 – SC-15.12.1995- AIR 1996 SC 922- right of survivor of compensation- Survivor- Right to compensation [Full PDF Judgment]
  • BPTP Ltd. Vs. CPI India Limited- Arb.A. No.8/2015 & OMP No.79 of 2015, Bench-S Murlidhar, J, Delhi High Court, Judgment Dated-03.07.2015- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- Sections-9, 17 & 37- Scheme, Extent & Scope- Appeal Against Arbitral Award- The scheme of Section 37 of the Act is that an order denying or granting relief under Section-17 of the Act could be challenged by way  of  an  appeal-  While  Section-17  itself  may  not  result  in  an  order enforceable by a Court, once that order is tested and is affirmed in an appeal  under  Section-37  of  the  Act,  the  order  of  the  appellate  Court should  prevail.  Such  interpretation  would  ensure  that  the  exercise  of getting the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) to pass interim orders under Section 17 is not rendered futile. The statutory remedy under Section 17 cannot be allowed to be frustrated  if  the  alternate  dispute  resolution  mechanism  of  arbitration has to be effective and efficacious. Judgments On Appointment Of Arbitrators [S-11] [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Inderpal Singh- Criminal Appeal No.1557 Of 2015-SC-24.11.2015, Bench- Jagdish Singh Khehar, J & R. Banumathi, Supreme Court Of India- Territorial Jurisdiction Of Courts [Full PDF Judgment].
  • B.S. Joshi & Ors. State of Haryana & Anr., Appeal (Crl.) 383 Of 2003, Date Of Judgment: 13.03.2003, Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal & H.K. Sema, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, Citation: (2003) 4 SCC 675 [Full PDF Judgment].- Quashing- Settlement- The question that falls for determination in the instant case is about the ambit of the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings.- The scope and ambit of power under Section 482 has been examined by this Court in catena of earlier decisions but in the present case that is required to be considered in relation to matrimonial disputes.- The matrimonial disputes of the kind in the present case have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints by the wife under Sections 498A and 406, IPC not only against the husband but his other family members also. W hen such matters are resolved either by wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or mutual separation of husband and wife and also mutual settlement of other pending disputes as a result whereof both sides approach the High Court and jointly pray for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the First Information Report or complaint filed by the wife under Section s 498A and 406, IPC, can the prayer be declined on the ground that since the offences are no n-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code and, therefore, it is not permissible for the Court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.- The SC quashed the FIR- The FIR U/S- 498-A/406/34 IPC [Full Bench PDF Judgment].
  • Budhia Auto Associate-Corporate-Co.-Winding Up Company Petition [Full PDF Judgment].

Calcutta Discount Company Limited Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Companies District, And Another- Civil Appeal No.-197 Of 1954-Sc-01.11.1960-Citation-1961-AIR-372=1961-SCR-2-241- Income Tax Act- Assessment- Reassessment- “omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. [Full PDF Judgments].

Cardamom Marketing Corporation & Anr. Vs. State Of Kerala & Ors.- Civil Appeal No. 4453 Of 2008 – Sc – 01.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

C.C.E. v Raghuvar (India) Ltd-(2000) 5 SCC 299- Issue, period of limitation in ID Act/ Labour Cases- Held, “Any law or stipulation prescribing a period of limitation to do or not to do a thing after the expiry of period so stipulated has the consequence of creation and destruction of rights and, therefore, must be specifically enacted and prescribed therefor. It is not for the courts to import any specific period of limitation by implication, where there is really none, though courts may always hold when any such exercise of power had the effect of disturbing rights of a citizen that it should be exercised within a reasonable period.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Central Bank of India SC ST Employees Welfare Association [Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India Vs. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association- Civil Appeal No.-209 Of 2015-SC-08.01.2016- Citation-2015-12-SCC-308- Review Petition- A request for a revisit of Order cannot be entertained ad nauseam [Full PDF Judgments].

Central Board Of Trustee Vs. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal [EPFAT]- W.P (C) No. 4312 Of 2004- DelHC-04.01.2018- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner [RPFC]- Employees‟ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal- Employees‟ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Full PDF Judgment

Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr (1986 SCR (2) 278)- – Corporate, Business & Commercial Law-  Commercial Contracts- Determinable Clauses- Termination Clause- Principle of “just, fair and devoid of arbitrariness”.

Central Secretariat Club Vs. Geetam Singh- W.P –C- No. 17474 of 2004-DelHC-02.11.2017- Minimum Wages Act, 1948 [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Centre for Environment Law, WWF-I Versus Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337/1995, Judgment Dated: 15.04.2013, Bench: K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.: Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J., Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 2013(8) SCC 234- 2013(7) JT 450- 2013(5) SCALE 710- 2013(5) SLT 697- Environmental Law- Environment- Convention biology, What is?- Held, Convention biology is the science that studies bio-diversity and the dynamics of extinction (Para 51)- HELD: No specie can survive on the brink of extinction indefinitely and the probabilities associated with a critically endangered specie make their extinction a matter of time. Convention biology is the science that studies bio-diversity and the dynamics of extinction. Eco-system approach to protecting endangered species emphasises on recovery, and complement and support eco-system based conservation approach. Reintroduction of an animal or plant into the habitat from where it has become extinct is also known as ex-situ conservation (Para 51) [Full PDF Judgment

Centre For PIL Vs. Union Of India & Ors. , Writ Petition (Civil) 171 Of 2003, Date Of Judgment: 16/09/2003, Bench: S. Rajendra Babu & G.P.Mathur, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Challenge to Government of India (GOI) policy decision in regard to selling of majority shares of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) to private parties without Parliamentary approval or sanction as being contrary to and violative of the provisions of the ESSO (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1974, the Burma Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1976 and Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining India Limited and all the Undertakings in India for Caltex India Limited) Act, 1977.- Oil & Natural Gas [Full PDF Judgment].

Centre For PIL Vs. Union Of India & Ors., Appeal (Civil) 2485 Of 1999, Date Of Judgment: 19.10.2000  , Bench: S.N.Hegde, S.S.M.Quadri, S.P.Bharucha,JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Challenge to Government of India (GOI) policy decision in regard to offering of its oil fields on joint venture- Agencies involved-  Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) & the Oil India Limited (OIL).- Oil & Natural Gas [Full PDF Judgment]

Centre for PIL & Anr. Versus Union of India & Anr., Writ Petition (C) No. 348 OF 2010,, Civil Appeal NO.733 OF 2012, Judgment Dated- 03.03.2011, Bench-  S.H. KAPADIA, CJI, K.S. Panikar Radhakrishnan, J, & Swatanter Kumar, J, Supreme Court Of India- (2011) 4 SCC 1- Quashing- Judicial Review- Appointment- the Post, Central Vigilance Commissioner [CVC]-  Challenge to policy decision of the Govt.- Institution- Institution is more important than an individual- The decision to recommend has got to be an informed decision- Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India giving rise to a substantial question of law of public importance as to the legality of the appointment of Shri P.J. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner under Section 4(1) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003- The said appointment of Shri P.J. Thomas quashed [Full PDF Judgment].

Centre For PIL Vs. Union Of India- Appeal (Civil) 681 Of 2004, Date Of Judgment: 22.10.2013, Bench: K. S. Radhakrishnan, Dipak Misra,,JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Writ petition seeking constitution of an independent Expert/Technical Committee to evaluate the harmful effects of soft drinks on human health, particularly on the health of the children [Full PDF Judgment].

Challapalli Sugars Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1975) 98 ITR 167, Held, the ICAI was a recognized authority on accounting principles and executive instructions had to be viewed from that perspective.

Chamoli District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Raghunath Singh Rana & Ors.- Civil Appeal No.2265 Of 2011- SC-17.05.2016- Labour Industrial Relations Laws- observance of principles of natural justice was not a mere formality in disciplinary proceedings [Full PDF Judgment].

Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai, Criminal Appeal No. 1627 Of 2007, Date Of Judgment: 27/11/2007, Bench-Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Aftab Alam, Supreme Court Of India-Citation-(2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 316= 2008 AIR 530= 2007(12 )SCR 577=  2007(13)SCALE 402=2008(1) JT 78 [Full PDF Judgments].

Chand Devi Daga Versus Manju K. Humatani-SC-03.09.2017- Criminal Appeal No. 1860 OF 2017-SC-03.11.2014- S-247, 249, 256 CrPC- Legal heirs- Right to prosecute Criminal Complaint- Locus and competence of Legal heir to be able to prosecute the criminal complaint [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Chander Bhan versus State, in Bail Application No.1627/2008-  (2008) 151 DLT 691-Section 498-A- rampant misuse [Full PDF Judgments].

Chander Sen- [Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Kanpur Vs. Chander Sen]- Civil Appeal Nos. 166870 of 1974- SC- 16.07-1986- (1986) 3 SCC 567- 1986 AIR 1753- HUF- Hindu Succession Act 1956- Property of father who dies intestate-Whether devolves on son, who separated by partition from his father, in individual capacity or Karta of his HUF- After the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, property which devolves on an individual from a paternal ancestor does not become HUF property but the inheritance is in the nature of self-acquired property unless an HUF exists at the time of the devolution- Merely on account of inheritance of ancestral property an HUF does not come into existence [Full PDF Judgment].

Chhatravas, Chandra Arya Vidya Mandir  Vs. The Director, Deptt Of Women And Child Dev. & ANR.- WP(C) 9590 of 2009-DelHC-03.03.2014- Statutory Compliance- Orphanage, Children‟s Home, Observation Home, Special Home, Shelter Home- Orphanages and other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Act, 1960- Women and Children Institutions Licensing Act, 1956- Children Act, 1960- Juvenile Justice Act, 1986- Registration of Orphanages envisaged by Section 34(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000- [Full PDF Judgment].

Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P., (1963) 3 SCR 412- Appeal, Review, Revision- Held, “It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of s. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial, when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may however indicate some cases of this kind, which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be : where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished of produce, or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; and in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of s. 439(4).” [Full PDF Judgments].

Chitra Sharma Versus Airline Allied Services Ltd, DelHC-30.10.2017- LPA 142 of 2017- Service Matter Writ- Termination of a sick employee of an Airline [Full PDF Judgment].

Chrisomar Corporation Vs. Mjr Steels Private Limited – Civil Appeal No. 1930 Of 2008 – SC- 14.09.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors. Versus Union Of India And Ors., T.C.(C) No.98 Of 2012, Judgment Dated: 18.07.2013, Bench: Altamas Kabir, CJI, Vikramajit Sen, Anil R. Dave, JJ, Supreme Court Of India (2014) 2 SCC 305- The major areas of challenge to the various state govt. notifications concerning NEET are: (i) The powers of the Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India to regulate the process of admissions into medical colleges and institutions run by the State Governments, private individuals (aided and unaided), educational institutions run by religious and linguistic minorities, in the guise of laying down minimum standards of medical education, as provided for in Section 19A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. (ii) Whether the introduction of one National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) offends the fundamental right guaranteed to any citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business? (iii)Whether NEET violates the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, as guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution? (iv) Whether subordinate legislation, such as the right to frame Regulations, flowing from a power given under a statute, can have an overriding effect over the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution? (v) Whether the exclusion of Entry 11 from the State List and the introduction of Entry 25 in the Concurrent List by the Constitution Forty Second (Amendment) Act, 1976, makes any difference as far as the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India under Section 33 of the 1956 Act and those framed by the Dental Council of India under Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948, are concerned, and whether such Regulations would have primacy over State legislation on the same subject? (vi) Whether the aforesaid questions have been adequately answered in T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka [(2002) 8 SCC 481], and in the subsequent decisions in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka [(2003) 6 SCC 697], P.A. Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 6 SCC 537] and Indian Medical Association Vs. Union of India [(2011) 7 SCC 179]? and (vii)Whether the views expressed by the Constitution Bench comprised of Five Judges in Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of M.P. [(1999) 7 SCC 120] have any impact on the issues raised in this batch of matters?- Held, “23. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, in my opinion, it cannot be said that introduction of the NEET would either violate any of the fundamental or legal rights of the petitioners or even adversely affect the medical profession. In my opinion, introduction of the NEET would ensure more transparency and less hardship to the students eager to join the medical profession.”. This judgment was recalled vide the judgment, “Medical Council Of India Versus. Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors., Review Petition (C)Nos.2159-2268 Of 2013 And Review Petition (C) NOS.2048-2157 OF 2013 IN TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NOS.98-105, 107-108,110-139, 142, 144-145 OF 2012 & 1-5, 7-25, 28-49, 53, 58-73, 75-76 & 107-108 OF 2013, Judgment Dated: 11.04.2016, Bench: Anil R. Dave, A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal, Adarsh Kumar Goel, R.Banumathi, JJ, Supreme Court Of India” [Full PDF Judgment].

Cipla Ltd.- Union Of India & Ors. M/S. Cipla Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 329 Of 2005, Judgment Dated: 21.10.2016, Bench: Madan B. Lokur & R.K. Agrawal, JJ, Supreme Court Of India: Quashing Of Central Govt. Notification, Fixing Retail Price Of Drug Formulations- Pharma Companies [Full PDF Judgment].

CJAR-Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms Vs. Union of India- Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169 Of 2017-3JBSC-01.12.2017- Sought a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction of similar nature to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired Chief Justice of India to investigate in the matter of alleged conspiracy and payment of bribes for procuring favourable order in a matter pending before Supreme Court- Held, “8) The petition is not only wholly frivolous, but contemptuous, unwarranted, aims at scandalizing the highest judicial system of the country, without any reasonable basis and filed in an irresponsible manner, that too by a body of persons professing to espouse the cause of accountability. What an irony of fate, the petitioner has itself forgotten its accountability and filing of such petition may entail in ultimate debarment of such petitioners from filing so-called public interest litigation which in fact has caused more injury to cause of public than sub serving it.- In the end, the Petition dismissed with a Cost of Rs.25,00,000/-. [Full PDF Judgment].

CJ Karira [CPIO CBI Vs. CJ Karira – W.P. – C -7439 Of 2012 – DelHC 07.09.2017] [Full PDF Judgment].

C.K. Sasankan Vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd.- (2009) 11 SCC 60- Rate of Interest- S-24 CPC- The principles and factors to be kept in mind by the adjudicating court while awarding interest under S-24 CPC- It was also held that in ascertaining the rate of interest the courts of law can take judicial notice of both inflation as also a fall in the bank rate of interest [Full PDF Judgment].

Clerks’ Association of Advocates- WP PIL No.-200 of 2016- Cases relied upon: Akhil Bhartiya Adhivakta Clerks Association & others Vs. UOI, Writ Petition No.430 of 2003- Held: “The advocates’ clerks are the integral part of the justice delivery system… It is the need of the hour that effective steps should be taken by the State Government to ameliorate their grievances” [Full PDF Judgment].

Comed Chemicals Ltd. Versus C.N. Ramchand, Arbitration Petition No. 17/2007, Judgment Dated: 06/11/2008, Bench: C.K. Thakker, J., Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 2009(1) R.A.J. 310: 2009 AIR(SC) 494: 2008(15) SCR 567: 2009(1) SCC 91: 2008(11) JT 547: 2008(13) SCALE 717: 2008(9) SLT 17: 2008(4) ArbLR 207- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- Sections 11(9), 2(1)(f), (1)(b) & 10- International commercial arbitration- What is; appointment of arbitrator by court, when permissible; existence of arbitration clause, scope- Applicant-company doing business in chemicals in the field of bio-technology- To expand the business it entered into a MOU with respondent for development of products in the field of bio-industries and manufacturing and marketing such products- Respondent appointed as Director (Technical) and allotted 40% equity shares in the subsidiary Company- Over and above that, he was to be paid salary and other benefits in lieu of services rendered by him- MOU providing that respondent will work full time with the company at least for next eight years from the date of signing of agreement- Allegation of company that respondent did not take interest in work and failed to attend Board Meetings and ultimately resigned before completion of work assigned to him in violation of agreement and also instigated other subordinate staff workers to leave the organization- In view of large investment by company, it refused to accept the resignation of respondent- Clause 12 of agreement provides that if there be any dispute pertaining to meaning of this MoU or of any nature, will be solved and decided by appointing an independent Arbitrator acceptable to all the parties and if not solved by him can be referred to court of law and for which the jurisdiction will be Vadodara- Failure of parties to agree on a name of arbitrator- Whether arbitration clause is existing and application for appointment of arbitrator by applicant-company before court is maintainable- Held, on facts, yes- If respondent is engaged by applicant Company to perform functions which are inextricably linked with functions which could be undertaken by a businessman or by a Company and such activities form an integral part of his activities, there is element of `commerce’- In that case, the provisions of Act would clearly apply- In the instant case, it is a case of International commercial arbitration and covered by clause of MOU between parties- Plea that there is no International Commercial Arbitration, unsustainable- Any dispute between the applicant- Company and the respondent would, therefore, be covered by Clause 12 of the Agreement which provides for arbitration- Hence, the contention that respondent was merely an employee and there was no element of business, trade or commerce has no substance and must be rejected- Since there is a dispute between parties, it has to be decided by arbitrator- As relevant clause provide for a sole arbitrator, hence, only one arbitrator to be appointed.- HELD: I find no substance in the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that there is no arbitration clause in the Agreement. Clause 12 of the agreement which provides for arbitration reads thus;- If there be any dispute pertaining to meaning of this MoU or of any nature, will be solved and decided by appointing an independent Arbitrator acceptable to all the parties and if not solved by him can be referred to court of law and for which the jurisdiction will be Vadodara.- Bare reading of the above clause leaves no room for doubt that it is an `arbitration clause’ and expressly declares that any dispute pertaining to MoU would be solved and decided by an arbitrator.- I am also unable to uphold the argument of the learned counsel that there is no International Commercial Arbitration. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no `commercial’ element in the agreement and what was agreed between the parties was to provide `technical know-how’ and `expertise’ to the applicant-Company for which the respondent was to be paid `fees’.- It has not been disputed by the applicant-Company that if the contract is merely of an employment and the relationship between the parties is of master and servant, the matter cannot be referred to Arbitral Tribunal. But if the respondent is engaged by the applicant Company to perform functions which are inextricably linked with functions which could be undertaken by a businessman or by a Company and such activities form an integral part of his activities, there is element of `commerce’. In that case, the provisions of the Act would clearly apply.- In the instant case, the respondent has been appointed as Director (Technical) and has been allotted 40% equity shares in the subsidiary Company (Comed Bio-Tech Ltd.). Over and above that, he was to be paid salary and other benefits in lieu of services rendered by him. Para 3 of the Agreement required the respondent to undertake certain responsibilities.- Thus, from settled legal position as also from the functions to be performed by the respondent, I hold that the respondent was working in dual or double capacity, i.e. (i) as an employee, and (ii) as a Director. In the later capacity, however, he was the Chief Executive Officer of the subsidiary Company and had to look after all operational matters. The functions to be performed by him were supervisory and related to policy making decisions in the affairs of the Company, as observed by this Court in Ram Pershad. Any dispute between the applicant-Company and the respondent would, therefore, be covered by Clause 12 of the Agreement which provides for arbitration. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent was merely an employee and there was no element of business, trade or commerce has no substance and must be rejected.- For the foregoing reasons, in my opinion, the application filed by the Company must be allowed by holding that the case is covered by clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act. It is a case of International Commercial Arbitration and is covered by Clause 12 of MoU. Since there is a dispute between the parties, it has to be decided by an arbitrator. The clause extracted hereinabove provides for an arbitrator i.e. sole arbitrator and hence only one arbitrator should be appointed. I, therefore, appoint Mr. Madhukar Fanse, retired Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad as the sole arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties [Full PDF Judgment].

Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [State of West Bengal Vs. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, W.B.]- 2010(3) SCC 571- Investigation- Independent Agency- CBI- Parameters laid down therein for investigation to be handed-over to an independent agency- Mere filing of charge-sheet would not preclude the power of the High Court to hand-over investigation to an independent agency [Full PDF Judgment].

Common Cause Vs. Union of India-SC-13.05.2015-W.P.197 of 2004-Ads-Government Advertisement Guidelines, 2014 [PDF Judgment].

Common Cause Vs. Union of India- SC-28.11.2017-Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1088 Of 2017- Quashing- Appointment- CBI- Challenge to Appointment of CBI Director- Violation of Vineet Narain Vs. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 cited [Full PDF Judgment].

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Poddar Cement P. Limited (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC)- The Court applied the doctrine of “updating construction‟, which required acknowledgment of the emergent trends in business, technology and law.

Common Cause Vs. Union of India and Ors., _____- (2016) 11 SCC 455- Mineral Law- What is “In the interest of mineral development” [Full PDF Judgment].

Common Cause Vs. Union Of India, Writ Petition(Civil) No.13 Of 2003, Judgment Dated-13.05.2015, Bench- Rajan Gogoi & Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Supreme Court Of India- Constitution Of India- Article-32- Public Interest Litigation- Writ Of Mandamus- Issue – Implementation of Statute, namely, Government Advertisement (Content Regulations) Guidelines, 2014.- The Five Principles Of Content Regulation: (i) Advertising Campaigns to be related to Government responsibilities; (ii) Advertisement materials should be presented in an objective, fair and accessible manner and be designed to meet the objectives of the campaign; (iii) Advertisement materials should be objective and not directed at promoting political interests of ruling party; (iv) Advertisement Campaigns be justified and undertaken in an efficient and cost-effective manner; Government advertising must comply with legal requirements and financial regulations and procedures [Full PDF Judgment].

CBI Vs. Coodil Ravikumar & 9 Ors.- In The Special Court At Bombay – Special Case No. 2 Of 1994 In C.B.I. Case No.R.C.52-A-92-Bom-BomHC-25.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Competition Commission Of India Vs. Oriental Rubber Industries Private Limited- LPA 607/2016- DHC-24.05.2018- A lawyer can accompany his client to the Director General, Competition Commission of India (DG, CCI), but he cannot sit with his client while his questioning: Delhi High Court Order Dated-24.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Consumer Education & Research Centre Vs. UOI- 1995 AIR 922- 1995 SCC (3)      42-SC-27.01.1995- Human tragedy of modem industry- Occupational accidents and diseases- Most serious forms of economic waste- Occupational health hazards- Diseases to the workmen employed in asbestos industries [Full PDF Judgment].

Consumer Protection Bar Association [State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary & Ors. Versus All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association- Civil Appeal No.(S). 2740 Of 2007- SC-18.05.2018- Paucity of infrastructure in the Consumer For a [Full PDF Judgment]

Crossword Entertainment Private Limited Vs. Central Board Of Film Certification- DelHC-11.12.2017- W.P.(C) 11992 of 2016 – Media & Entertainment- Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)- Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal (FCAT)- Cuts/Modifications/Excisions [Full PDF Judgment].

CTO- Anti Evasion-I, Kota Vs. M/S Anand Minerals Pvt Ltd- S.B. Sales Tax Revision -Reference No. 318 of 2011-RajHC-02.08.2017- Directions given to various Department- The officers present in the Court: Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate- Addl. Commissioner (Narcotics)- IG, ACB- S.P. CBI- Director, Revenue Intelligence- Asstt Director, IB- DG, Income Tax (Inv.)- Addl. DG, GST- Addl. Commissioner GST- Asstt Director, DRI- Commissioner, Customs [Full PDF Judgment].

CVS Insurance And Investments Vs. Vipul It Infrasoft Pvt. Ltd.-DelHC-08.12.2017- ARB.P. 9 Of 2017- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- Section 11- Seat of the Arbitration- Jurisdiction-  viz. Jurisdiction at Delhi or Noida when the agreement between the parties give exclusive jurisdiction to courts at Noida? [Full PDF Judgment].

Custodian of Evacuee Property Bangalore, The Vs. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor etc.– CIVIL Appellate Jurisdiction: Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1954- SC- SC-09.12.1994- (1961) 3 SCR 855- Writ of Certiorari- Four proposition laid- “(1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting  errors of jurisdiction; (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction,   as   when   it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice; (3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous. (4) An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari if it is a manifest [Full Pdf Judgment].

Judgments-Index

D Vs. P Alias R- MAT.APP.(F.C) 161/2017-DelHC-15.12.2017– Divorce-HMA- S-13(1)(a)- what should be the contents of a petition filed under the HM Act- Reference made to the Rule 7 of Delhi High Court Rules, 1967, “7. Contents of petition-In addition to the particulars required to be given under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code and Section 20(1) of the Act, all petitions under Section 9 to 13 shall state: (g) The matrimonial offence or offences alleged or other grounds, upon which the relief is sought, setting out with sufficient particularity the time and places of the acts alleged, and other facts relied upon, but not the evidence by which they are intended to be proved, e.g.: … (iv) ……in the case of cruelty, the specific acts of cruelty and the occasion when and the place where such acts were committed.”- Condonation part very material- Reference made to S-23 of the HMA: “23. Decree in proceedings – (1) In any proceeding under this Act, whether defended or not, if the court is satisfied that:- (a) xxx xxx xxx — (b) where the ground of the petition is the ground specified in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 13, the petitioner has not in any manner been accessory to or connived at or condoned the act or acts complained of, or where the ground of the petition is cruelty the petitioner has not in any manner condoned the cruelty, and…….” [Full PDF Judgment].

Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited Vs. Malvinder Mohan Singh- O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6 Of 2016- DelHC-31.01.2018- Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996- Arbitration & Conciliation- international arbitral award- Jurisdictional issues- enforcement and execution of the Foreign Award-tribunal in Singapore- Share Purchase and Share Subscription Agreement (SPSSA)- Self Assessment Report SAR- US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)- Department of Justice (DOJ)- Art.-15, Art.-39(e) & (f) and Art.-45 of the Constitution of India empower the state to make special provisions for protection of children- It was alleged against Ranbaxy, that it had intentionally fabricated data for regulatory submissions to various regulators, as also kept the SAR secret and had misrepresented the ongoing investigation by the US Regulatory authorities as routine regulatory exercise and a meritless fishing expedition launched at the behest of a competitor. [Full Pdf Judgment]

Daljit Singh & Ors. Versus Sukhwinder Kaur & Anr., Crl. Misc. No. M-8742 of 2015(O&M), Judgment Dated: 03.10.2016, Bench: Anita Chaudhary, JJ, Punjab & Haryana High Court: Quashing Of FIR- S-406 & 498A IPC [Full PDF Judgments].

Dalmia Resorts International Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deepak Gupta- Crl. R. No. 228 of 2002- DelHC-09.05.2002- ___- Case U/S-138 NI Act- NBW issued in this Case [Full PDF Judgments].

Dalpat Kumar Vs. Prahlad Singh-16.10.1991-(1992) 1 SCC 719- AIR 1993 SC 276- S-41(H) Of The Specific Relief Act, 1963- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2-Ex Parte Injunction- Injunction When Refused [Full PDF Judgments].

Damodar Lal Versus Sohan Devi And Others, Civil Appeal No. 231 OF 2015, Judgment dated: 05.01.2016, Bench: T. S. Thakur, CJI, Kurian Joseph, J, Supreme Court Of India- Rent matter- Appeals Under Rent Laws- Landlord had been successful both in the trial court and the first appellate court, however, the High Court in second appeal went against him on a pure question of fact- Landlord filed SLP in Supreme Court- The Supreme Court reversed the High Court Order, as follows:  “… approach made by the High Court has been wholly wrong, if not, perverse. It should not have interfered with concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court on a pure question of fact. The strained effort made by the High Court in second appeal to arrive at a different finding is wholly unwarranted apart from being impermissible under law.”- Landlord succeeds [Full PDF Judgments].

Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. Vs. Amar & Ors.- Civil Appeal Nos.-188-189 Of 2018- SC-01.02.2018- Partition Suit- The right to partition- The right is inherent and can be availed of by any coparcener, now even a daughter who is a coparcener. [Full Pdf Judgment].

Danial Latifi & Anr. Vs. Union Of India, Writ Petition (Civil) 868 Of 1986, Judgment Dated: 28.09.2001, Bench: G.B. Pattanaik, S. Rajendra Babu, D.P. Mohapatra, Doraiswamy Raju & Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, 2001 (8) SC 218 [5 Judge bench]- Talaq Under Muslim Law- In This Case the Court held the constitutional validity of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 [Full PDF Judgments].

Dante Farinello Cardoso Vs. State of UP- Criminal Revision No. – 84 of 2016- AllHC-31.05.2016- Sentence-Proportionate [Full PDF Judgment].

Dataram Singh Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.-SC-06.02.2018- Criminal Appeal No.227 Of 2018- Bail- New Guidelines, 2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar: State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others – CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 753-755 of 2009- SC-07.12.2011- AIR 2012 SC 364)- Extent & Scope of Section 482 Cr.PC & Section 482 Cr.PC discussed [Full PDF Judgments].

Daya Singh Lahoria v. Union of India and others- Writ Petition -Crl-256 of  2000- SC-17.04.2001- Citation- [(2001) 4 SCC 516]- Issue, Extradition Treaty [Full PDF Judgments].

  1. Dhaya Devadas Vs. Anupam Nandi, CPIO, IBM, F.No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000835,836,837,966, 1050,1114,1183, 1257, 1394,1397,1618,1844, 1806 and  CIC/SG/A/2012/001408 (14 cases), Judgment Dated:  30.11. 2015, Bench: M.Sridhar Acharyulu, IC, Yashovardhan Azad, IC, Vijai Sharma, CIC- On the issue of Mining allotment related information [Full PDF Judgments].

DHBA [Union Of India Vs.Delhi High Court Bar Association]- Appeal (Civil) 4679  of  1995- 3JBSC-14.03.2002- The challenge to the constitutional validity of The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [Full PDF Judgments].

Debendra Nath Padhi- [State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi]- Appeal-Crl-497 of 2001-SC-29.11.2004- (2005) 1 SCC 568- Section- 91 Cr.P.C.- Summons to produce document or other thing [Full PDF Judgments].

Deepak Bajpai  Vs.  State  Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And  Arun Jaitley – Crl.- Rev.P. 685 Of 2017 & Crl.- M.A. 15058 Of 2017-Delhc-27.10.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Deepak Khosla v. Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd.[DB], Letters Patent Appeal No. 16 of 2012- SC-24.04.2012- Letters Patent Appeal No. 16/2012 [Sanjiv Khanna, J.: R.V. Easwar, J.]- Contempt Of Court- In the Case the Hon’ble High Court declined the motion, holding, inter alia, the direction to appellant, as passed by the subordinate Court, were stringent, severe, deleterious & unsustainable and therefore liable to be set aside [Full PDF Judgments].

Delfi as v. Estonia, Application no. 64569/09, Judgment Dated: 16.06.2015, Grand Chamber Of The European Court Of Human Rights [ECHR] [ 17 Judges Judgments]- Findings, DELFI AS, a news portal held liable for comments made on its website.- In India, this Case casts bearing on Sec 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which offers protection for intermediaries in a particular facts & circumstances.- The Parallel of this Case can be traced down to the Case, namely, “Shreya Singhal”, where Sec 66A of the Act was quashed, and constitutional validity of Sec 79 and 79A was upheld [Full PDF Judgments].

Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited Vs. Alok Mehndiratta- FAO 90 Of 2017- DelHC-04.01.2018- O-VII, R-11 CPC- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2 CPC- [Full PDF Judgment].

Deoraj Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others-SC-06.04.2004-Appeal (Civil) 2084 of 2004- (2004) 4 SCC 697- Stay & Injunction- O-XXXIX, R-1, & 2- Interim relief- Final relief-Where withholding of an interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of main petition itself – Granting of an interim relief would tantamount to granting the final relief itself. [Full PDF Judgment].

Devender Kumar Versus Khem Chand, Crl. Rev. P. 679 of 2012, Decided on 06-10-2015, Bench- Ashutosh Kumar, J, Delhi High Court.- On Legally Enforceable Debt & Liability- On Legally Enforceable Debt & Liability & Onus to prove and of rebuttal [Full PDF Judgments].

Dhanaj Singh Alias Shera Vs. State Of Punjab- SC-10.03.2004- Appeal (Crl.) 941 of 2003- (2004) 3 SCC 654- Evidence & Witness- Investigation- Held, When the direct testimony of the eye-witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence fully establishes the prosecution version failure or omission of negligence on part of the IO cannot affect credibility of the prosecution version.- Further held, Even if the investigation is defective, in view of the legal principles set out above, that pales into insignificance when ocular testimony is found credible and cogent [Full PDF Judgments].

Dhananjay Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka-Appeal-Crl-1000  of  1999-SC-14.03.2001- 2001 4 SCC 9- S-293(4) CrPC- The trial Court can accept documents issued by any of the six officers enumerated therein as valid evidence without examining the author of the documents- The same was held in the Cases, State of HP Vs. Mast Ram (2004) 8 SCC 660 & Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (2008) 4 SCC 493 [Full PDF Judgment]

Dhanwanti Devi [Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi]- SC-21.08.1996 (1996) 6 SCC 44- Taxation Laws [Full PDF Judgments].

Dhanyamol C.J. Versus State Of Kerala, WP (C).No. 3450 Of 2014, Judgment Dated- 17.08.2015, Bench: Dama Seshadri Naidu, J, Kerala High Court– The Court held that  the Rule prohibiting women from being employed in a bar in Kerala is unconstitutional. The said rule, held the Court, fall foul of the Constitutional scheme of gender equality as has been spelt out in Articles 14, 15 (1) & (2) and 16 (1) & (2) of the Constitution of India [Full PDF Judgment].

Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.- Criminal Appeal No. 12 Of 2018- SC-05.01.2018-Condition precedent to commencement of investigation- Police have no unfettered discretion to commence investigation- Power to investigate- quashing of investigation- quashing of proceedings- quashing of FIR- Held, “30..In order to examine as to whether the factual contents of the FIR disclose any prima facie cognizable offences or not, the High Court cannot act like an investigating agency and nor can exercise the powers like an appellate Court. Further held, “34. The inherent powers of the High Court, which are obviously not defined being inherent in its very nature, cannot be stretched to any extent and nor can such powers be equated with the appellate powers of the High Court defined in the Code.”. The Supreme Court concluded by holding that the High court committed a  jurisdictional error [Full PDF Judgment]

Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) Versus State of Gujarat, Appeal (Crl.) 739 of 2008, Date Of Judgment: 28.04.2008 Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam & Aftab Alam, JJ, (2008) 5 SCC 66,  Supreme Court Of India- Cancellation Of Bail- Issue, that seriousness of the offences, and the sentences to be imposed were not kept in view. Also, Irrelevant factors were taken into consideration for granting bail.- Held, the order of granting bail to the appellant was certainly vulnerable and cancellation of the bail by the High Court was justified and therefore could not be interfered with [Full PDF Judgments].

Dipanwita Roy Vs. Respondent: Ronobroto Roy- Civil Appeal No. 9744 of 2014- SC-15.10.2014- Matrimonial- DNA Test [Full PDF Judgment]

Disabled Rights Group & Anr. Vs. Union Of India- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 292 Of 2006 – SC-15.12.2017-Various directions issued [Full PDF Judgment].

Divyansh Arora, Master Vs. Union Of India- DelHC- 14.11.2017- W.P.(C) 6759/2016- Adoption- CARA- HAMA- Adoption under HAMA Act is complete in itself, being in accordance law of the land- Grave injustice to a child if he/she is forced to live in lurch [Full PDF Judgments].

  1. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal- SC-24.07.2015- 18.12.1996- 01.08.1997- _____- 1997 (1) SCC 416- 2015 (8) SCC 744- Arrest, Detention, Custodial Death & Torture-Damages & Compensation- Bail- [Full PDF Judgment Dated: 24.07.2015] [Full PDF Judgment Dated: 18.12. 1996] [Full PDF Judgment Dated: 01.08. 1997

Don Ayengia . Versus The State of Assam & Anr., Criminal Appeal Nos. 82-83 OF 2016,  Judgment Dated: 28.01.2016, T.S. Thakur & Kurian Joseph, JJ, Supreme Court OF India- Plea of “security” qua the cheques.- The Court held, “This would ordinarily and in the context in which the cheques were given imply that once the debt / liability was discharged, the cheques shall have to be returned. In case, however, the amount was not paid within the period stipulated, the cheques were liable to be presented, for otherwise there was no logic or reason for their having been issued and handed over in the first instance. If non-payment of the agreed debt/liability within the time specified also did not entitle the holder to present the cheques for payment, the issue and delivery of any such cheques would be meaningless and futile if not absurd.- If cheques were issued in relation to a continuing contract or business where no claim is made on the date of the issue nor any determinate amount payable to the holder, one could perhaps argue that the cheques cannot be presented or prosecution launched on a unilateral claim of any debt or liability [Full PDF Judgments].

Doongar Singh Versus The State Of Rajasthan-SC-28.11.2017- Criminal Appeal Nos. 2045-2046 Of 2017- Issue, Adjournments [Full PDF Judgments].  

Dunlop [Asst. Collector Of Customs OF Central Excise Chandan Nagar Vs. Dunlop]- SC-30.11.1994- (1985) 1 SCC 260- 1985 AIR 330- 1985 SCR -2-190- Law Declared By The Supreme Court Is The Law Of The Land [Full PDF Judgments].

  1. Venkatasubramaniam Vs. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari (2009) 10   SCC 488- Extent & Scope of Section 482 Cr.PC & Section 482 Cr.PC discussed [Full PDF Judgments].

Judgments-Index

E.C. Ramakrishnan Vs Mrinalini @ Nalini-KerHC-12.06.2018- DNA Test [Full PDF Judgment]

  1. Sivakumar Vs Union Of India And Ors.- Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ___Of 2018 (Diary No.17180/2018)-  CBI Investigation- Transfer of investigation to CBI [3JB-Full PDF Judgment].

Energy Watchdog Vs. Union Of India- DelHC-06.11.2017- W.P.-C-No.9269 of 2017 [Full PDF Judgments].

Essar Teleholdings [Commissioner Of  Income Tax 5 Mumbai Vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.]- Civil Appeal No.2165 Of 2012-SC-31.01.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

E.V.Chinnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh- Appeal (Civil)  6758 of 2000- 5JBSC-05.11.2004- 2 (2005) 1 SCC 394- Service Law- Reservation- Articles 16(4), 16(4A) and 16(4B) of the Constitution of India [Full PDF Judgment- Part-I | Part-II].

Extra Judl. Exec. Victim Families Assn. & Anr.  Vs. Union of India & Ors.- Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 129 Of 2012-Fake Encounter- SIT Investigation/ CBI Investigation [Full PDF Judgment-SC-14.07.2017] [Full PDF Judgment-SC-08.07.2016

Judgments-Index

Fabindia Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. The Asst.Commissioner – Assessment – Dept. Of   Commercial Taxes, Special Circle Ii,Ernakulam – WP-C- No. 19428 Of 2012 –   KerHC – 06.06.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

F.A. Pictures International Vs. CBFC and Anr. AIR 2005 BOM 145- Central Board of Film Certification- Film Certification Appellate Tribunal [FCAT] [Full Pdf Judgment]

Fashion Design Council Of India Vs. Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi-W.P.(C) 2563 Of 2013- DelHC-22.12.2017-Quashing-Challenge to the vires of the second explanation to S-2(m) of the Delhi Entertainment and Betting Tax Act [DEBT Act] [Full PDF Judgment].

Federation Of Hotel And Restaurant Associations Of India Appellant Vs. Union Of India- Civil Appeal No. 21790 OF 2017- SC- 12.12.2017- Consumer Laws- hotels and restaurants- Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977- Pre-packaged commodity- Institutional consumers [Full PDF Judgment].

Federation Of NOIDA Residents Welfare Vs. NOIDA Toll Bridge Company Ltd.-PIL No.- PIL No. – 60214 of 2012 -AllHC-26.10.2016-Quashing-Arbitrary action of the State or its instrumentality [Full PDF Judgment].

Felix MA-W.P.(C) No. 7778 of 2018- KerHC-08.03.2018- The Court observed: “one man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric, so to say”- Further observed- “beauty lies in the beholder’s eye, so does obscenity, perhaps”. [Full PDF Judgment].

Francis Coralie Mullin Vs. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi- Writ Petition No. 3042 of 1980-3JBSC- 13.01.1981- 1981 AIR 746- Writ- Constitution of India- Art- 226 & 32- Art-19(1)(d), 21 & 38- Basic Amenities- Water- Food- Road- Education [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Judgments-Index

Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra- Appeal (Crl.)  639 of 1999-SC-28.09.2004- (2004) 4 SCC 359 = AIR 2006 SC 1037- – It is no more open to any Court to prematurely terminate a criminal case (Quash an FIR ) behind the back of the complainant/whistle blower without giving him an opportunity of being heard [Full PDF Judgment].

Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas Versus State Of Gujarat, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 191 Of 2015, Judgment Dated: 15.09.2015, Bench: Jayant Patel, ACJ. & N.V.Anjaria, JJ, Gujrat High Court- Substantial question of law, declare the notification issued by the State Government of blocking/banning access to Mobile Internet Services during the relevant period as void ab initio, ultra vires and unconstitutional; issue appropriate writ, permanently restraining the State and its officers from imposing a complete or partial ban, blocking access to Internet Mobile/Broadband Services in the State of Gujarat, as it is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently beyond the powers of the State Government under the relevant laws; the respondent no.1 is vicariously liable and respondent no. 6 is personally liable for the unconstitutional and arbitrary action of banning Mobile Internet access and for causing loss ” [Full PDF Judgment].

Gautam Kundu     Vs.   Directorate   of   Enforcement (Prevention   of   Money Laundering   Act),   Government   of India- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1706  OF  2015-SC-16.12.2015- (2015) 16 SCC 1- Bail in PMLA, ED, and Analogous Crimes- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2012 (PMLA)- S-45- Offences to be cognizable and non-­bailable-  Held, “34. “xxx   xxx xxx    We have noted that Section 45 of the PMLA will have overriding effect on the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case of conflict between them. As mentioned earlier, Section 45 of the PMLA imposes two conditions for grant of bail, specified under the said Act. We have not missed the proviso to Section 45 of the said Act which   indicates   that   the   legislature   has   carved   out   an exception for grant of bail by a Special Court when any person is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is a sick or infirm. Therefore, there is no doubt that the conditions laid down under Section 45­A of the PMLA, would bind the High Court as the provisions of special law having overriding effect on   the   provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to any person accused of committing offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, even when the application for bail is considered under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”[Full PDF Judgment].

G.C. Roy [Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orrisa Vs. G.C. Roy]- Appeal (Civil)  1403 of 1986 – SC – 12.12.1991- AIR 1992 SC 732= (1992) 1 SCC 508, Interest- Observed, a person deprived of use of money to which he is legitimately entitled as of right, to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages [Full PDF Judgment].

Geeta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. 2726/2014, Judgment Dated- 05/03/2015, Bench-Manmohan Singh, J, Citations- 2015(3) AD(Delhi) 322: 2015(149) DRJ 351- Observed as follows: “19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding. 20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: “there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.” The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes. 21. In yet another case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 in the matter of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. it was observed that there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498A against the husband and his relatives and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power.” [Full PDF Judgment]

Geeta Mehrotra and anr. Vs. State of U.P.-SC-17.10.2012- Criminal Appeal No. 1674 OF 2012-Quashing of Proceedings- Quashing of summoning Order-Inherent power-IPC-S-498A, 406, 341, 323- [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Ghulam Mohi-Ud-Din Wani Vs. State Of Jammu & Kashmir- Criminal Appeal Nos.1275-1276 Of 2014- SC- 15.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Gian Kaur Vs. The State Of Punjab- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 167 OF 1984-SC-21.03.1996, Bench: Verma, Jagdish Saran (J)& Ray, G.N. (J)& Singh N.P. (J) & Faizan Uddin (J) & Nanavati G.T. (J), Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 1996(2) SCC 648= 1996 AIR  946= JT 1996 (3) 339- Quashing of Legislation- Issue, Whether S-306 IPC is unconstirutional [Full PDF Judgment].

Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab– (Crl.) No.8989 of 2010- SC-23.11.2010-Criminal Appeal Nos.2107-2125 of 2011- SC-24.09.2012- 2012-10-SCC-303= 2012(9) SCALE 257- Settlement And Compounding Of Criminal Cases- This matter Came up for consideration before this bench on reference from two judge bench to adjudge the correctness of the following judgments: B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2008) 9 SCC 677,  and Manoj Sharma v. State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1- Held, “57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any 54 Page 55 Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction 55 Page 56 is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”- Further Held, “58. In view of the above, it cannot be said that B.S. Joshi1 , Nikhil Merchant2 and Manoj Sharma3 were not correctly decided. We answer the reference accordingly.”[Full PDF Judgment- 23.11.2010] [Full PDF Judgment- 24.09.2012].

Giridhari Nath Vs. Mamitarani Sutar – CRLREV NO. 608 of 2016-OriHC- 15.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

GKN Drive Shafts (India) Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer – Appeal-Civil-7731 of 2002-SC-25.11.2002- 2002 Supp (4) SCR 359- Income Tax Act- Ss- 143, 147, 148- Notice U/S- 143- Assessment- Reassessment- Abuse of power under Section 147- Held, Without disposing of the petitioner’s objections to the reopening of assessment and without passing a speaking order, the assessment could not have been completed [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. Madhavan Nair Versus Union Of India, W.P.(C).No.30342 Of 2014 (P), Judgment Dated: 10.02.2016, Bench: K. Vinod Chandran, J, Kerala High Court [Full PDF Judgment]- Issue, territorial jurisdiction of the Writ Court- The petitioner would contend that the petitioner was never issued with Exhibit P1 or P2 and that the same were available in the website of the Department, which he happened to be confronted with, at his residence at Thiruvananthapuram, to which place he had retired after being divested of the Professorship. The petitioner being a native of the State of Kerala and having his permanent residence at Kerala, is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, is the contention.- Held, “19. As far as Exhibit P1 and P2, the contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner was made aware of the same through the website at his native place within the State of Kerala and that these created a disability on the petitioner from any further engagement with the Governments throughout the territory of India and he being so aggrieved, could raise the contention before the High Court of Kerala. Immediately it is to be noticed that the petitioner has not pleaded that the disability created on him by Exhibit P2, has divested him of any post or even an opportunity for such an engagement within the State of Kerala. The mere fact that the petitioner was made aware of Exhibit P1 & P2, only through the website, at Kerala would not be sufficient to confer jurisdiction. To assume jurisdiction on such a pleading would be specious, since then, with the accessibility to the website through the internet, the petitioner could as well plead that the same was accessed anywhere in India to confer jurisdiction in any High Court within the territories of India. The report of the High Level Team and Exhibits P2 and P3 have an inextricable link and the “cause of action” arose for the petitioner, on his being served with the order at Exhibit P3, which he would have to take recourse by a writ petition filed before the High Court within whose jurisdiction such cause of action or any other arose [Full PDF Judgment].

G.Mahalingappa vs. G.M. Savitha- Appeal (Civil) 2867 of 2000-SC-09.08.2005-Ingredients, requirements of Benami Transaction Act, 1988 [Full PDF Judgment].

GNCTD [Government Of National Capital Territory Of Delhi] Versus Union Of India, W.P.(C) No.5888/2015, Judgment Dated: 04.08.2016, Bench: G.Rohini, Chief Justice & Justice Jayant Nath, Delhi  High Court  Issue, Extent & Scope Of The Powers Of The Lt. Governor, Delhi & The Chief Minister, Delhi- Related Legislations: Article-239AA of the Constitution of India; Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 & the Transaction of Business of the Government of NCT of Delhi Rules, 1993.- The Lt. Governor of Delhi is the administrative head of NCT Delhi. The Governor is not under an obligation to act on the advice of the Cabinet [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Goa Plast (P) Ltd. vs. Chico Ursula D’souza & Anr.- Appeal (Crl.)  1968 of 1996-SC-20.11.2003- (2003) 3 SCC 232- Presumption of debt & liability U/S-139 of the NI Act & Right to rebuttal [Full PDF Judgment].

Goloconda Linga Swamy [State of A.P. v. Goloconda Linga Swamy]-Appeal (crl.)  1180 of 2003-SC-27.07.2014- AIR 2004 SC 3967- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC.-, Held, “It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of malafides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding.” [Full PDF Judgments].

Gotan Lime Stone- State Of Rajasthan & Ors Versus Gotan Lime Stone Khanji Udyog Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., SC- 20.01.2016- Civil Appeal No. 434 Of 2016- Mineral Law- Held, “26. …..the doctrine of lifting the veil can be invoked if the public interest so requires or if there is allegation of violation of law by using the device of a corporate entity. In the present case, the corporate entity has been used to conceal the real transaction of transfer of mining lease to a third party for consideration without statutory consent by terming it as two separate transactions – the first of transforming a partnership into a company and the second of sale of entire shareholding to another company. The real transaction is sale of mining lease which is not legally permitted. Thus, the doctrine of lifting the veil has to be applied to give effect to law which is sought to be circumvented.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Govt of NCT Delhi through Dy. Secretary to CM Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, RC No. DAI/ 2015/ A/ 0042U/ S-120B IPC and section 13(2)r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act 1988, CBI Vs. Rajendra Kumar & Ors. (Under investigation); Order dated-20.01.2016, Bench: Ajay Kumar Jain, Spl Judge, CBI, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. Sagar Suri  Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.- Appeal (Crl.)  91 of 2000- SC-28.01.2000- AIR 2000 SC 754- 2000 (1) SCR 417- Quashing- Criminal proceedings- Case U/S-420 IPC [Full PDF Judgment].

Gunasekaran [Union Of India V. P. Gunasekaran]- S.L.P. (Civil) No. 23631 Of 2008- Sc-03.11.2014- (2015) 2 SCC 610- In The Disciplinary Proceedings, The High Court Cannot Act As An Appellate Authority, Re-Appreciating The Evidence Before The Enquiry Officer. The High Court, In Exercise Of Its Powers U/Art.-226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Shall Not Venture Into Re-Appreciation Of The Evidence. The High Court Can Only See Whether: [Full PDF Judgment

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., Vs. State of Punjab– SC-09.04.1980- Criminal Appeals Nos.335 Of 1978- (1980) 2 SCC 565=1980 AIR 1632- Anticipatory Bail- Judicial Balancing of Personal Liberty of Investigational Powers [Full PDF Judgment– Five Judge Constitution Bench].

Gurcharan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)-SC-06.12.1977-Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 1977-1978 SCC (1) 118- AIR 1987 SC 179-1978 SCR (2) 358- Cancellation of Bail- Jurisdictional Issue- Co-ordinate bench of the same court not empowered to sit in Appeal[Full PDF Judgment].

Guria, Swayam Sevi Sansthan Versus State Of U.P. & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1373 2009,  Date Of Judgment: 31.07.2009, S.B. Sinha, & Cyriac Joseph, JJ, Supreme Court OF India [Full PDF Judgments].

Gurucharan Singh Vs. Union Of India- DelHC-27.04.2016-WP-Crl-307-of-2016-Bail-in-PMLA-ED-and-Analogous-Crimes [Full PDF Judgment].

Judgments-Index

Haji Ali Dargah Trust Case- Noorjehan Safia Niaz Dr. Versus State of Maharashtra & Haji Ali Dargah Trust, Public Interest Litigation No. 106 Of 2014, Judgment Dated: 26.08.2016, Bench: V. M. Kanade &
 Revati Mohite Dere, JJ, Bomaby High Cour- Issue, a PIL, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where some social activists have alleged gender discrimination and arbitrary denial of access to women in the sanctum sanctorum at the Haji Ali Dargah.- Held, “38. Accordingly, the petition must succeed and is allowed. We hold that the ban imposed by the respondent No. 2 Trust, prohibiting women from entering the sanctum sanctorum of the Haji Ali Dargah contravenes Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the Constitution, and as such restore status-quo ante i.e. women be permitted to enter the sanctum sanctorum at par with men. The State and the respondent No. 2 Trust to take effective steps to ensure the safety and security of women at the said place of worship.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Harish Uppal, Ex-Capt. Vs. Union of India-17.12.2002- Writ Petition -(Civil)- 132 of 1988- 2003 (2) SCC 45- Bar Associations- Bar Councils- Lawyers- Right to strike- Boycotts of Courts [Full PDF Judgment-I] [Full PDF Judgment-II[Full PDF Judgment-III].

Harish Chandra Singh Rawat Versus Union of India and another, Writ Petition No. 795 of 2016, Judgment Dated: 29.03.2016, Bench: U.C. Dhyani, J., High Court Of Uttarakhand At Nainital- The Art.-356 Of the Constitution- Imposition of President Rule In Uttarakhand- Writ Petition by Harish Chandra Singh Rawat, the Chief Minister- The Double Bench of the High Court revoked the President Rule, and ordered a Floor test in the assembly [Full PDF Judgment].

Harita Sunil Parab Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi And Others – Transfer Petition – Crl – Nos.254-255 Of 2017 With Transfer Petition- Crl.- Nos.253 Of 2017 – Sc – 28.03.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others.- Civil Appeal No.-61 of 1954- 7JSC-09.12.1954- 1955- AIR- 233- 1955- SCR- (1)-1104- Writ of Certiorari- Four proposition laid- “(1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting  errors of jurisdiction; (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction,   as   when   it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice; (3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence  of this  is that the  court will not  review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous. (4) An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari if it is a manifest [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Harshd S. Mehta Securities Scam-CBI Coodli Ravikumar- BomHC- 25.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Harvinder Kaur Vs. Jagdish Pal Singh Bindra-TA No. 133 of 2013(O&M)-P&HHC – 04.05.2015 [Full PDF Judgment].

Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja- Civil Appeal No.- 4222 Of 2008-SC- 08.07.2008- (2008) 9 SCC 31- Service Law- Labour Law- Natural Justice- Inquiry- Dismissal- Termination- Held, “21. From the ratio laid down in B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727] it is explicitly clear that the doctrine of natural justice requires supply of a copy of the inquiry officer’s report to the delinquent if such inquiry officer is other than the disciplinary authority. It is also clear that non-supply of report of the inquiry officer is in the breach of natural justice. But it is equally clear that failure to supply a report of the inquiry officer to the delinquent employee would not ipso facto result in the proceedings being declared null and void and the order of punishment non est and ineffective. It is for the delinquent employee to plead and prove that non-supply of such report had caused prejudice and resulted in miscarriage of justice. If he is unable to satisfy the court on that point, the order of punishment cannot automatically be set aside.- Further held, “44. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that though supply of report of the inquiry officer is part and parcel of natural justice and must be furnished to the delinquent employee, failure to do so would not automatically result in quashing or setting aside of the order or the order being declared null and void. For that, the delinquent employee has to show “prejudice”. Unless he is able to show that non-supply of report of the inquiry officer has resulted in prejudice or miscarriage of justice, an order of punishment cannot be held to be vitiated. And whether prejudice had been caused to the delinquent employee depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down.” [Full PDF Judgment]

HDFC Bank Ltd.  Vs. Prem Power Construction Pvt. Ltd.-CO. APP. 84 of 2013- DelHC-08.01.2018-S-433 & S-434-Companies Act, 1956- Service of notices & summons [Full PDF Judgment].

Hdfc Securities Ltd. & Ors Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Anr.- Criminal Appeal No. 1213 Of 2016 – Sc – 09.12.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Hemant Dhage, Ahmednagar Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, GOI, CIC/SA/A/2015/000435 (Video Conference-Ahmednagar), Judgment Dated: 12.03.2016, Bench: Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), IC, Chief Information Commissioner- Held, The Ministers are Government Authority [Full PDF Judgment].

Hemant Satti vs Mohan Satti & Ors- DelHC-07.11.2013- CS-(OS)-824 of 2010- Evidence & Witnesses- Proof & Proving- Pleading- Issues- Absence of specific pleading in the Plaint or WS or absence of issue being framed by the Court- What is not pleaded cannot be proved and no amount of evidence can be considered unless there is a background in the pleadings- No evidence can be received or appreciated unless pleaded- The onus has to be discharged by the parties by firstly pleading it [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Hem Chand vs. State of Jharkhand- Appeal (Crl.) 479 of 2008- SC- 13.03.2008- AIR 2008 SC 1903- Framing of Charge- “The Court at the stage of framing charge exercises a limited jurisdiction. It would only have to see as to whether a prima facie case has been made out. Whether a case of probable conviction for commission of an offence has been made out on the basis of the materials found during investigation should be the concern of the Court. It, at that stage, would not delve deep into the matter for the purpose of appreciation of evidence. It would ordinarily not consider as to whether the accused would be able to establish his defence, if any.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Het Ram Beniwal & Ors. Vs. Raghuveer Singh & Ors. – Criminal Appeal No. 463 Of 2006 – Sc- 21.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos.10941-10942 Of 2013, Judgment Dated- 04.12.2015, ANIL R. Dave, J, Vikramajit Sen, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Supreme Court Of India- Period of limitation for filing the written statement by the opponent U/S- 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Full PDF Judgment].

Himani Malhotra  Vs. Indraprastha College For Women – W.P.(C) 11251 Of 2017- DelHC-02.01.2018- Whether a person can assert a right which stood relinquished earlier- Whether petition is impliedly hit by principle of res judicata- Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a right- Res judicata or constructive Res judicata [Full PDF Judgment].

Hina And Another Respondent Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others- WRIT-C- No. – 51421 of 2016- AllHC- 05.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Hina Versus Union Of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1676 Of 2016-SC-23.02.2016, Bench: Kurian Joseph & Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Child Custody- Administrative Law- Age proof- SC held that the Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate can be accepted as proof of age.- Held, “7. It is seen from the Eligibility Criteria, as extracted above, even an Affidavit was sufficient as proof of age. Be that as it may, in case, the copy of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate meets the requirement of the Eligibility Criteria, we fail to understand as to how does it make a difference in case the School Leaving Certificate is of the Higher Secondary School. The learned counsel for the Corporation was at pains to explain before us that the Secondary School Leaving Ceritificate is issued by the Board whereas the School Leaving Certificate Page 4 4 of the Higher Secondary School is issued by the School. School Leaving Certificate, as the very expression indicates, is issued by the School since the pupil leaves the school. Annexure P1, which was produced by the appellant before the Corporation is captioned as “School Leave Certificate”. The requirement of the Corporation is only a proof regarding the age. No doubt, certain documents are specified in the Eligibility Criteria which would be accepted by the Corporation as proof of age. In case, a copy of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate can be accepted as proof of age, it does not even strike to common sense as to why the copy of the Higher Secondary School Leaving Certiciate, duly attested, cannot be accepted as proof of age. The High Court, however, is not correct in its approach. The clarification we have made does not in any way amend the criteria.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Hindu Front For Justice Thru. Secy. & 9 Ors. Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. U.P. Govt. & 2 Ors. Judgment Dated: 03.12.2015, Bench: V.K. Shukla,J., & Brijesh Kumar Srivastava-II, J., Allahabad High Court- In this PIL, the Allahabad High Court upheld blocking of 25% of the benefits in a Pension scheme in favour of minorities as legal and valid. Upholding the validity of the Pension Scheme the court held that Minorities are a class in themselves and State is not prohibited in making welfare scheme for the minorities belonging to weaker section, provided it does not overreach and undermine the constitutional provisions [Full PDF Judgment].

Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. [State of Jharkhand Versus Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.]- Civil Appeal No. 1093 Of 2006- 5JBSC- 14.12.2017- Arbitration Act, 1940- SC-2(c)- Jurisdictional Issues- “Whether this Court can entertain an application for making the award as Rule of the Court, even if it retains seisin over arbitral proceedings?”- Held, When an arbitrator is appointed by the Supreme Court and further directions are issued, it retains seisin over the arbitration proceedings and in such circumstances, the Supreme Court is the only court for the purposes of Section 2(c) of the Act [Full PDF Judgment].

Hiral P. Harsora-Kusum Narottamdas Harsora-SC-06.10.2016- Civil Appeal No. 10084 Of 2016-2016-10-SCC-165- S-2-q Of DV Act- Constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.- The word, “male” struck down from S-2(q)- Held, “46. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court and declare that the words “adult male” in Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act will stand deleted since these words do not square with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the proviso to Section 2(q), being rendered otiose, also stands deleted….” [Full PDF Judgment].

Honey Preet Insan Vs. State [of Delhi]- Delhi High Court-26.09.2017- Bail Application No.-1983 of 2017- Whenever, an application for anticipatory bail is made before a Court, where an FIR has been lodged elsewhere i.e. outside the territorial jurisdiction of that Court, the Court is duty bound to consider whether the applicant is a regular or bona fide resident of a place within the local limits of that Court and is not a camouflage to evade the process of law. If the Court is not satisfied on this aspect, the application deserves to be rejected without going into the merits of the case [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. N. Jagannath Versus State of Karnataka- SC-06.12.2017-SLP (Civil) No. 33813 of 2011- Land Acquisition- Civil Court Jurisdiction- Barred- Suits of any nature, what-so-ever- Not maintainable [Full PDF Judgment].
  2. Lyngdoh & Ors. Vs. Gromlyn Lyngdoh- Civil Appeal No. 1929-SC- 02.03.1971- Bench: Reddy, P. Jaganmohan & Shelat J.M, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 1971 AIR 1110 1971 SCR (3) 903 1971 SCC (1) 754- Section-107. Powers of Appellate Court.Duty of the appellate Judges in dealing with the judgment of the lower court- In the objective discharge of judicial functions there is little justification nay, none-at-all to assume any attitude other than of judicial restraint or to use a language while referring to one’s colleagues other than that which has been hitherto adopted by long usage [Full PDF Judgments].

Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma Vs State of Bihar- Appeal (Crl.) 313-314 of 2000- SC-31.03.2000- (2000) 4 SCC 168- Quashing- Criminal Proceedings- IPC- S-418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477(a), 506(2), 120(b)-Held, “…The distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one.”.-  Further held, “..It would depend upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement..”- Further held, “ .. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of transaction that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is the intention which is gist of the offence.”.  Further held, “From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such an culpable intention right at the beginning that is when he made the promise cannot be presumed” [Full PDF Judgments]-

HS BEDI Versus National Highway Authority Of India, RFA 784/2010, Judgment Dated-22.01.2016, Bench: J.R. Midha, J, Delhi High Court- Prosecute the unscrupulous litigants U/S-209 IPC who file false claims and written statements before the Courts “to prevent the abuse of process of law, secure the ends of justice, keep the path of justice clear of obstructions and give effect to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court…” in various judgments.: J R Midha, J, of Delhi High Court directs the Courts below [Full PDF Judgment].

H Srinivas [State by Lokayuktha Police Vs. H. Srinivas- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.775 of 2018- SC-18.05.2018- Quashing of criminal proceedings-  irregularity and illegality [Full PDF Judgment].

Hussain and Anr.  Vs. Union of India- Criminal Appeal NO.509 OF 2017-SC-09.03.2017- Bail- Speedy Trial- Art.-21 of Constitution of India- Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [NDPS Act] [Full PDF Judgment].

Judgments-Index

IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Hubtown Ltd.- Civil Appeal No.-10860 Of 2016- SC-15.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.  Vs. S & D Hospitality- CS-(COMM)-111 Of 2017- DelHC-03.01.2018- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2- O-VII, R-10- Trademarks- Injunction & Stay- Jurisdiction [Full PDF Judgment]  

Independent Thought  Vs. Union of India- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 382 OF 2013- SC-11.10.2017- Sex With Minor Wife- Sexual intercourse between a man and his wife being a girl between 15 and 18 years of age is rape- POSCO- Ocular Evidence, Medical Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Documentary Evidence, Police Investigation- Age Determination [Full PDF Judgment].

Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs Prabha D Kanan, Civil Appeal No.4767 of 2006, Judgment Dated-10.11.2006, Bench: S B Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, AIR 2007 SC 548- Issue, Constitutionality and/ or validity of Regulation of the Indian Airlines (Flying Crew) Service Regulations was examined in this Appeals, arising out of a judgment and order dated 30th August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.2030 of 2003 [Full PDF Judgments]. 

Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. V. Union Of India- SC-06.12.1984- (1985) 1 SCC 641- Fundamental Rights- Art.-19(1)(A)- Speech & Expression- Restrictions under Cl (2)- Freedom Of Press [Full PDF Judgment].

Indian Hotel & Restaurants Assn. & Others- State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Indian Hotel & Restaurants Assn. & Others, Civil Appeal No. 2705 Of 2006, Judgment Dated: 16.07.2013, Bench: Altamas Kabir, CJI & Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ, Supreme Court Of India-Issue, Bar dancer’s- Substantial question of law, Whether 33A of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 as inserted by the Bombay Police (Amendment) Act, 2005 is ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India [Full PDF Judgment]

Indian Institute of Aircraft Engineering Versus Union of India [DB], WP (C) No. 3513 Of 2012, Judgment Dated: 21.05.2013, Bench: D. Murugesan, C.J. & Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J., Delhi High Court- Citation: 2013(30) STR 689- Aircraft Rules, 1937- Rule 133-B- Rules and CAR issued by DGCA- The Civil Aviation Requirement [CAR]- Nature of-  Held, Rules and the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) dealing with aircrafts are law- Narsingh Pratap Singh Deo Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1964 SC 1793 & R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay, (1984) 2 SCC 183, Referred (Para 26) [Full PDF Judgment]

Indian Institute Of Planning And Management Vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan P. Ltd.Anr-CS-OS-3354 Of 2015-DelHC-16.02.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Indian Medical Association- Vs State Of Maharashtra- WRIT PETITION NO.4579 of 2005- BomHC- 21.10.2016-Commercial Establishments-Shops & Establishment- Private Doctors Clinic [Full PDF Judgment].

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service and Ors.- SC-19.11.1990-  (1991)-1-SCC-533- Corporate, Business & Commercial Law- Commercial Contracts- Determinable Clauses- Termination Clause- Principle of “just, fair and devoid of arbitrariness” [Full PDF Judgment].

Indian Oil Coporation Ltd. [IOCL] Vs. National Commission For Scheduled Tribes & Anr.- W.P.(C) 9186 of 2016- DelHC-09.01.2018- National Commission for Scheduled Tribes Art.-338A of Constitution of India- The Commission is not an Alternative Forum for dispute resolution and has no adjudicatory function [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Indian-Young-Lawyers-Association-Vs-State of Kerala.-SC-13.10.2017-Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 Of 2006 [Full PDF Judgment].

Indira Nehru Gandhi  Vs. Raj Narain & Anr.- Appeal Civil 887 of 1975- SC-24.06.1975- 1975- AIR- 1590= 1975- SCC- (2)- 159 [Full PDF Judgment].

Indira Nehru Gandhi  Vs. Raj Narain & Anr.- Appeal Civil 887 of 1975- SC-07.11.1975- 1975 AIR 2299 = 1976 (2) SCR 347 = 1975 Suppl. SCC 1 [Full PDF Judgment].

Indira Jaising Vs. Supreme Court Of India – Writ Petition -C – No. 454 Of 2015 – SC- 12.10.2017- Issue, Designation of Advocate as Senior [Full PDF Judgment].

Indore Development Authority  Vs Shailendra (Dead) Through Lrs.-Sc-07.12.2017- Civil Appeal No.20982 Of 2017-Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013- Section 24- Compensation Not paid- Validity of  Land Acquisition-Whether Acquisition lapsed?- Or higher interest U/S-Section 34 of the 1894 Act entails?- Related Cases- Yogesh Neema Vs. State Of M.P. – SC-12.01.2016- Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S). 10742 Of 2008 [Full PDF Judgment]- Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki- 3JBSC-24.01.2014-Civil Appeal No. 877 OF 2014 [Full PDF Judgment]- Matter referred to larger bench [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Indra Pal Singh (I.P. Singh) Versus State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lucknown &Ors., MISC. BENCH No.- 13915 of 2016, Judgment Dated: 13.06.2016, Bench: Suneet Kumar & Shri Narayan Shukla, JJ, Allahabad High Court- Frivolous & mischievous petition, being filed for personal gains & instituted at the behest of a person seeking publicity.- The Hc referred to and relied upon, Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Versus Prem Chandra Mishra and others, AIR 2008 SC 913, wherein the SC had observed as follows: “10. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, the said petition is to be thrown out…”- The public interest aspect was also discussed in this Case., seeking to distinguish between “Public Interest Litigation” [PIL], “publicity interest litigation” or “private interest litigation” or “politics interest litigation” or “paise income litigation”.- The Court further observed, “If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of wishful thinking.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Indra Sarma  Vs. V.K.V. Sarma- SC-26.11.2013- Criminal Appeal No. 2009 Of 2013- Domestic Relationship U/S-2(f)- DV Act- Domestic Violence U/S-3- DV Act- “Whether a “live-in relationship” would amount to a “relationship in the nature of marriage” falling within the definition of “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the DV Act”) and the disruption of such a relationship by failure to maintain a women involved in such a relationship amounts to “domestic violence” within the meaning of Section 3 of the DV Act” [Full PDF Judgment].

Indra Sawhney Vs Union Of India-8JBSC-16.11.1992- AIR 1993 SC 477= 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217= 1992 Supp 2 SCR 454- Service Law- Reservation- Articles 16(4), 16(4A) and 16(4B) of the Constitution of India [Full PDF Judgment].

Indu Munshi And Ors Vs. UOI And Ors. – LPA 286 Of 2015, Rev.Pet.374 Of 2016 – DelHC- 23.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]

Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 Of 2013-SC-15.09.2017- Prison Reforms- Bail- A Letter Writ Petition- Letter Dated 13th June, 2013 By  R.C. Lahoti, Former Chief Justice Of India, Based On A Report, As Reflected In A Graphic Story Appearing In Dainik Bhaskar (National Edition) On 24th March, 2013- Writ Petition (Civil) No.406 of 2013, Judgment Dated: 05.02.2016, Bench: Madan B. Lokur & R.K. Agrawal, JJ, Supreme Court Of India – Prisoner’s right to dignity- A prisoner is required to be treated as a human being entitled to all the basic human rights, human dignity and human sympathy.- Multiple directions issued [Full PDF Judgment].

Inox Wind Ltd. Vs. Thermocables Ltd- Civil Appeal No. 19 of2018- SC-S-11(6)- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- Appointment of an arbitrator- The purchase order is a single contract and general reference to the standard form even if it is not by a trade association or a professional body is sufficient for incorporation of the arbitration clause. [Full PDF Judgment]

International Asset Reconstruction Company Of India Ltd. Versus The Official Liquidator Of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd. -SC-24.10.2017- Civil Appeal No.16962 OF 2017- Banking & Finance- Issue, Limitation- DRT has no power to condone delay under limitation Act [Full PDF Judgment].

International Confederation Of Societies Of Authors And Composers (Cisac) Vs. Aditya Pandey & Ors. – Civil Appeal Nos. 9412-9413 Of 2016 – Sc -20.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Ishaan Research Lab [Commissioner of Central Excise v. Ishaan Research Lab (P) Ltd.]- Civil Appeal No. 7357-7372 of 2001, Judgment: 08.09.2008, Bench: Ashok Bhan, J. & V.S. Sirpurkar, J., Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 2008(13) SCR 208: 2008(13) SCC 349: 2008(10) JT 1: 2008(12) SCALE 270: 2008(230) ELT 7- Environmental Law- Excise and Customs- Ayurvedic medicines- Scope- Products `Bio- Heena’ and `Bio Heena leaf’ may not be called as Ayurvedic Medicine- Assessee rightly gave up his claim of classification of theses products under Chapter 30 and more precisely under Entry 3003.30- Central Excise Tariff- Items 3003.30, 3304 & 3305 [Full PDF Judgment]

Ishwari Prasad Mishra Versus Mohammad Isa, Date Of Judgment: 27/08/1962, Bench: Gajendragadkar P.B., Gupta K.C. Das & Dayal Raghubar, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 1963 AIR 1728= 1963 SCR (3) 722- Section-107. Powers of Appellate Court. Duty of the appellate Judges in dealing with the judgment of the lower court- Criticism of the trial Judge or the witnesses-Extravagant language to be avoided.- The High Court made some observations criticizing some of the witnesses examined in the case suggesting that they had consipired to give false evidence.- The Supreme Court after carefully considering the matter fully was satisfied that the amputations made by the High Court against the impartiality and the objectivity of the approach adopted by the trial Judge were wholly unjustified.- Held, that the High Court erred in using extravagant language in criticizing the trial court; that the use of strong language and imputation of corrupt motives should not be made light-heartedly because the judge against whom the imputations are made has no remedy in law to vindicate his position.  Held, further, that the High Court was, similarly, in error in its criticism of some the witnesses examined in the case as showing a tendency to regard every witness whose evidence the High Court did not feel inclined to accept, as a perjuror and a conspirator [Full PDF Judgments].

Ismail Farooqui- (1994) 6 SCC 360 [Full PDF Judgment].

Judgments-Index

Jafar Abbas Rasoolmohammad Merchant Versus State Of Gujarat, Criminal Misc. Application No. 14361 Of 2010, Judgment Dated- 05.11.2015, J.B.Pardiwala, J, Gujrat High Court- Quashing   of   the   Criminal proceedings arising from the FIR U/S- 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), 494, 406, 420 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, & Ss. 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act [Full PDF Judgment].

Jagdish Balaram Bahira [Chairman And Managing Director FCI And Ors .Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira]- Civil Appeal No 8928 Of 2015 Etc. Etc.-SC-02.08.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Jagdish Revansiddha Patil Vs State of Maharashtra-Writ Petition No.- 10913 of 2014- BomHC- 21.10.2016- Election-Disqualification Of Counselor Due To Faking of Cate-Upheld [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Jagdish v. State of Uttaranchal, Criminal Appeal No. 1097/2012, Judgment Dated: 25/11/2014, Bench: T.S. Thakur, J.: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.: R. Banumathi, J., Citation: 2015(2) SCC 252: 2014(13) JT 249: 2014(13) SCALE 148: 2014(9) SLT 625: 2015(2) Crimes 200(SC)- Penal Code, 1860- Sections 304-B, 498-A & 201- Judgments On Sentence- Judgments Culminating In Modification of The Term of The Sentence to the period of incarceration already undergone, etc.- Conviction under- Scope, lack of persistent demand of dowry, accused leaving separately from deceased, effect of- Death of sister-in-law of appellant by burning- Appeal against conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A by appellant/Jagdish/elder brother of husband of deceased- Held, a mere demand of dowry at one or two instances may not attract provisions of Section 304B IPC though such demand might be an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC- There is no material to show that there was persistent demand of dowry by first appellant-Jagdish- Appellant who stated to be living separately could not have persistently subjected Seema to dowry harassment and cruelty and first appellant is to be acquitted of charge of 304B IPC but to be convicted under Section 498-A IPC- HELD: In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., first appellant-Jagdish has stated that he has no wife or child and that he is living separately in Village Churiyala and that his brother Sukhbir was living with his wife and children. First appellant has further stated that he has been living separately even prior to the marriage of Chandrahas and that he has his own food prepared. We find no reason to disbelieve the statement of the first appellant-Jagdish. Insofar as signature of first appellant-Jagdish in Ex A-3 compromise deed is concerned, being elder member of the family and to ensure peaceful married life of Chandrahas, first appellant perhaps might have signed in the compromise deed. The first appellant who is stated to be living separately could not have persistently subjected Seema to dowry harassment and cruelty and the first appellant is to be acquitted of the charge of 304B IPC. For the alleged demand of dowry by the first appellant as spoken by PWs 1 and 2, the first appellant is to be convicted under Section 498A IPC. As seen from the materials on record, first appellant-Jagdish was about 70 years of age in the year 1996. Considering his age, lenient view has to be taken in imposing the sentence for the offence under Section 498A IPC (Para 16)- As Jagdish 70 years of age, he is sentenced to period already undergone by him for committing offence under Section 498A IPC (Para 15 & 16) [Full PDF Judgments].

Jagdish Thakkar Vs. Delhi- 1992 (3) CCR 2764- The Proceedings under S-498 are not the one for recovery of articles [Full PDF Judgments].

Jagmohan Bahl v. State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 2335/2014 Judgment Dated- 18/12/2014), Bench- Dipak Misra & Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ., Citations- 2014(14) JT 369= 2014(14) SCALE 224= 2014(10) SLT 605- Cancellation Of Bail [Full PDF Judgment].

Jagmohan Singh Bhatti Versus Union of India and others, CWP No. 6715 of 2012 (O&M), Judgment Dated: 12.08.2016, Bench: S.S. Saron & Ramendra Jain, JJ, Punjab & Haryana High Court- Issue, Appointment of Parliament Secretaries-Legality, Validity & Justifiability Of Their Appointments- Issue, appointments of Parliamentary Secretaries in the State of Punjab.-Writ in the nature of quo warrants sought qua the the posts of Chief Parliamentary Secretaries declaring the same to be  illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and contrary to; besides, being in utter disregard to the Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003 to the Constitution of India.- A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the Finance Department of the State of Punjab not to bear the expenses of the said illegal appointees.- Other constitutional provisions involved- Article 164 (3) of the Constitution of India.- Held, “appointments of Chief Parliamentary Secretaries amount to infraction of the provisions of Article 164 (1A) of the Constitution.”.

Jail Reforms-Re-Inhuman Conditions In Jails-SC-15.09.2017-Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 OF 2013.

Jamiluddin Nasir v. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No(S). 1240-1241/2010, Judgment Dated- 21/05/2014, Bench- A.K. Patnaik & Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ, Citations- 2014 AIR(SC) 2587: 2014(7) SCC 443: 2014(7) SCALE 571: 2014(5) Supreme 135: 2014(5) SLT 588: 2014 CrLJ 3589: 2014(3) SCC(Cr) 230: 2014(3) Crimes 335(SC)- Criminal Appeals [Full PDF Judgment].

Jamshed Ansari Vs. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad- Civil Appeal No.6120 OF 2016- SC-26.08.2016- Bench:  A.K. Sikri & & N.V. Ramana, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- The right to practice- The right u/s 29, 30 and 33 read with Article 19(1)(g) is however not absolute. The right to practice is subject to Article 19(6) and Article 225 of the Constitution and Section 34 of the Advocates Act. Article 19(6) lays down certain reasonable restrictions on Article 19(1)(g). Article 225 grants power to high courts to frame rules and Section 34 of the Advocates Act holds that a high court may make rules laying down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practice in the high court and the courts subordinate thereto. In NK Bajpai Vs. Union of India [(2012) 4 SCC 653], the Supreme Court made it clear that right to practice can be regulated and is not an absolute right which is free from restriction or without any limitation- rules are regulatory provisions and do not impose a prohibition on practice of law. It further held that Section 30 is subject to Section 34 and there is no absolute right to practice- The Cases referred to relied upon in the SC: N.K. Bajpai vsUnion of India, (2012) 4 SCC 653; R.K. Anand & Anr. v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106, & Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal VsUnion of India (2003) 2 SCC 45 [Full PDF Judgment].

Janardan Vasant Patil Vs State of Maharashtra- Writ Petition No. 1525 OF 2011- BomHC- 16.09.2016-Legislation, Policy & Rule-Quashing Of Administrative Order Rejecting-Plea To Form Police Association [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary, Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 1991., Judgment Dated: 27.08.1991, Bench: PANDIAN, S.R., SHETTY, K.J., JJ, Supreme Court Of India- 1992(4) SCC 305 [Full PDF Judgment]- Public interest litigation- Issue, Maintainability- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 397, 401, 482- Revisional jurisdiction of High Court-Whether invokable by public interest litigation [Full PDF Judgments].

Jairnail Singh [State of Uttarakhand  Vs. Jairnail Singh]- SC-13.11.2017- IPC- 307- Evidence & Witness- Investigation- Held, 16) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal. 17) In other words, in our view, the reasoning and the conclusion of the High Court in acquitting the respondent of the charges under Section 307 IPC and Section 25(1-A) appears to be just and proper as set out below and to which we concur and hence it does not call for any interference by this Court. 18) First, the parties involved in the case namely, the victim, his brother, who was one of the eye-witnesses with other two eye-witnesses and the accused were known to each other then why the Complainant-brother of victim in his application (Ex-P-A) made immediately after the incident to the Chief Medical Superintendent, Pilibhit did not mention the name of the accused and instead mentioned therein “some sardars”. 19) Second, according to the prosecution, the weapon used in commission of offence was recovered from the pocket of the accused the next day, it looked improbable as to why would the accused keep the pistol all along in his pocket after the incident for such a long time and roam all over. 20) Third, the weapon (pistol) alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence was not sent for forensic examination with a view to find out as to whether it was capable of being used to open fire and, if so, whether the bullet/palate used could be fired from such gun. Similarly, other seized articles such as blood-stained shirt and soil were also not sent for forensic examination.. 21) Fourth, weapon (Pistol) was not produced before the concerned Magistrate, as was admitted by the Investigating Officer. 22) Lastly, if, according to the prosecution case, the shot was hit from a very short distance as the accused and the victim were standing very near to each other, then as per the medical evidence of the Doctor (PW-6) a particular type of mark where the bullet was hit should have been there but no such mark was noticed on the body. No explanation was given for this. This also raised some doubt in the prosecution case. 23) In our considered opinion, the aforesaid infirmities were, therefore, rightly noticed and relied on by the High Court for reversing the judgment of the Session Court after appreciating the evidence, which the High Court was entitled to do in its appellate jurisdiction. We find no good ground to differ with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. 23) In our considered opinion, the aforesaid infirmities were, therefore, rightly noticed and relied on by the High Court for reversing the judgment of the Session Court after appreciating the evidence, which the High Court was entitled to do in its appellate jurisdiction. We find no good ground to differ with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. 24) In other words, it cannot be said that the aforementioned infirmities were either irrelevant or in any way insignificant or technical in nature as compared only to the ocular version of the witnesses. The prosecution, in our view, should have taken care of some of the infirmities noticed by the High Court and appropriate steps should have been taken before filing of the charge-sheet to overcome them. It was, however, not done. The benefit of such infirmities was, accordingly, rightly given to the respondent by the High Court. 25) In the light of the aforementioned infirmities noticed in the prosecution case which, in our opinion, were material, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant (State) cannot be applied to the facts of the case at hand. It is distinguishable. 26) Since the State has challenged the order of acquittal in this appeal, unless we are able to notice any kind of illegality in the impugned judgment, we cannot interfere in such judgment. In other words, it is only when we find that the impugned judgment is based on no evidence or/and it contains no reasoning or when it is noticed that the reasoning given are wholly perverse, this Court may consider it proper in appropriate case to interfere and reverse the decision of the High Court. 27) But when the High Court while reversing the decision of the Session Court acquits the accused and assigns the reasons by appreciating the entire evidence in support of the acquittal, then this Court would not be inclined to interfere in the order of acquittal. In our view, it is necessary for the High Court while hearing the appeal arising out of the order of conviction to appreciate the entire evidence and then come to its conclusion to affirm or reverse the order. In a case of later, which results in reversal, with which we are here concerned, it is necessary for the High Court to assign cogent reasons as to why it does not consider it proper to agree with the reasoning of the Sessions Judge by pointing out material contradiction in evidence and infirmities in the prosecution case. Case at hand is of this nature [Full PDF Judgment].

Jasbir Kaur & Ors. Versus State & Anr., CRL.M.C. 1096/2011 & Crl.M.A. Nos. 2903-2904/2012, 2906- 2907/2012, , Judgment Dated- 29.11.2011, Bench: Manmohan, J, Delhi High Court -Quashing of FIR U/S-226 of the Constitution & S-482 of CrPC.- The FIR U/S- 406/498A/376/420/506/120B IPC [Full PDF Judgment].

Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. Distt. Judge, Dehradun-SC-27.08.1997-Citation-1997-7 SCC-7- Maintenance For Wife & Children-HMA- S-24 [Full PDF Judgments].

Jaya Bachchan vs. Union of India- Writ Petition (Civil)  199 of 2006- SC-08.05.2006-(2006) 5 SCC 266- Art.- 32, 102, 103, 102 of constitution of India- Challenge to the order of the Hon’ble President of India, as also to the opinion rendered by the Election Commission [Full PDF Judgment]

Jaydayal Poddar (Deceased) Through His L.Rs Andanother Vs. Mst.  Bibi Hazra And Ors.- Civil Appeal No. 1759 Of 1967- SC-19.10.1973- 1974 -AIR- 171= 1974- SCR- (1)- 70- 1974-SCC-(1)-3 [Full PDF Judgments].

Jessica Lal Murder-Sidhartha Vashisht Alias Manu Sharma-SC-19.04.2014 [Full PDF Judgments].

Jitendra Vs. State Of M.PSC-18.09.2003- Appeal (Crl.) 1318-1319 Of 2002-(2004) 10 SCC 562- NDPS Case- Non-production of seized contraband- Fatal for the case for prosecution [Full PDF Judgment]. 

J Jayalalitha Vs. State- KarHC-11.05.2015-Crl Appeal-835 of 2014 [Full PDF Judgments].

Joginder Kumar Vs. State Of U.P.-SC-25.04.1994- Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 9 of 1994- AIR 1994 SC 1349- 1994 CriLJ 1981- (1994) 4 SCC 260- Articles 21 and 22 (1) of Constitution of India -law of arrest is one of balancing private rights of individual and that of social interest in curbing crime- no arrest can be made only because it is lawful for police officer to do so- police officer has to justify arrest apart from his power to do so – Articles 21 and 22 (1) mandates some rights to arrested persons and therefore the same have to be complied with- it is dutyof magistrate before whom arrested person is produced to satisfy himself whether the requirements are complied with or not – duty envisaged under Articles 21 and 22 (1) [Full PDF Judgments].

J S Gill- State v. Jaspal Singh Grill, AIR 1984 SC 1503 at p. 1505= 1984 Cri LJ 1211= (1984)3 SCC 555= 1984 SCC (Cri) 44 [Full PDF Judgment].

J S Gill- State v. Jaspal Singh Gill, AIR 1984 SC 2277= 2005 SCC (Cri) 1057. 36 [Full PDF Judgment].

Jurah [Customs Vs. Juarah & Anr.]- CRL.LP. 238 of 2017-DelHC-08.01.2018- S-21-S-23-S-29-S-50-S-67-S-103-Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [NDPS Act] [Full PDF Judgment].

Jyoti Puri Vs. Pawan Gandhi- CS-(OS)- 970 of 2011-DelHC-03.01.2018- Partition Suit- Rendition of Account- Will- Relinquishment Deed- Absolute owner [Full PDF Judgment].

Judgments-Index

K.A. Abbas Vs. Union of India & Another Writ Petition No-491 Of 1969-SC-24.09.1970-Citation-1971-AIR-481=1971-SCR-2-446=1970-SCC-2-780 [Full PDF Judgments

Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr. Versus State Of U.P. & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 2055 Of 2014,V. Gopala Gowda, & Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Quashing sought of the proceedings sought against the proceedings under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.– Held, “10. The parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are well known. If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the face of it, the criminal proceedings are abuse of Court’s process, quashing jurisdiction can be exercised. Reference may be made to K. Ramakrishna and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr, (2000) 5 SCC 207 (2000) 8 SCC 547, Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., (1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335, and Asmathunnisa vs. State of A.P. represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Anr., (2011) 11 SCC 259.”.

Kali Prasad Agarwalla Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd & Ors- SC-31.03.1989-Civil Appeal No. 2647 of 1980- 1989 AIR 1530- 1989 SCR (2) 283- 1989 SCC Supl. (1) 628- Evidence & Witnesses- Proof & Proving- Pleading- Issues- Absence of specific pleading in the Plaint or WS or absence of issue being framed by the Court [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav-SC-12.03.2004- (2004) 7 SCC 528 =2004 CriLJ 1796= AIR 2004 SC 1866= 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977- Cancellation Of Bail [Full PDF Judgment].

Kalyan Singh [State Through CBI Vs. Shri Kalyan Singh, FormerCM Of UP]- Criminal Appeal No.751of_2017-SC-19.04.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kalyaneshwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.- WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 260 OF 2004- SC-21.01.2011 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kamala- Secretary To Government Of Tamil Nadu, Public – Law And Order- Revenue Department Vs. Kamala- Criminal Appeal No. 507 Of 2018 – Arising Out Of SLP- Crl – No 1600 Of 2018-Sc- 10.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kamaraj- State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Namakkal Police Station Namakkal District Vs, Kamaraj- Criminal Appeal Nos.402 & 465 of 2017 – MadHC-25.10.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kamini Lau, Dr., Ld.- Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.  Vs. Delhi Auto General Finance Pvt. Ltd- RFA No. 851 Of 2015- 22.12.2017-Contempt Courts Case- By a Judge- Ld. Dr. Kamini Lau, ASJ, Delhi [Full PDF Judgment].

Kamlesh @ Ghanti Vs. State Of M.P. – Criminal Appeal Nos.1720-1721 Of 2014- Sc-21.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kamlesh Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh– Criminal Appeal No. 740/2015, Judgment Dated- 01.05.2015, Bench- Dipak Misra, J.: Prafulla C. Pant, J.Citation- 2015(6) SCALE 77 [Full PDF Judgments].

Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Union Of India- 5JBSC- 17.04.1995-Appeal (Crl.) 764-65 of 1994- 1995 (3) SCR 279- Preventive Detention- Representation by the detenu, who is the competent authority to consider [Full PDF Judgment].

Kanchan Bedi And Anr. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Bedi- IA No. 847 Of 2003 In IPA No. 17 Of 2002-DelHC-07.02.2003 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kapur Chand Godha Vs. Mir Nawab Himayatalikhan Azamjah- Civil Appeal No. 52 of 60- SC-12.04.1962- AIR 1963 SC 250- S-41- Contract Act, 1872 [Full PDF Judgment]

Karmanya Singh Sareen And Anr Vs. Union Of India And Ors- W.P.-C- 7663 Of 2016 & C.M.No.31553 Of 2016 -Directions-Delhc-23.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Karna Vs. M.Jothisorupan- Crl. OP -MD-No.13285 of 2013 and MP-MD-No.1 of 2013-MadHC-05.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Karti P Chidambram Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation- Bail Appln. 573 Of 2018- DelHC-23.03.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Karthik Gangadhar Bhat Vs. Nirmala Namdeo Wagh- BomHC-03.11.2017-Writ Petition No. 11151 OF 2017-Evidence & Witness- Secondary Witness [Full PDF Judgments].

Kashi Math Samsthan Vs Srimadsudhindrathirthaswamy- Civil Appeal Nos.7966-7967 Of 2009-SC-02.12.2009- Prima Facie Factor  Takes Precedence on remaining two prerequisites [Full PDF Judgments].

Kashmeri Devi vs. Delhi Administration- 1988 Supp SCC 482- Parameters laid down therein for investigation to be handed-over to an independent agency- Investigation- Independent Agency- CBI- Mere filing of charge-sheet would not preclude the power of the High Court to hand-over investigation to an independent agency [Full PDF Judgment].

Kathi Kalu [State of Bombay V. Kathi Kalu Oghad]- SC-04.08.1961-Citations: 1962-SCR-3-10= AIR- 1961- SC- 1808- Criminal Law- Inquiry & Investigation- S-73- Evidence Act- absence of any specific provision- Practice & Procedure- inherent powers- ancillary powers- Held, Where there is no specific provision in any law to authorize a particular course of action, the Trial Court can use its inherent or ancillary powers [Full PDF Judgment].

Kavita Manikikar Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation- Writ Petition No.1142 Of 2018 – BomHc- 16.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors.  Versus State of Kerala and Anr, Writ Petition (Civil) 135 of 1970- SC-24.04.1973- Bench: S.M. Sikri & A.N. Grover & A.N. Ray & D.G. Palekar & H.R. Khanna & J.M. Shelat & K.K. Mathew & K.S. Hegde & M.H. Beg & P. Jaganmohan Reddy & S.N. Dwivedi & Y.V.Chandrachud,, JJ, Supreme Court Of India– 1973) 4 SCC 225– Quashing- 29th Constitutional Amendment – Held,  “2242. The decision of the leading majority in the Golak Nath case that the then Article 368 of the Constitution merely prescribed the procedure for amendment of the Constitution and that the power of amendment had to be traced to Entry 97 of List I, Schedule VII read with Articles 245, 246 and 248 is not correct. 2243. The decision of the leading majority and of Hidayatullah J. that there is no distinction between an ordinary law and a law amending the Constitution is incorrect. Article 13(2) took in only ordinary laws, not amendments to the Constitution effected under Article 368. 2244. The decision of the leading majority and of Hidayatullah J. that Parliament had no power to amend the Constitution so as to abrogate or take away Fundamental Rights is incorrect. 2245. The power of amendment of the Constitution conferred by the then Article 368 was wide and unfettered. It reached every part and provision of the Constitution. 2246. Preamble is a part of the Constitution and is not outside the reach of the amending power under Article 368. 2247. There are no inherent limitations on the amending power in the sense that the Amending Body lacks the power to make amendments so as to damage or destroy the essential features or the fundamental principles of the Constitution. 2248. The 24th Amendment only declares the true legal position as it obtained before that Amendment and is valid. 2249. Section 2(a) and Section 2(b) of the 25th Amendment are valid. Though courts have no power to question a law described in Article 31(2) substituted by Section 2(a) of the Amendment Act, OP the ground that the amount fixed or determined for compulsory acquisition or requisition is not adequate or that the whole or any part of such amount is to be given otherwise than in cash, courts have the power to question such a law if (i) the amount fixed is illusory; or (ii) if the principles, if any are stated, for determining the amount are wholly irrelevant for fixation of the amount; or (iii) if the power of compulsory acquisition or requisition is exercised for a collateral purpose; or (iv) if the law of compulsory acquisition or requisition offends the principles of Constitution other than the one which is expressly excepted under Article 31(2B) introduced by Section 2(b) of the 25th Amendment Act – namely Article 19(1)(f); or (v) if the law is in the nature of a fraud on the Constitution. 2250. Section 3 of the 25th Amendment which introduced Article 31C into the Constitution is valid. In spite, however, of the purported conclusiveness of the declaration therein mentioned, the Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ascertain whether the law is for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specifie d in Article 39(b) or (c). If there is no direct and reasonable nexus between such a law and the provisions of Article 39(b) or (c), the law will not, as stated in Article 31C, receive immunity from a challenge under Articles 14, 19 or 31. 2251. The 29th Amendment Act is valid. The two Kerala Acts mentioned therein, having been included in the Ninth Schedule, are entitled to the protection of Article 31B of the Constitution [Full PDF Judgments].

Keshav Dutt v. State of Haryana- 2010-9-SCC-286- Criminal Law-  report of the handwriting expert- where the conviction was sought to be based solely on the report of the handwriting expert. [Full PDF Judgment]

Keshub Mahindra [CBI Vs  Keshub Mahindra]-Constn.BenchSC- 11.05.2011- Curative Petition (Crl.) NOS.39-42 OF 2010 In CRL. APPEAL NOs. 1672-1675 OF 1996- AIR 2011 SC 2037- Held, No Decision By Any Court, This Court Not Excluded, Can Be Read In A Manner As To Nullify The Express Provisions Of An Act Or The Code- Further held, when the charges are framed, the court makes an endorsement till that stage. So charges are framed on the materials produced by the prosecution for framing the charges “at that stage”. Such indication is necessary otherwise the provisions contained in Sections 216, 323, 386, 397, 399, 401 etc. Cr.P.C., would be rendered nugatory and denuded a competent court of the powers under those provisions. The court cannot be restrained from exercising its powers either under Section 323 or Section 216 Cr.P.C [Full PDF Judgments].

  1. G. Vs State Of Delhi- W.P.(Crl) 374 of 2017-DelHC-16.11.2017- Child Custody- NRI & Foreigner-Guardianship- Visitation Rights- Jurisdiction [Full PDF Judgment].   

Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 1- Judge & Decision- Held, “13. A Judge cannot be expected to give reasons other than those that have been enumerated in the judgment or order. The application filed by the petitioner before the public authority is per se illegal and unwarranted. A judicial officer is entitled to get protection and the object of the same is not to protect malicious or corrupt Judges, but to protect the public from the dangers to which the administration of justice would be exposed if the judicial officers concerned were subject to inquiry as to malice, or to litigation with those whom their decisions might offend. If anything is done contrary to this, it would certainly affect the independence of the judiciary. A Judge should be free to make independent decisions.”. 

Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor- The Custodian Of Evacuee Property,Bangalore Vs.Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor, Etc.- 20.02.1961- 1961 AIR 1087, 1961 SCR (3) 855- Writ of Certiorari  [Full Pdf Judgment].

Kharak Singh V. State Of U.P., (1964) 1 SCR 332- Protection Of Right Of Privacy Vis-A-Vis Defamation [Full PDF Judgments].

Khursida Begum (D) By Lrs. & Ors. Versus Komammad Farooq (D) By Lrs. & Anr., Civil Appeal No.2845 Of 2006, Judgment Dated: 01.02.2016, Bench: Anil R. Dave & Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Validity of a gift deed executed by a Muslim in favour of his son was the sole question for consideration.- The gift was by father to his minor son. Property was under tenancy. The gift is by a registered deed.- The courts below held the same to be a gift of undivided share of property which was capable of division and thus invalid under Muslim Law being hiba-bil-musha.- It has also been held that gift was of no effect as possession was not delivered to the donee.- The Supreme Court reversed the concurrent finding holding, inter alia,  “14…..The gift had no infirmity under the Muslim Law either on the ground that the possession was not delivered or on the ground that the gift was hit by Hiba-bil-Musha. Right to collect rent stands transferred to donee.- The SC further held, “13. Requirement of possession is  met when right to collect rent has been assigned to the plaintiff under the gift deed.”.

Khushwant Singh V. Menaka Gandhi- AIR 2002 Delhi 58- O-39, R-1 & 2- Grant Of Ex Parte Injunction [Full PDF Judgments].

Kihoto Hollohan Vs. Zachillhu And Others- Sc-18.02.1992- Writ Petition No.17 Of 1991= Transfer Petition No. 40 Of 1991= Writ Petition No. 17 Of 1991- 1992 Scr (1) 686, 1992 Scc Supl. (2) 651- Anti-Defection Law- Disqualification [Full PDF Judgment].

Kiran Lohia Vs. The State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors – W.P.- Crl – 357 Of 2018 – DelHC – 01.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kiran Pal Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.- Civil Appeal No. 2622 OF 2018- 3JBSC-17.05.2018- Panchayat- no confidence motion against the Pramukh [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. Karunakaran v. State of Kerala-Appeal (Crl.) 801 of 2003- SC-06.12.2006- (2007) 1 SCC 59- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC [Full PDF Judgments].

K.K. Mishra Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr- Criminal Appeal Nos. 547 Of 2018- Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition – Criminal- No. 6064 Of 2017 – Sc – 13.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]

K.M. Mathew Vs. Kerala-SC-19.11.1991-AIR-2206=1992-1-SCC-217-Quashing-Summoning-Defamation [Full PDF Judgment]

K.M. NANAVATI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA-24.11.1961-1962-AIR-605-1962. 

Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v Govt of A.P.- 29.01.2002-Appeal (Civil) 2063 of 1999-AIR 2002 SC 1012- Evidence & Witnesses- Proof & Proving- Pleading- Issues- Absence of specific pleading in the Plaint or WS or absence of issue being framed by the Court- So long as the parties are left without doubt as to what is required to be traversed, inexactitude in the plea is not a bar. It is the substance of the pleading that matter, rather than the text.- Held, “..it is a settled position that if the parties have understood the pleadings of each other correctly, an issue was also framed by the Court, the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases, then the absence of a specific plea would be no difference.”The rule itself is not immutable [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Versus Kamal Chauhan & Anr., O.M.P(I) No. 540/2015, Judgment Dated: 23.12.2015, Bench: J.R. Midha, J, Delhi  High Court- Issue, Appointment of a Receiver Of a Vehicle under S-9 Of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- Following guidelines formulated by the Court- “6. The receiver shall take over the possession of the vehicle from the respondent at the address(es) given in the loan application. If the vehicle is not available at the said address(es), the receiver shall be at liberty to recover the vehicle wherever found. However, the receiver shall not stop a running vehicle on the road to forcibly take out the driver to take the possession of the vehicle. The receiver shall also not make any attempt to block the passage of a car to bring it to a halt to take its possession. 7. The receiver shall avoid taking the possession of the vehicle if the vehicle is occupied by a woman who is not accompanied by a male member or an elderly, infirm or physically/mentally challenged person. In such cases, the receiver shall take the possession of the vehicle from the borrower’s residence. 8. The receiver shall be at liberty to take the assistance of the local police, if required, for taking over possession of the vehicle. The concerned SHO shall provide assistance to the receiver as and when requested. 9. The receiver shall also ensure that the repossession of the vehicle does not result in any breach of peace. In the event of any breach of peace, the receiver shall not proceed without assistance of police. 10. At the time of taking the custody of the vehicle, the receiver shall deliver a copy of this order to the person from whom the possession it is taken. 11. At the time of taking the custody of the vehicle, the receiver shall take the photographs of the vehicle from different angles along with the person(s) occupying the vehicle as well as the place of taking over the possession. 12. The receiver shall prepare an inventory of the articles/accessories found in the vehicle and shall furnish the copy of the inventory to the person from whom the possession is taken. 13. After taking the vehicle in possession, the receiver shall keep the vehicle in safe custody. 14. If the respondent makes payment of the outstanding instalments as on date of possession, the receiver shall release the vehicle in question to the respondent on superdari subject to an undertaking by the respondents to the receiver for regular repayment of future monthly instalments till the expiry of the tenure and a declaration not to part with the vehicle or create third party interest in the vehicle until the entire amount is paid. 15. If the respondent is not in a position to clear the entire outstanding instalments, the receiver shall give him another opportunity to pay the outstanding instalments within 30 days of taking over the possession of the vehicle and in case the respondent makes the payment the outstanding instalments within the said period, the receiver shall release the vehicle to the respondent subject to an undertaking as aforementioned. 16. If the respondent does not make the payment of the outstanding amount to the appellant bank within 60 days, the receiver, with the prior permission of the arbitrator, would be authorised to sell the vehicle in question in a public auction with prior written notice (to be sent by Speed Post AD) of the date of auction to the respondent at the address(es) mentioned in the loan agreement or the address from where the vehicle is taken into possession so that the respondent may also be able to participate in the auction to enable the appellant to fetch maximum amount from the sale of the vehicle. The receiver shall carry out video recording of the auction proceedings and shall submit the same before the arbitrator along with his final report. 17. The receiver shall submit his report before this Court within 10 days of taking the custody of the vehicle along with the photographs and inventory mentioned above.” Copy of the Order circulated in all District Courts/ Trial Courts [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka- (2015) 2 SCC 638- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA)- premeditation- predetermined motive or enmity- constant quarrel ever ensued [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Krishna Veni Nagam Vs. Harish Nagam- Transfer petition (CIVIL) NO. 1912 OF 2014- SC-09.03.2017- Matrimonial- Divorce- Child Custody- Counselor- Settlement- Transfer Petition- 09.032017- i) Availability of video conferencing facility- ii) Availability of legal aid service.- iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of Order XXV Code of Civil Procedure.- iv) E-mail address/phone number, if any, at which litigant from out station may communicate [Full PDF Judgment].

Krishan Chander Nayar v. The Chairman, Central Tractor Organisation & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 602- Affidavit- It is an essential characteristic of an affidavit that it should be made on oath or affirmation before a person having authority to administer the oath or affirmation, and thus, duty to state on oath on the part of the deponent is sacrosanct. Same remains the position in respect of administration of oath as required under the Oaths Act 1873. Other relevant Court Cases- Chhotan Prasad Singh & Ors. v. Hari Dusadh & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 407; and M. Veerabhadra Rao v. Tek Chand, AIR 1985 SC 28 [Full PDF Judgments].K. M. Mathew Vs Kerala-SC-19.11.1991- 1991 AIR 2206=1992-1-SCC-217- Quashing-Summoning-Defamation [Full PDF Judgments].

Krishna Bhatacharjee Versus Sarathi Choudhury And Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 1545 Of 2015 (@ SLP(Crl) No. 10223 Of 2014), Judgment Dated 20.11.2015,  Dipak Misra, J & Prafulla C Panta, J, Supreme Court Of India- Judicially separated wife is an “aggrieved person” under section 2(a) of the DV Act, 2005 Act.

Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54- Presumption of debt & liability U/S-139 of the NI Act & Right to rebuttal.

Krishnakumar Vs RPJJ.No. 3 Of 2018 State Of Kerala- KerHC- 18.06.2018- Revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the order of the Child Welfare Committee [Full PDF Judgment].

Krishna Kumar Singh Vs. State Of Bihar- Civil Appeal No. 5875 OF 1994- SC-02.01.2017- Ordinance promulgation- State Legislature- Art.-213(2)-Constitution of India- Failure to lay an Ordinance before the legislature is a fraud on the constitution [Full PDF Judgment].

Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul  Vs. Pratima Maity- Appeal (Civil) 7133 of 2003- SC-09.09.2003- 2003 Supp(3) SCR 496- S-101-S-102-Indian Evidence Act (IEA)- “Right to Begin” the evidence- Plaintiff or defendant [Full PDF Judgment]

  1. Srinivas Rao Vs D.A. Deepa- SC-22.02.2013-Civil Appeal No. 1794 OF 2013-2013 (5) SCC 226- Cruelty-S-13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.- Illustrative of mental cruelty- (1) Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse.- Cases Referred to and relied upon: G.V.N. Kameswara Rao Vs. G. Jabilli, (2002) 2 SCC 296- Parveen Mehta Vs. Inderjit Mehta, (2002) 5 SCC 706- Vijayakumar R. Bhate Vs. Neela Vijayakumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334- Durga Prasanna Tripathy Vs. Arundhati Tripathy, (2005) 7 SCC 353- Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558- Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kuldeep Singh Versus State, Crl. M.C. No.3387/2014, Judgment dated- 25th August, 2014, Ved Prakash Vaish, J, Delhi High Court [Full PDF Judgment].

Kuldeep Singh Vs. Rajinder Kumar And Ors.- Civil Appeal No.10223 Of 2016- Sc-20.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kuldeep  Vs. Union Of India- W.P.(C)- 8470 of 2015- DelHC-04.01.2018- Land Acquisition- Acquisition proceedings lapsed- S–24(2)- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Full PDF Judgment]

Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari & Anr- Criminal Appeal No. 516 Of 2016- SC- 18.04.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Kurukshetra University Vs. State of Haryana – AIR 1977 SC 2229= (1977) 4 SCC 451- If the High Court was ultimately exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.PC, it is impermissible for the High Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC during the stage of investigation.- The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only in respect of a matter which is pending before an inferior criminal court subordinate to the High Court.

Kush Kalra Vs. Union Of India & Anr- W.P.(C)No.10498 of 2015- DelHC-05.01.2018- Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India- Institutional Discrimination- mandamus sought to place female gainfully employed candidates at par with similarly placed male candidate- The recruitment into the Indian Territorial Army [Full PDF Judgment]

Kusum Lata Sharma  Vs. State – Crl. M.C. No. 725 Of 2011-DelHC-02.09.2011- Quashing- DV Act Complaint- S-2-q Of DV Act [Full PDF Judgment].

Kusum Sharma  Vs. Mahinder Kumar Sharma- FAO 369 Of 1996- DelHC-14.01.2015- 29.05.2017-06.12.2017- Maintenance- Wife- Children-Income Affidavit Format & Guidelines [Full PDF Judgment Dated-14.01.2015] [Full PDF Judgment Dated-29.05.2017] [Full PDF Judgment Dated-06.12.2017]. 

Judgments-Index

Lakshmi Kant Pandey Vs. Union of India- Writ Petition -Crl- No. 1171 Of 1982- 1984 (2) SCC 244- Child is soul- 1984(2) SCC 244- Adoption- CARA- HAMA- POSCO- Ocular Evidence, Medical Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Documentary Evidence, Police Investigation- Age Determination [Full PDF Judgment-SC-06.02.1984] [Full PDF Judgment-SC-02.02.1984]. 

Lalita Kumari Versus Government Of Uttar Pradesh-SC-12.11.2013- WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 68 OF 2008- (2014) 2 SCC 1- Issue, whether “a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section-154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) or the police officer has the power to conduct a “preliminary inquiry” in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same?”- There are two judgments by the same title. The reference of the other judgment is as follows: Lalita Kumari Versus Government Of Uttar Pradesh-SC-27.02.2012-WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 68 OF 2008-(2012) 4 SCC 1 [Full PDF Judgment].

Lalit Mohan Madhan  Vs. Reliance Capital Ltd.- DelHC-07.12.2017- O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 439/2017– Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [SARFAESI Act]-S-13(2) and 13(4)- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- Section-9- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Bankruptcy Act, 1993 [DRT Act] Simultaneous proceedings under the SARFAESI & Arbitration Act permissible [Full PDF Judgment].

Lata Pramod Dave Versus M/s. Mode Export Private Limited, Criminal Writ Petition No.3188 OF 2014, Judgment Dated: 17.03.2016, Bench: Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J, Bombay High Court [Full PDF Judgments]. 

Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P.- SC-07.07.2006-AIR 2006 SC 2522- Writ Petition(Crl.)  208 of 2004- Quashing of FIR- Writ of certiorari- Writ of mandamus- A live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterosexual sex does not amount to any offence even though it may be perceived as immoral [Full PDF Judgment].

Laxmi Vs. Union Of India & Others, Writ Petition (Criminal) 129 Of 2006-[Full PDF Judgment-SC-06.02.2015] [Full PDF Judgment-SC-10.04.2015- ]. 

  1. Chandra Kumar Versus Union Of India & Ors., Judgment Dated- 02.12.1994- 1997 (3) SCC 261- Issue, formation of Administrative Tribunals [Full PDF Judgments].

Lekh Raj [State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Lekh Raj]- Crl. Appeal- 1174/1999- SC-02.11.1999- 2000 CrLJ 44- Ulterior motive- Discrepancies not amounting to contradiction [Full PDF Judgments].

Lily Isabel Thomas vs Unknown- Petition No. 42 Of 1963- 4JBSC-14.01.1964- AIR 1964 SC 855, 1964 CriLJ 724, 1964 6 SCR 229- Quashing- The proper construction of  Art-145 (1)(a) of the Constitution- Ultra vires- Rule 16 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, proving for Advocates on record- Advocate on Record is an advocate who is entitled under the Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (previously Order IV of the Supreme Court of India Rules, 1966), framed under Article 145 of the Constitution, to act as well as to plead for a party in the Supreme Court of India [Full PDF Judgment].

Lily Thomas Vs. UOI- SC-05.05.2000- WP(C)- 798/1995= WP(C)-1079/1989- 2013-7-SCC-653= 2000 Crl.LJ 2433- Muslim Laws- Quashing- Legislation-Sub-Section (4) Of Section 8 Of The Representation Of The People Act, 1951 Is Ultra Vires The Constitution [Full PDF Judgment].

Levi Strauss & Co. Rajesh Agarwal- RFA 127 of 2007- DelHC-03.01.2018- Held, “11. The rationale behind Order 26 Rule 10 (2) of CPC is clear i.e. the Commissioner is appointed as a representative of the Court and evidence collected by the Commissioner along with the report of the Commissioner would be evidence in the suit, subject to any objection raised by any party. If any party has any objection to Commissioner’s report or to the evidence, such party has an option to examine the Commissioner personally in open Court. Such examination is however, neither compulsory nor required especially in cases where the party does not challenge the report.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Judgments-Index

Macquarie Bank Limited  Vs. Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd.- Civil Appeal No.15135 Of 2017- SC- 15.12.2017- Corporate, Business & Commercial Law- Operational Creditor- Operational Debt- Corporate Debtor- Demand Notice By Lawyer, Chartered Accountant Or A Company Secretary- Insolvency Proceedings- Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016- S-9(3)(C)- Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016- National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) [Full Pdf Judgment].

Madan Kansagra Vs. Perry Kansagra-DelHC-17.02.2017- MAT.APP.(F.C.) 67 Of 2016- custody, including interim custody and visitation rights- Mediation- Mediator- Conciliation- Counselor- Counselor’s Report- How far confidential and/or debatable during trials- The Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Rules, 2004- The Conciliation Rules of United Nations Commission On International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)- Section 12 of the Family Courts Act, 1984- Uniform Mediation Act (USA), 2003- Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre Rules, 1999-Code for Practice for Mediators issued by the Family Mediation Council, England and Wales- Guidelines issued by Family Justice Courts, Singapore-Members Code of Professional Conduct issued by Family Mediation, Canada-Mediation Training Manual issued by the Supreme Court of India [Full PDF Original Judgment-17.02.2017] [Full PDF Review Judgment-11.12.2017].

Madhu Limaye Vs. Not Known-Writ Petition No. 355 Of 1968-SC-18.12.1968- Criminal Law-Arrest And Detention [Full PDF Judgment].

Madhu Limaye-  Writ Petition No. 307 Of 1970- SC-10.09.1970- [Full PDF Judgment].

Madhu Limaye Vs Ved Murti- Writ Petition No. 307 Of 1970- SC-28.10.1970- Arrest And Detention- Quashing- Cr.P.C.-S-144 [Full PDF Judgment].

Madhu Limaye Vs. SDM, Monghyr-SC-28.10.1970- [Full PDF Judgment].

Madhu Limaye-Criminal Appeal No. 81 Of 1977- SC-31.10.1977- Crpc- S-397(2) [Full PDF Judgments],

Madhuri Ghosh & Anr. Vs. Debobroto Dutta & Anr. – Civil Appeal No.10742 Of 2016 – SC- 09.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Madras Bar Association Versus Union Of India- Writ Petition (C) NO. 1072 OF 2013- 5JBSC-14.05.2015- (2015) 8 SCC 583- AIR 2015 SC 1571- Challenge to the constitutional validity of creation of National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’ for short) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’ for short) [Full PDF Judgment]

Madras Petrochem Ltd. & Anr. Versus BIFR & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.-614-615 OF 2016, Judgment Dated: 29.01.2016, Bench: Kurian Joseph & R.F. Nariman, JJ, Supreme Court OF India- – Banking & Finance- SARFAESI Act- Held, “54. The resultant position may be stated thus: 1. Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 will continue to apply in the case of unsecured creditors seeking to recover their debts from a sick industrial company. This is for the reason that the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 overrides the provisions of the Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993. 2. Where a secured creditor of a sick industrial company seeks to recover its debt in the manner provided by Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, such secured creditor may realise such secured debt under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. 3. In a situation where there are more than one secured creditor of a sick industrial company or it has been jointly financed by secured creditors, and at least 60 per cent of such secured creditors in value of the amount outstanding as on a record date do not agree upon exercise of the right to realise their security under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 will continue to have full play. 4. Where, under Section 13(9) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, in the case of a sick industrial company having more than one secured creditor or being jointly financed by secured creditors representing 60 per cent or more in value of the amount outstanding as on a record date wish to exercise their rights to enforce their security under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, being inconsistent with the exercise of such rights, will have no play. 5. Where secured creditors representing not less than 75 per cent in value of the amount outstanding against financial assistance decide to enforce their security under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, any reference pending under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 cannot be proceeded with further – the proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 will abate. 55. In conclusion, it is held that the interim order dated 17.1.2004 by the Delhi High Court would not have the effect of reviving the reference so as to thwart taking of any steps by the respondent creditors in this case under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. This is because the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 prevails over the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 to the extent of inconsistency therewith. Section 15(1) proviso 3 covers all references pending before the BIFR, no matter whether such reference is at the inquiry stage, scheme stage, or winding up stage. The Orissa High Court is not correct in its conclusion on the interpretation of Section 15(1) proviso 3 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. This being so, it is clear that in any case the present reference under Section 15(1) of the Appellant No.1 company has abated inasmuch as more than 3/4th of the secured creditors involved have taken steps under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The appeals are accordingly dismissed [Full PDF Judgment].

Mahendra Singh  Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others- Writ Petition (PIL) No. 112 of 2015-UttHC-19.06.2018- Environment Law-  Issue, Multiple Pollutants & Contaminants- Sound Pollution- Air Pollution- Water Pollution- Discharge of industrial effluents- Untreated chemical waste- industrial waste- Untreated Hazardous waste [Full PDF Judgment].

Mahesh Chandra Gupta Vs. Union of India- SC-06.07.2009- Transferred Case (C) NO. 6 OF 2009-(2009) 8 SCC 273- Appointment- of a Judge- Held, there is vital difference between judicial review and merit review. Once there is consultation, the content of that consultation is beyond the scope of judicial review though lack of effective consultation could fall within the scope of judicial review [Full PDF Judgment].

Maheshwari Mandal (Delhi) Vs. The State Of Delhi- W.P. (C) 2029 of 2016- DelHC-03.01.018- Registrar of Society Cases- Societies Registration Act, 1860-S-12- The Act enabled a society to alter or amend its objects and purpose and did not extend to registering any amendment in Rules and Regulations of the society [Full PDFJudgment].

Major Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 1145/2012, Judgment Dated: 08/04/2015; Bench: T.S. Thakur, J.: R. Banumathi, J.: Amitava Roy, J.-  Citation: 2015(5) SCC 201: 2015(5) JT 435: 2015(4) SCALE 599: 2015(2) JCC 1385: 2015 AIR(SC) 2081: 2015(6) SLT 452.- Penal Code, 1860- Section 304-B- Acquittal- Lack of reasonable nexus between harassment and death, convition set aside- Appeal against judgment of High Court of whereby High Court confirmed conviction of appellants under Section 304B- During pendency of appeal before High Court, husband of deceased died and appeal against husband abated and appeal survived qua appellants viz., father-in-law and mother-in-law- Held, Karamjit Kaur died due to organo phosphorus poisoning within 21/2 years of marriage- However, fact that deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry not proved by prosecution- Both courts below acquitted all accused for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC- No evidence as to demand of dowry or cruelty and that deceased Karamjit Kaur was subjected to dowry harassment “soon before her death”- Conviction of appellants under Section 304B IPC is liable to be set aside- Appeal allowed.- Hira Lal & Ors. vs. State(Govt. of NCT) Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 80; State of A.P. vs. Raj Gopal Asawa & Anr., (2004) 4 SCC 470; Balwant Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab, (2004) 7 SCC 724; Kaliyaperumal & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 9 SCC 157; Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC 388; Harjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 1 SCC 463; Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal, (2008) 1 SCC 202 & Narayanamurthy vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., (2008) 16 SCC 512, Relied on (Para 11, 13, 14, 17 & 18)- HELD: Prosecution has not examined any independent witness or the Panchayatdars to prove that there was demand of dowry and that the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment. Ordinarily, offences against married woman are being committed within the four corners of a house and normally direct evidence regarding cruelty or harassment on the woman by her husband or relatives of the husband is not available. But when PW3 has specifically stated that the demand of dowry by the accused was informed to the Panchayatdars and that Panchayat was taken to the village Badiala, the alleged ill-treatment or cruelty of Karamjit Kaur by her husband or relatives could have been proved by examination of the Panchayatdars. The fact that deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry is not proved by the prosecution. It is also pertinent to note that both the courts below have acquitted all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC (Para 13)- Insofar as the occurrence on 14.08.1996, PWs 1 and 3 have stated that they saw the accused dragging Karamjit Kaur towards a room inside the house and that Karamjit Kaur was trembling and on seeing PWs 1 and 3, all the four accused persons ran away and after taking last breath Karamjit Kaur expired. Subsequent conduct of PWs 1 and 3 raises serious doubts about their presence in the house of the accused at the time of occurrence and witnessing accused dragging deceased-Karamjit Kaur. That PWs 1 and 3 have not raised any alarm nor tried to chase the accused and that PW1 did not inform anyone in the village of the accused looks quite unnatural. The subsequent conduct of PWs 1 and 3 raises doubt about their presence at the time of occurrence and the prosecution version. But the fact remains that deceased-Karamjit Kaur died within 21/2 years of marriage otherwise under normal circumstances. As pointed out earlier, in the cases of dowry death prosecution is obliged to show that “soon before the occurrence” deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment. In the absence of proof that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment “soon before her death”, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained (Para 14)- There is no evidence as to the demand of dowry or cruelty and that deceased Karamjit Kaur was subjected to dowry harassment “soon before her death”. Except the demand of scooter, there is nothing on record to substantiate the allegation of dowry demand. Assuming that there was demand of dowry, in our view, it can only be attributed to the husband-Jagsir Singh who in all probability could have demanded the same for his use. In the absence of any evidence that the deceased was treated with cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry “soon before her death” by the appellants, the conviction of the appellants under Section 304B IPC cannot be sustained. The trial court and the High Court have not analyzed the evidence in the light of the essential ingredients of Section 304B IPC and the conviction of the appellants under Section 304B IPC is liable to be set aside (Para 17) [Full PDF Judgments].

Makemytrip (India) Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India & Ors, W.P.(C) 525 of 2016, Judgment Dated: 01.09.2016, Bench: S. Muralidhar & Vibhu Bakhru, JJ, Delhi  High Court- Issue, Challenge to the powers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) of arrest, investigation and assessment of service tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 ( ̳FA‘).- MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited filed this Petition against Union of India ( ̳UOI‘) through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, [Respondent No. 1]; the Director, DGCEI, [Respondent No. 2]; The Additional Director General ( ̳ADG‘) and the Senior Intelligence Officer, DGCEI [Respondent No. 4]- Related provisions of law: Section 91 read with Section 89 of the FA and Section 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ( ̳CE Act‘).- The Court examined and determined the legality of the DGCEI in proceeding to search the premises of the two Petitioners and then deciding to arrest senior officials of the two Petitioners.- The Court’s findings and conclusions were as follows: “116. To summarise the conclusions in this judgment: (i) The scheme of the provisions of the Finance Act 1994 (FA), do not permit the DGCEI or for that matter the Service Tax Department (ST Department) to by-pass the procedure as set out in Section 73A (3) and (4) of the FA before going ahead with the arrest of a person under Sections 90 and 91 of the FA. The power of arrest is to be used with great circumspection and not casually. It is not to be straightway presumed by the DGCEI, without following the procedure under Section 73A (3) and (4) of the FA, that a person has collected service tax and retained such amount without depositing it to the credit of the Central Government. (ii) Where an assessee has been regularly filing service tax returns which have been accepted by the ST Department or which in any event have been examined by it, as in the case of the two Petitioners, without commencement of the process of adjudication of penalty under Section 83 A of the FA, another agency like the DGCEI cannot without an SCN or enquiry straightway go ahead to make an arrest merely on the suspicion of evasion of service tax or failure to deposit service tax that has been collected. Section 83 A of the FA which provides for adjudication of penalty provision mandates that there must be in the first place a determination that a person is “liable to a penalty”, which cannot happen till there is in the first place a determination in terms of Section 72 or 73 or 73 A of the FA. (iii) For a Central Excise officer or an officer of the DGCEI duly empowered and authorised in that behalf to be satisfied that a person has committed an offence under Section 89 (1) (d) of the FA, it would require an enquiry to be conducted by giving an opportunity to the person sought to be arrested to explain the materials and circumstances gathered against such person, which according to the officer points to the commission of an offence. Specific to Section 89 (1) (d) of the FA, it has to be determined with some degree of certainty that a person has collected service tax but has failed to pay the amount so collected to the Central Government beyond the period of six months from the date on which such payment is due and further that the amount exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs (now enhanced to Rs. 1 crore).  (iv) A possible exception could be where a person is shown to be a habitual evader of service tax. Such person would have to be one who has not filed a service tax return for a continuous length of time, who has a history of repeated defaults for which there have been fines, penalties imposed and prosecutions launched etc. That history can be gleaned only from past records of the ST Department. In such instances, it might be possible to justify resorting to the coercive provisions straightaway, but then the notes on file must offer a convincing justification for resorting to that extreme measure. (v) The decision to arrest a person must not be taken on whimsical grounds; it must be based on ̳credible material‘. The constitutional safeguards laid out in D K. Basu’s case (supra) in the context of the powers of police officers under the Cr PC and of officers of central excise, customs and enforcement directorates, are applicable to the exercise of powers under the FA in equal measure. An officer whether of the Central Excise department or another agency like the DGCEI, authorised to exercise powers under the CE Act and/or the FA will have to be conscious of the constitutional limitations on the exercise of such power. (vi) In the case of MMT, without even an SCN being issued and without there being any determination of the amount of service tax arrears, the resort to the extreme coercive measure of arrest followed by the detention of Mr. Pallai was impermissible in law. (vii) In terms of CBEC’s own procedures, for the launch of prosecution there has to be a determination that a person is a habitual offender. There is no such determination in any of these cases. There cannot be a habitual offender if there is no discussion by the DGCEI with the ST Department regarding the history of such Assessee. Assuming that, for whatever reasons, if the DGCEI does not talk to ST Department, certainly it needs to access the service tax record of such Assessee. Without even requisitioning that record, it could not have been possible for the DGCEI to arrive at a reasonable conclusion whether there was a deliberate attempt of evading payment of service tax. In the case of MMT, the decision to go in for the extreme step of arrest without issuing an SCN under Section 73 or 73A (3) of the FA, appears to be totally unwarranted. (viii) For the exercise of powers of search under Section 82 of the FA, (i) an opinion has to be formed by the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner or other officers notified by the Board that ―any documents or books or things‖ which are useful for or relevant for any proceedings under this Chapter are secreted in any place, and (ii) the note preceding the search of a premises has to specify the above requirement of the law. The search of the premises of the two Petitioners is in clear violation of the mandate of Section 82 of the FA. It is unconstitutional and legally unsustainable. (ix) The Court is unable to accept that payment by the two Petitioners of alleged service tax arrears was voluntary. Consequently, the amount that was paid by the Petitioners as a result of the search of their premises by the DGCEI, without an adjudication much less an SCN, is required to be returned to them forthwith. (x) It was imperative for the DGCEI to first check whether the entity whose employees are sought to be arrested has regularly been filing service tax returns or is a habitual offender in that regard. It is only after checking the entire records and seeking clarification where necessary, that the investigating agency can possibly come to a conclusion that Section 89 (1) (d) is attracted. None of the above safeguards were observed in the present case. The DGCEI acted with undue haste and in a reckless manner. (xi) Liberty is granted to the officials of MMT and IBIBO to institute appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against the officers of the DGCEI in which the supplementary affidavits filed in these proceedings and the replies thereto can be relied on. This holds good for the officials of the DGCEI as well when called upon to defend those proceedings in accordance with law. (xii) The Court cannot decline to exercise its jurisdiction and clarify the legal position as regards the interpretation of the scope and ambit of the powers under Sections 89, 90 and 91 of the FA. This is clearly within the powers of this Court. That is why this Court has decided to proceed with these petitions notwithstanding that the criminal petitions may be pending in the criminal jurisdiction of this Court. (xiii) The Court is satisfied that in the present case the action of the DGCEI in proceeding to arrest Mr. Pallai, Vice-President of MMT, was contrary to law and that Mr. Pallai‘s constitutional and fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution have been violated. The Court is conscious that Mr. Pallai has instituted separate proceedings for quashing of the criminal case and, therefore, this Court does not propose to deal with that aspect of the matter [Full PDF Judgment].

Mala Devi Versus The State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors., W.P.(C) 7178 of 2012,  Judgment Dated: 18.09.2014, Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, JJ, Delhi High Court- Consumer Laws- Medical Negligence- Issue, the Petition claiming compensation for a sum of 35,50,000/- to bring up her third child who is alleged to have been born because of medical negligence on the part of the doctors in performing the sterilization operation on the petitioner. The petitioner has further claimed an additional sum of `25,00,000/- Held, “12. In view of the above, an unsuccessful sterilization procedure does not necessarily imply that the attending doctors were negligent. As stated earlier, the contention that no procedure had been carried on by the doctors on petitioner’s right side fallopian tube is also not clearly established in given facts. 13. The petitioner had unequivocally agreed that she would not be entitled to file any suit for any compensation other than under the Family Planning Insurance Scheme. It was also clearly stated in the consent form that she would not seek compensation for maintenance of the child. In view of her accepting the terms for the operation conducted by respondent no.2, the claim for petitioner for upbringing a child or for compensation on account of failure of the sterilization procedure cannot be entertained in these proceedings. However, the petitioner would be entitled to a sum of `20,000/- under the Family Planning Insurance Scheme of respondent no.1. 14. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.” [Full PDF Judgment].

Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal- Civil Revision No. 1290 of 1999- MPHC-24.03.2000- Held, “well qualified wife is not entitled to remain as an idle and claim maintenance from her husband” [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Maneka Gandhi-SC-25.01.1978- Quashing- Legislation- Writ Petition No. 231 of 1977- (1978) 1 SCC 248= 1978 AIR 597= 1978 SCR (2) 621- Art-14, 19, 21- procedure in Article 21 means procedure which conforms to principles of natural justice – power conferred under Section 10 (3) (c) of Passports Act, 1967 not unguided and it is implied in it that rules of natural justice would be applicable – Held, Section 10 (3) (c) not violative of Article 21- Right of dignity – right to live is not merely confined to physical existence – it includes within its ambit right to live with human dignity- Principle of reasonableness provided under Article 14 must apply to procedure as contemplated under Article 21 – Article 21 controlled by Article 19 also – in case a law does not infringe Article 21 even then it has to meet challenges of Articles 14 and 19- Post-decisional hearing – petitioner’s passport impounded and not given pre-decisional notice and hearing – Government contended that rule audi alteram partem must be excluded because it may have frustrated very purpose of impounding passport – concept of post-decisional hearing developed to maintain balance between administrative efficiency and fairness to individual – Court stressed that fair opportunity of being heard following immediately Order impounding passport would satisfy mandate of natural justice- Personal liberty- Whether right to go abroad is part of personal liberty-Whether a law which Complies with Article 21 has still to meet the challenge of Article 19-Nature and ambit of Article 14-Judging validity with reference to direct and inevitable effect-Whether the right under Article 19(1) (a) has any geographical limitation. Passports Act, 1967-Ss. 3,5,6,10(3)(c), 10(5)-Whether s.10(3)(c) is violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (a) (b) & 21-Grounds for refusing to grant passport-Whether the power to impound passport arbitrary-“in general public interest” if vague. Principles of Natural Justice-Whether applies only to quasi judicial orders or applies to administrative orders affecting rights of citizens-When statute silent whether can be implied-Duty to act judicially whether can be spelt out-In urgent cases whether principles of natural justice can apply. [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana- Criminal Appeal No. 696 Of 2009-SC-27.03.2014- (2014) 12 SCC 595- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA)- Held, the mere fact that a married woman committed suicide within a period of 7 years of her marriage would not straightway attract the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA)- Further held, the presumption as regards dowry death was triggered only upon the proof of the fact that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry by the accused and that too with reasonable contributory to death [Full PDF Judgment].

Mange Ram Jain & Ors. Represented By: Versus Jatinder Kumar Jain, Crl.M.C. 3768 of 2012, Judgment Dated: 07.10.2016, Bench: Mukta Gupta, J, Delhi  High Court/ Supreme Court Of India- Quashing- Summoning Order- Temporary disconnection of water supply line does not fall U/S-430 & 506 IPC [Full PDF Judgment].

Mangesh Balkrushna Bhoir Versus. Sau. Leena Mangesh Bhoir- Civil Appellate Jurisdiction- Second Appeal No. 634 Of 2013, Judgment Dated: 23.12.2015, R.D. Dhanuka, J, Bombay High Court- The Divorce Sought & Granted By Trial Court, Under Section 13(1) (I-A)- The Appellate Court Reversed The Decree Passed By The Trial Court- The High Observed As Follows: “If The Wife Had Filed A False Case Against The Husband And His Family Members In Which The Appellant Husband And His Family Members Are Acquitted, It Amounted To Cruelty And The Husband On The Said Ground Was Entitled To Seek Divorce” [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr. Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Ors.- Criminal Appeal No.  1577   OF 2012- SC- 01.10.2012- (2012) 10  SCC  517- S-156(3), S-203 CrPC- Criminal Revision- Whether a suspect is entitled for hearing by the revisional court in a revision preferred by the complainant challenging the order of the Magistrate dismissing   the   complaint   under   Section   203   of   the   Cr.P.C. [Full Pdf Judgment].

Manik Taneja Versus State of Karnatka, Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2015, Judgment Dated: 20/01/2015, Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, J. & R. Banumathi J., Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 2015(1) JT 237: 2015(1) SCALE 484: 2015(1) SLT 657: 2015 CrLJ 1483: 2015(1) Crimes 221(SC): 2015(2) JCC 926: 2015(7) SCC 423: 2015(2) Supreme 121- Penal Code, 1860- Sections 353 & 506- Quashing of FIR- Lack of ingredients of alleged offences in complaint, justified- FIR against appellants under Sections 353 and 506 IPC for posting of a comment on Traffic Police Facebook page, accusing Inspector, Traffic Police Station, of his misbehaviour and also forwarded an email complaining about harassment meted out to them at hands of Respondent Police Inspector- Petition for quashing of said FIR- Held, page created by traffic police on Facebook was a forum for public to put forth their grievances- Appellants might have posted comment online under bona fide belief that it was within permissible limits- Even going by uncontroverted allegations in FIR, none of ingredients of alleged offences are satisfied- It would be unjust to allow process of court to be continued against appellants and consequently the order of High Court liable to be set aside- Petition allowed and FIR registered against appellants quashed- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Section 482- Quashing of FIR- Lack of ingredients of alleged offences, effect of- Cyber Laws- Online complaint (Para 12, 14, 15, 16 & 17)- HELD: Essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the appellants to commit such an offence. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants either assaulted the respondents or used criminal force to prevent the second respondent from discharging his official duty. Taking the uncontroverted allegations, in our view, that the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are not made out (Para 12)- A reading of the definition of “Criminal intimidation” would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do (Para 14)- Allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of “Criminal intimidation”. The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the minds of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on the Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of appellants posting a comment on the Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC (Para 15) [Full PDF Judgment].

Maniram Sharma Versus CPIO & Scientist “D” M/o Communication & IT National Informatics Centre, RTI Division, File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001725, Judgment Dated: 16.12.2015, M. S. ACHARYULU, IC, YASHOVARDHAN AZAD, IC, & BASANT SETH, IC, Central Information Commission- Email IDs of all Government officials cannot be provided [Full PDF Judgment].

Manmohan Attavar Vs. Neelam Manmohan Attavar- Civil Appeal No.2500 Of 2017 – SC-14.07.2017- Domestic relationship must before allowing occupation of Shared house hold [Full PDF Judgment].

Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Sanjay Leela Bhansali & Ors.- Writ Petition (Criminal) 191 Of 2017- SC-28.11.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Manohar Lal Sharma, Vs. The Principal Secretary & Ors.- Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 Of 2012- SC- 25.08.2014- Mineral Law- The allocation of coal blocks made during the above period by the Central Government, according to petitioners, is illegal and unconstitutional inter alia on the following grounds: (a) Non-compliance of the mandatory legal procedure under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, ‘1957 Act’). 3 (b) Breach of Section 3(3)(a)(iii) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 (for short, ‘CMN Act’). (c) Violation of the principle of Trusteeship of natural resources by gifting away precious resources as largesse. (d) Arbitrariness, lack of transparency, lack of objectivity and non-application of mind; and (e) Allotment tainted with mala fides and corruption and made in favour of ineligible companies tainted with mala fides and corruption [Full PDF Judgment].

Manoj Kumar Vs. Champa Devi- Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).10137/2015- SC-06.04.2017- Matrimonial- Maintenance- Desertion- Adultery [Full PDF Judgment].

Manoj Kumar Sharma & Ors. Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 775 Of 2013, Judgment Dated: 23.08.2016, Bench: Madan B. Lokur & R.K. Agrawal, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Issue, extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR. The Petitioner averred, the FIR suffers from the following: an afterthought; coloured version or exaggerated story; raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations, which are, in any case, general in nature; reckless and vague allegations; wife has tried to rope the appellants in criminal proceedings. Held, “22) In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the FIR are inherently improbable and the evidence collected in support of the same  do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the appellants herein. Further, to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court must be fully satisfied that the material produced on record is based on sound, justifiable and reasonable facts. In the case on hand, malicious prosecution was instituted by the brother of the deceased after a period of five years that too on the basis of anonymous letters. There was no accusation against the appellants before filing of the FIR. The allegations are vague and do not warrant continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant. Also, the court at Durg has no territorial jurisdiction because cause of action, if any, has arisen in Ambala. The criminal proceeding is grossly delayed and a result of belated afterthought. The High Court failed to apply the test whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie, establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. The High Court did not apply its mind judiciously and on an incorrect appreciation of record, ordered for continuance of the investigation on a petition under Section 482 of the Code. This power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results [Full PDF Judgment].

Manoj-Sharma-Vs.-State-Ors.-Criminal-Appeal-No.-1619-OF-2008- Quashing- Amicable Settlement- [Full PDF Judgment].

Manoranjana Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation- Criminal Appeal No.  240   Of 2017-SC-05.02.2017-  (2017) 5 SCC 218- – Bail in PMLA, ED, and Analogous Crimes [Full PDF Judgment].

Manpreet Verma Vs. Brij Verma – First Appeal No. 133 of 2017- UttHC- 14.06.18 [Full PDF Judgment].

Manubhai Ratilal Patel Ushaben Vs. State of Gujarat- Criminal Appeal No. 1572 Of 2012-SC-28.09.2012- AIR 2013 SC 313 Detenu- detainee- Arestee-Confinee- Police Custody [PC]- Judicial Custody [JC]- S-167(2) CrPC- Art-21 of the Constitution- Detention beyond 60 days [Full PDF Judgment

Manu Sharma Vs NCT of Delhi-Criminal Appeal No. 179 Of 2007-SC-19.04.2010- 2010- 6 SCC 1- AIR 2001 SC 2352 [Full PDF Judgment].

Maria Margarida Sequeirafernandes V. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira- Civil Appeal No.2968 Of 2012- SC-21.03.2012- (2012) 5 SCC 370- – O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2-Ex Parte Injunction [Full PDF Judgment].

Marguerite Chawla Vs. Kiran Abnashi Chawla- CS (OS) 2951 Of 2014- DelHC-05.10.2015- CPC- O-XII, R-6- Specific Relief Act, 1963- Section 6- Recovery of possession- Decree on admissions–Scope of- Suit for recovery of possession- Plaintiff was in possession of the property all along but has been surreptitiously dispossessed- Suit has been filed before the expiry of 6 months from the date of dispossession- Plaintiff was in constructive and legal possession of the suit property- Legal possession entails a right to possession- Having been deprived of her legal possession she is entitled under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, to recovery of its possession and restoration of status quo ante- Suit is decreed [Full PDF Judgment].

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Transfer Pricing Officer New Delhi, W.P. (C) 6876/2008, Judgment Dated: 01/07/2010, Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.: V.K. Jain, J., Delhi High Court, Citation: 2010(10) AD(Delhi) 483: 2010(328) ITR 210.- Income Tax Act, 1961- Sections 92 to 92-F- Automobile Laws Involving The Income Tax Act- International transaction- Determination of arm’s length price by Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO]- Use of foreign trademark/logo by domestic entity- Justification- Petitioner launched a car using logo `S’ of Suzuki alongwith its own logo `M’- Grant of licence by Suzuki in respect of- Admittedly, petitioner was not a distributor for product manufactured by Suzuki- It was a licensed manufacturer of these products and had entered into a long term agreement with Suzuki- Therefore, no justification for TPO insisting upon payment by Suzuki to Maruti merely on account of use trademark/logo of Suzuki on products manufactured and sold by Maruti- Order passed by TPO making adjustment to income of  the company is based on no evidence which amounts to an error of law by him- The procedure followed by him is faulty, the approach adopted by him was erroneous and order passed is arbitrary and irrational- Impugned order of TPO unsustainable and hence set aside with directions to TPO to determine appropriate arm’s length price afresh.- HELD: We see no justification for the TPO insisting upon payment by Suzuki to Maruti, merely on account of use of the name and/or logo of Suzuki on the products and parts manufactured and sold by Maruti. It is Maruti which felt the necessity of use of Suzuki’s brand name and logo and that necessity was recognized by the Government of India, by approving the agreement between Maruti and Suzuki. We cannot agree with the TPO that Maruti had become a super brand and, therefore, the petitioner Company did not need to use Suzuki brand name and logo on its products. As noted earlier, on account of liberalization of the economy and de-licensing of the automobile industry, a number of foreign automobile majors had entered India or were contemplating entering the Indian market. Maruti, therefore, was not unjustified in concluding that it was necessary for it to enter into an agreement of this nature with Suzuki, so that it could meet the increased competition, posed to it on account of entry of these foreign majors, by using the brand name and logo of Suzuki on its products, besides obtaining the technical upgradation, augmentation and assistance from Suzuki. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that Suzuki being an international player, particularly in the segment of small cars, it was in a position to offer newer and better models to Maruti and use of the brand name and logo of Suzuki, therefore, was likely to be beneficial for the business interests of the petitioner. In any case, we can find no objection to the business decision taken by Maruti in this regard.- It would be noteworthy here that it was not obligatory for Maruti to use the logo of Suzuki on the products manufactured and sold by it in India, though Maruti in its discretion could use that logo, on those products as well- If we accept the contention that a foreign entity must necessarily pay to the domestic entity, which is an Associate Enterprise, on account of use of its trademark and logo even where using such trademark/logo is not obligatory for the Indian entity, that would result in the owner of every foreign trademark undertaking making payment to the domestic entity approaching it for use of its trademark and/or logo for the purpose of taking advantage of that reputed, trademark and/or logo on its products. This will result in a situation where, on the one hand, the Indian entity is paying to the foreign entity for use of its trademark/logo, and, on the other hand, it is simultaneously getting paid for carrying that trademark or logo on its products though it is the Indian entity and not the foreign entity which wants the use of the foreign trademark on the products manufactured and sold in India. If that happens, the owners of foreign trademarks may not be willing to permit use of their trademarks/logos by a domestic entities on the products manufactured and sold in India, unless they are more keen than the domestic entities in this regard- The TPO took the view that the value of the trademark ‘Maruti’ which, by the time Maruti entered into this agreement with Suzuki, had become a super brand, got diminished and correspondingly the value of the brand ‘Suzuki’ which was hitherto unknown in India appreciated on account of Maruti deciding to use the logo ‘S’ in place of the logo ‘M’ and use of the brand name ‘Maruti Suzuki’ in place of brand name ‘Maruti’ on the advertisements and promotions undertaken by Maruti. We, however, do not find ourselves to be in agreement with the TPO in this regard. As noted earlier, despite Maruti being a well-known brand of passenger car in the domestic market and only a few people in India being aware of the brand name ‘Suzuki’ at the time of Maruti entering into the agreement with Suzuki, the fact remains that on account of the increased competition, consequent upon the entry of multinationals selling vehicles under reputed and well established brand names, Maruti felt that it did require to use a reputed international brand name/logo in order to meet the competition. It is quite probable that had Maruti not used the name and logo of Suzuki, it might not have been able to face the competition given by these major auto players and would have lost its market share to them. Maruti instead of using the brand trademark of Suzuki, agreed to sell its products under a joint trademark which enabled it to preserve and promote its own brand while simultaneously taking advantage of the reputation associated with the name and logo of Suzuki, which admittedly was a reputed international brand in the automobile industry. In the joint trademark also the name Maruti comes before the name ‘Suzuki’, thereby giving an edge to the domestic trademark. In fact, the benefit from association of a reputed foreign name and logo may in such a case outweigh the loss, if any, in the value of the domestic brand. The test again, to our minds, would be as to what a comparable independent entity placed in the position of Maruti would have done in this regard. There was no material before the TPO from which it could be inferred that Maruti would have been able to achieve the growth which it was able to achieve even if it had not used the name ‘Suzuki’ in the joint trademark or had not used the logo of Suzuki- But, under the Agreement dated 12.12.1992 Maruti is under a contractual obligation to use the joint trademark ‘Maruti Suzuki’ on all the vehicles as well as the parts manufactured and/or sold by Maruti in India. We fail to understand any logic behind Suzuki insisting upon compulsory use of this joint trademark by Maruti, on all its products and parts, rather than leaving such use to the discretion of Maruti, except that Suzuki wanted to popularize its name in India at the cost of Maruti. Compulsory use of the trademark even when the domestic entity does not require it indicates benefit to the non-resident entity in the form of brand building in the domestic market by its display and use on the product as well as its packaging- There is no justification for apportioning the advertising and promotion expenses between a domestic entity and the foreign entity, even if they happen to be Associate Enterprises, merely on account of use of the name and/or logo of the foreign entity in the promotional and marketing activities, unless it is shown that the expenditure incurred on such activities was disproportionate and the benefit which accrued to the foreign entity in the form of increased awareness of its brand in the domestic market was not merely incidental. Mere use of a foreign brand, name and/or logo by an Associate Enterprise in the advertising and promotional activities undertaken by it, therefore, does not by itself entail payment by the owner of the foreign brand name and logo, and the question would always be as to whether a comparable independent entity would have incurred such expenditure or not- The use of the joint trademark has to be viewed in the context that any promotion or advertising of the product would also necessarily carry that joint trademark thereby bringing benefit in the form of marketing intangible to the foreign entity. There will be no justification for apportionment of the cost incurred on promotion and marketing where the use of such a joint trademark is discretionary and not obligatory or where the expenses incurred on marketing promotion and advertising do not exceed the expenditure which a comparable independent entity is expected to incur under these heads. But, this would become relevant where the use of a joint trademark of this nature is obligatory and the expenses incurred by the domestic entity on promotion and advertising exceed the normal expenses, which an independent entity would incur in this regard- Maruti, admittedly, was not a distributor for the products manufactured by Suzuki. It was a licensed manufacturer of these products and had entered into a long-term agreement with Suzuki. Therefore, it was justified in incurring substantial expenditure on marketing, promotion and advertising of its products even under the joint trademark ‘Maruti Suzuki’ and using the logo of Suzuki. Since the products promoted and advertised by Maruti were being manufactured and sold solely by it and Suzuki had no right to sell any product under the joint trademark ‘Maruti Suzuki’, the benefits from the expenditure incurred on marketing, promotion and advertising of Maruti products under the joint trademark ‘Maruti Suzuki’ would accrue to Maruti and the status of Maruti is, therefore, not comparable to that of a distributor or a licensed seller- Even if it is found that Maruti had incurred expenditure on marketing, promotion and advertising of its products, which was more than what a comparable independent entity, placed in the position of Maruti would have incurred, that by itself will not entail payment from Suzuki to Maruti if it is shown that under the terms and conditions of the composite agreement dated 12.12.1992, or some other arrangement, Maruti obtained some concession or subsidy from Suzuki, in one form or the other which can offset the extra expenditure incurred by Maruti on marketing, promotion and advertising of its products. As we said earlier, the TPO has to take an overall view of all the rights obtained and obligations incurred by Maruti, vis-a-vis, Suzuki and then determine appropriate arm’s length price in respect of the international transactions which Maruti had with Suzuki- Since we have come to the conclusion that the order passed by the TPO making adjustments to the income of the petitioner company is based on no evidence which amounts to an error of law by him, the procedure followed by him was faulty, the approach adopted by him was erroneous and the order passed by him is arbitrary and irrational, it will be open to this Court to set aside the order passed by him, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Also, the Transfer Pricing Provisions being rather new to the tax regime in India and with the entry of more and more multinationals in our country, these provisions are likely to come up frequently for application by the TPOs as well as the Assessing Officers, we deem it appropriate to clarify those aspects of the transfer pricing provisions which come up for our consideration in this case, so that they are able to appreciate the scope of their powers under Transfer Pricing Provisions of the Act as well as the procedure to be followed and approach to be adopted by them while processing such cases- For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, the impugned order dated 30.10.2008 is hereby set aside and the TPO is directed to determine appropriate arm’s length price in respect of the international transactions entered into by the petitioner Maruti Suzuki India Limited with Suzuki Motor Corporation, Japan, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 92C of the Income Tax Act and in the light of the observations made and the view taken by us in this order. The TPO shall determine the arm’s length price within three months of the passing of this order [Full PDF Judgment].

Masjid, Shahid Ganj V SGP Committee, Air 1940 Pc 116 [Full PDF Judgment]

Mattel, Inc. & Anr Vs. Ms. Aman Bijal Mehta & Ors- DHC- 22.11.2017- CS(COMM) 803/2017, IA No.13724/2017- CPC- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2- Grant Of Ex Parte Injunction- Public Interest- Held, “31. Though traditionally grant of orders under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 of the CPC was governed by the elements of prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience only but it is settled law that an interim order can also be refused if the same is not found to be in public interest.” [Full PDF Judgments]. 

Maturi Pullaiah And Anr. Vs Maturi Narasimham And Ors. On 1 March, 1966-Air 1966 Sc 1836- Registration Of Family Settlement, When A Must [Full Pdf Judgment].

Mayur Sunil Bagul Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.- Writ Petition No. 9806 OF 2014 – BomHC – 04.10.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

Medical Council of India Vs. G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust- SC-23.11.2017- Civil Appeal No.19662 OF 2017- Judge- A Judge is expected to abandon his personal notion or impression gathered from subjective experience. The process of adjudication lays emphasis on the wise scrutiny of materials sans emotions. A studied analysis of facts and evidence is a categorical imperative. Deviation from them is likely to increase the individual gravitational pull which has the potentiality to take justice to her coffin [Full PDF Judgment]. 

M.Chinna Karuppasamy Vs. Kanimozhi- CRL.RC.(MD)No.142 of 2012- MadHC-16.07.2015-Matrimonial laws- Maintenance- Wife & Children- Adultery- Adulterous wife not entitled for maintenance    [Full PDF Judgment].

MCI- Medical Council Of India Vs.  Dr Anil Grover & Ors .- LPA 577 Of  2017-DelHC-27.10.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].

M.C. Mehta Versus Union of India, WP-C-4677 of 1985-SC-18.12.1998 [Full PDF Judgment].

M.C. Mehta Versus Union Of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) 4677 of 1985- SC-16.02.2006, Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, B.N. Srikrishna & R.V. Raveendran, JJ, Supreme Court OF India, Citation: (2007) 1 SCC 110 – In respect of  flagrant violations of various laws including Municipal Laws, Master Plan and other plans besides Environmental Laws- Petition filed with a view to secure the implementation of laws and various orders, as also to protect fundamental rights of the citizens [Full PDF Judgment].

M.C. Mehta Versus Union Of India & Ors., Writ Petition- Civil- No.-4677 of 1985- SC-06.03.2018- Stay on Delhi Master Plan [Full PDF Judgment].

M.C. Mehta Versus Union Of India & Ors., Writ Petition- Civil- No.-4677 of 1985- SC-15.05.2018- Removal of stay on Delhi Master Plan [Full PDF Judgment].

M.C. Mehta Versus Union Of India & Ors., Writ Petition- Civil- No.-4677 of 1985- SC-24.05.2018- SC disallows Attorney General’s oral request of reducing the notice period of inviting suggestion/ objections to the proposed amendments to the Delhi Master Plan. The Hon’ble Supreme Court stuck to order dated 15.05.2018, wherein the whole procedure to be adopted was exhaustively laid down [Full PDF Judgment].   

M.C. Mehta Versus Union of India, WP(C) No. 4677/1985, Judgment Dated- 29/09/2006, Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J.: C.K. Thakker, J.: R.V. Raveendran, J., Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 2006(Supp-6) SCR 704: 2006(7) SCC 456: 2006(12) JT 351: 2006(9) SCALE 634: 2006(7) Supreme 508: 2006(10) SRJ 583: 2006(3) JCC 1470: 2006(10) SCJD 75- Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006- Section 5- Constitutional validity of- Flagrant violation of municipal laws, town planning laws and environmental laws- Commercial activity in residential/non-conforming area of Delhi, a basis of Various orders of Court for stoppage of misuser and to seal premises in case of misuser- Direction by Central Government to Local Authorities to give effect to provision of Act, 2006- Writ petition challenging constitutional validity of Act- Writ admitted and rule issued by court- Certain direction also issued by court in respect of premises involved in misuser- Constitution of India- Articles 21, 48-A & 51-A(g)- Delhi Development Act, 1957- Sections 12, 11-A & 31-A- Words and Phrases- Small shops.- HELD: In the background of the above facts and having considered the submissions made, we issue the following directions: (i) Re : Premises relating to which undertakings were given- The commercial activities by those who gave undertakings deserve to be stopped forthwith. Having regard, however, to the plea of forthcoming major festivals, we permit those who gave undertakings to stop misuser on or before 31st October, 2006.- (ii) Re : Small Shops- Small Shops, i.e., measuring not more than 20 sq. mts. in residential areas are allowed trading in the following items: i. Vegetables/fruits/flowers; ii. Bakery items/confectionary items; iii. Kirana/General stores; iv. Dairy products; v. Stationery/Books/Gifts/Book binding; vi. Photostat/Fax/STD/PCO; vii. Cyber cafe/Call phone booths; viii. LPG Booking office/Show room without LPG cylinders; ix. Atta chakki; x. Meat/Poultry and Fish shop; xi. Pan shop; xii. Barber shop/Hair dressing saloon/Beauty Parlour; xiii. Laundry/Dry cleaning/ironing; xiv. Sweet shops/Tea stall without sitting arrangements; xv. Chemist shops; xvi. Optical shops; xvii. Tailoring shops; xviii. Electrical/Electronic repair shop; and- xix. Photo studio- xx. Cable TV/DTH Operations- xxi. Hosiery/Readymade Garments/Cloth shops-xxii. ATM- (iii) Re : Other premises for which protection is extended by Notification dt. 7.9.2006- Regarding the remaining premises which may be covered by the Notification dated 7th September, 2006 read with 15th September, 2006, we direct that the said premises may not be sealed pending decision of these petitions on undertakings being filed before the Monitoring Committee on or before 10th November, 2006 that misuser shall be stopped as per the directions of this Court if the Act is invalidated and/or the Notification is quashed. Further, the undertakings shall state that the trade is being conducted in respect of the permissible items and only in that part of the premises in which commercial activity is now permitted as per the impugned Notification dated 7th September, 2006 read with Notification dated 15th September, 2006, viz. if commercial activity has been made permissible on the ground floor, the affidavit shall state that it is being carried out only in the ground floor and not on the other floors and in support a certificate of the registered Architect shall be annexed. Any Architect giving wrong certificate would subject himself to appropriate action including cancellation of certificate to carry on the profession of Architect.- (iv) Re : Premises for which protection is not extended by Notification dated 7.9.2006- In respect of the remaining premises not covered by the Notifications dated 7th September, 2006 and 15th September, 2006, the sealing process will continue in terms of the Order dated 16th February, 2006 and 10th August, 2006. The direction of sealing premises will also apply to specific properties mentioned in the judgment dated 16th February, 2006 and in the Report of the Monitoring Committee dated 14th September, 2006. The sealing would be done in a systemic manner as per directions of Monitoring Committee and not in a haphazard manner. There shall be no misuser of public land or public street. The authorities shall ensure that the Roads, Public Streets and pathways meant for public is kept free for their use and the commercial activity is not extended thereupon. The commercial user in contravention of judgment in M.C. Mehta’s case (supra), order dated 10th August, 2006 and Notifications dated 7th September, 2006 and 15th September, 2006 subject to what is stated in this order shall be liable to be sealed.- (v) General Directions: (a) We direct that the owner/occupier of small shops and also others who have been permitted to continue and not stop commercial activity for the present, under this order shall get themselves registered upto 31st December, 2006.- (b) In respect of the premises which have been sealed under the orders of this Court, we permit them to approach the Monitoring Committee which will consider each case on its merit and make appropriate report to this Court on consideration whereof necessary directions may be issued.- (c) The respondents are restrained from issuing any other Notification for conversion of residential user into commercial user except with the leave of this Court.- (d) We also hope that without any further loss of time the Government and the concerned authorities, instead of ad hoc measures like the present, would now undertake proper planning keeping into consideration all relevant factors including the interests of those residents which may not have any voice.- (e) Before concluding, we may note the grievance placed before us on behalf of professionals including Doctors, Lawyers, Chartered Accountants and Architects in respect of the Notification dated 7th September, 2006. Relying upon notifications dated 27th November, 1998 and 7th June, 2000 and Press Release dated 27th November, 1998, they say that restrictions sought to put in the Notification dated 7th September, 2006 were not there earlier and may be restrictions have been put by inadvertence. Mrs.Indira Jaisingh, appearing for Government of India says that she will have it examined by the Government and, if required, necessary correction will be made [Full PDF Judgment].

M.C. Mehta Versus Union Of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) 13381 Of 1984,  Judgment Dated: 27.11.2006, Bench: S.B. Sinha, S.H. Kapadia & D.K. Jain, JJ, Supreme Court OF India, Citation: (2007) 1 SCC 110- Taj Corridor Scam- In Supreme Court monitored cases, this Court is concerned with ensuring proper and honest performance of its duty by CBI and that this Court is not concerned with the merits of the accusations in investigation, which are to be determined at the trial on the filing of the charge-sheet in the competent court, according to the ordinary procedure prescribed by law. Therefore, the question which we have to decide in the present case is whether the administrative hierarchy of officers in the CBI, in the present case, have performed their duties in a proper and honest manner.- Whether on the facts and the circumstance of this case, the Director, CBI, who has not given his own independent opinion, was right in referring the matter for opinion to the Attorney General of India, particularly when the entire investigation and law officers’ team was ad idem in its opinion on filing of the charge-sheet and only on the dissenting opinion of the Director of Prosecution, whose opinion is also based on the interpretation of the legal evidence, which stage has not even arrived. The opinion of the Director, CBI is based solely on the opinion of the Attorney General after the reference.- It is beyond any doubt or dispute that investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police. It may be subject to supervision of higher ranking officer (s) but the court’s jurisdiction to have control in this behalf is beyond any controversy.- Section 5 of Cr.P.C shows that all offences shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with in accordance with the Code.- Under the Code, investigation consists of proceeding to the spot, ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case, discovery and arrest of the suspected offender, collection of evidence and formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial, and if so, taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a charge-sheet under Section 173.- The scheme of the Code, as provided in Section 168 of the Code,  shows that while it is permissible for an officer in charge of a police station to depute some subordinate officer to conduct some of these steps in the investigation, the responsibility for each one of the above steps is that of the officer in charge of the police station (SHO)- The SHO however can not delegation the function regarding formation of the opinion- Section 36 of the Code only entitles the superior officers to supervise.- A police report which results from an investigation as provided for in Section 190 of the Code is the material on which cognizance is taken. But from that it cannot be said that a valid and legal police report is the foundation of the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance.-  The manner and the method of conducting the investigation are left entirely to the officer in charge of the police station. A Magistrate has no power to interfere with the same. The formation of the opinion whether there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the case to a Magistrate or not, as contemplated by Sections 169 and 170, is to be that of the officer in charge of the police station and a Magistrate has absolutely no role to play at this stage.- There is a clear-cut and well-demarcated sphere of activities in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the field reserved for the executive through the police department, the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The executive is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law and order situation. It is obliged to prevent crime. If an offence is committed allegedly, it is the State’s duty to investigate into the offence and bring the offender to book. Once it investigates through the police department and finds an offence having been committed, it is its duty to collect evidence for the purposes of proving the offence. Once that is completed, the investigating officer submits report to the court requesting the court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 Cr.PC and his duty comes to an end.- Whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial, should be that of the officer in charge of the police station and none else. Under the CBI Manual, the officer in charge of the police station is the S.P.- In the present case, the investigating team consisted of the I.O., S.P., D.I.G., Joint Director and Additional Director CBI. In the present case, the law officers consisted of D.L.A. and A.L.A.. In the present case, the entire investigating team as well as the said law officers are ad idem in their mind. They have recommended prosecution. It is only the Director of Prosecution and the Sr. P.P. who have opined that a closure report should be filed. It may be noted that Sr. P.P. does not find place in clause 6.1 which refers to the administrative hierarchy of CBI.- Keeping in mind the scheme of Sections 168, 169, 170 and 173 of the Cr.PC, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the SC directed the entire material collected by CBI along with the report of the S.P. to be placed before the concerned court/ Special Judge in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.PC.- Under Article 142 of the Constitution, this Court is empowered to take aid and assistance of any Authority for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.- In the present case, at one stage of the matter, voluminous records were placed by CBI before this Court along with the recommendations of its officers. To vet and analyse the material, this Court essentially directed CVC to study the material, analyse the findings and give its recommendations as to the manner in which the investigations have been carried out.- “ The efficacy and ethics of the governmental authorities are progressively coming under challenge before this Court by way of PIL for failure to perform their statutory duties. If this continues, a day might come when the rule of law will stand reduced to “a rope of sand” [Full PDF Judgment].

M.C. Mehta Versus Union Of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) 13381 Of 1984,  Judgment Dated: 10.10.2007, Bench: S.B. Sinha, S.H. Kapadia & D.K. Jain, JJ, Supreme Court OF India, Citation: (2007) 1 SCC 110- Taj Corridor Scam- Issue of sanction U/S-197 Of Cr.P.C. for prosecution of Ms. Mayawati & Naseemuddin Siddiqui, the then Minister of Environment, U.P.-  Held, “13….while entertaining a public interest litigation in a given case, this Court may exercise a jurisdiction to set aside the decision of a constitutional authority…. If no sanction of the Governor was required or if he has committed an error in passing the said order, the appropriate court, in our opinion, would be entitled to deal therewith, but not this Bench.”Madras Bar Association Versus Union Of India And Another, Transferred Case (C) No. 150 Of 2006 Judgment Dated: 25.09.2014, Bench: R.M. Lodha, CJI, Jagdish Singh Khehar, J, J. Chelameswar, J, A K Sikri, J,  R.F. Nariman, J, Supreme Court Of India- Issue of the constitutional validity of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005, as also a challenge to section 46 of the Constitution (Forty second Amendment) Act, 1976 and Article 323B of Constitution of India. contending, inter alia, that section 46 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, is ultra vires the basic structure of the Constitution as it enables proliferation of Tribunal system and makes serious inroads into the independence of the judiciary by providing a parallel system of administration of justice, further contending that Article 323B violates the basic structure of the Constitution as it completely takes away the jurisdiction of the High Courts and vests them in the National Tax Tribunal, including trial of offences and adjudication of pure questions of law, which have always been in the exclusive domain of the judiciary [Full PDF Judgment].

M.C. Mehta Versus Union of India, WP(C) 4677/1985, Judgment Dated- 18/12/1996, Citation: 1997(6) SCALE(SP) 14(1)- Bench- Kuldip Singh, J.: S. Saghir Ahmad, J.- Environmental Law – Public Parks – Misuse of – District park in Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi, under the control of MCD – Direction given to restore and improve the Park to its original position – Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 – Section 397.Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund V. Kartick Das- ______- (1994) 4 SCC 225- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2- Principles Succinctly Culled Out For Grant Of Ex Parte Injunction [Full PDF Judgments].

Medical Council Of India Versus. Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors., Review Petition (C)Nos.2159-2268 Of 2013 And Review Petition (C) NOS.2048-2157 OF 2013 IN TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NOS.98-105, 107-108,110-139, 142, 144-145 OF 2012 & 1-5, 7-25, 28-49, 53, 58-73, 75-76 & 107-108 OF 2013, Judgment Dated: 11.04.2016, Bench: Anil R. Dave, A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal, Adarsh Kumar Goel, R.Banumathi, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Vide this judgment, the judgment namely, “Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors. Versus Union Of India And Ors., T.C.(C) No.98 Of 2012, Judgment Dated: 18.07.2013, Bench: Altamas Kabir, CJI, Vikramajit Sen, Anil R. Dave, JJ, Supreme Court Of India (2014) 2 SCC 305” recalled [Full PDF Judgment].

Medical Council of India Vs. G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust- SC-23.11.2017- Civil Appeal No.19662 OF 2017- Judge- A Judge is expected to abandon his personal notion or impression gadered from subjective experience. The process of adjudication lays emphasis on the wise scrutiny of materials sans emotions. A studied analysis of facts and evidence is a categorical imperative. Deviation from them is likely to increase the individual gravitational pull which has the potentiality to take justice to her coffin [Full PDF Judgments].

Meters And Instruments Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Kanchan Mehta- Criminal Appeal No. 1731 Of 2017-SC-05.10.2017- Cheque Bounce Case- 138 NI Act Cases- Compounding & Settlement- Directions issues [Full PDF Judgment]

Misrilal Ramratan & Ors. Mansukhlal & Ors. Vs. A. S. Shaik Fathimal- 1995 Supp (4) SCC 600- “It is now settled law that the report of the Commissioner is part of the record and that therefore the report cannot be overlooked or rejected on spacious plea of non-examination of the Commissioner as a witness since it is part of the record of the case.” [Full PDFJudgment]. 

  1. Nagaraj Vs. Union Of India- 5JBSC-19.10.2006- Writ Petition (Civil)  61 of 2002- 3 (2006) 8 SCC 212= AIR 2007 SC 71- Service Law- Reservation- Articles 16(4), 16(4A) and 16(4B) of the Constitution of India- The width and amplitude of the right to equal opportunity in public employment, in the context of reservation, broadly falls for consideration in these writ petitions under Article of the Constitution [Full PDF Judgment].  

M.N. Ojha & Ors. v. Alok Kumar Srivastav & Anr.- Criminal Appeal No. 1582 Of 2009-Sc-21.08.2009- (2009) 9 SCC 682. Quashing- Complaint Case- In this case a complaint filed against the bank officials was quashed because the Court found that it was a counter-blast to action taken by them in their official capacity for realizing the loan amount due from the complainant [Full PDF Judgment].

Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo- (1988) 4 SCC 619 that in a case where the defense is struck off, there is nothing which precludes the parties from confronting a witness of the other party in cross examination with documents that are not on record [Full PDF Judgment].

Mohammed Sultan Vs. State of Karnataka- KarHC-14.06.2018-Circumstantial Evidence- Confession- When hit by S-25 & S-27 of Evidence Act [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Mohan Lal [Union of India Vs. Mohanlal]-Criminal Appeal No.652 OF 2012-SC-28.01.2016- Seizure, Sampling, Safe keeping and Disposal of the seized Drugs, Narcotics and Psychotropic substances  [Full PDF Judgment].

Mohit Vs. Union of India and others – CWP No.5862 of 2016 – P&HHC – 16.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].

Moin Akhtar Qureshi Versus UOI- DelHC-01.12.2017-W.P.(CRL) 2465 of 2017- Detainee- Arrestee- Confinee- PMLA-ED-FERA- Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India [Full PDF Judgment]. 

Motilal Vohra Vs. Subramanian Swamy & Others, Crl. MC 671 Of 201, Delhi High Court, Order dated 12.07.2016- Section- 91 Cr.P.C.- Summons to produce document or other thing [Full PDF Judgment].

Moti Ram Vs. State Of M.P.-SC-24.08.1978-1978 AIR 1594=1978 SCC (4) 47-Bail jurisprudence-Enlargement on bail with or without sureties-Scope of Ss. 440(1), 441, 445, 389(1)- Criteria to guide in quantifying the amount of bail and acceptance of surety whose estate is situate in a different district or State- ’Bail’ in s. 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code suggests ’with or without sureties. And, ’bail bond‘ in s. 436(2) covers own bond. Art. 14 protects all Indians qua Indians, within the territory of India. Art. 350 sanctions representation to any authority, including a Court, for redress of grievances in any language used in the Union of India. Equality before the law implies that even a vakalat or affirmation made in and State language according to the law in that State must be accepted everywhere in the territory of India, same where a valid legislation to the contrary exists. Otherwise, an Adivasi will be unfree in Free India, and likewise many other minorities. The process of making Indians aliens in their own homeland should be inhibited. Swaraj is made out of united stuff. The best guarantee of presence in Court is the reach of law, not the money tag- The Court left open to the Parliament to consider- whether in our socialist republic with social justice as its hallmark, monetary superstition, not other relevant consideration like family ties, roots in the community, membership of stable organisations should prevail or bail bonds to ensure that the ’bailee’ does not flee justice [Full PDF Judgment].

Moulasab Vs State of Karnataka-KarHC-11.06.2018- Over-speeding Not Necessary To Constitute Rash Driving [Full PDF Judgment].

  1. Pentiah Vs. Muddala Veeramallappa- Civil Appeal No. 387 Of 1960-SC-07.11.1960- AIR 1961 SC 1107- Doctrine of Implied Powers of the Court- The very purpose of Code of Criminal Procedure in restricting Magisterial powers is to enable the accused to get a fair trial in any proceeding [Full PDF Judgment]
  2. Sathiya Priya [Union Public Service Commission Vs. M. Sathiya Priya]- Civil Appeal No. 10854 Of 2014-SC-13.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]
  3. S. Shoes East Ltd. Vs M.R.T.P- 2003 VIII AD (Delhi)- Even though no period of limitation was specified in Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, all claims thereunder had to be filed within a reasonable time, which was determined, in this case to be three years [Full PDF Judgment].

Mukarrab Etc. Vs. State Of U.P.- Criminal Appeal Nos. 1119-1120 Of 2016 – Sc- 30.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment]

Mukesh Jain Vs. CBI-  Bail Application No. 2179 Of 2009-DelHC-21.12.2009- [2010 (1) AD (Delhi) 443 [Full PDF Judgment].

Mukesh Vs. State For NCT Of Delhi And Others- Criminal Appeal Nos. 607-608 Of 2017- SC-05.05.2017- Nirbhaya’s Case [Full PDF Judgment].

Mukesh Kumar  Vs. NDMC And Anr.- W.P.(C) 61 Of 2018- DelHC- 05.01.2018- Street Vendors Act, 2014- Town Vending Committee(TVC)- Merely because the petitioner is not found vending at the site when the survey is conducted, that by itself would not be a ground alone to reject his case [Full PDF Judgment].

Municipal Corporation, Ujjain Vs. BVG. India Limited- Civil Appeal No. 3330 Of 2018-3JSC-27.03.2018- Judicial Review- Vital Grounds of challenge- Unreasonableness, Irrationality, Arbitrariness, Bias & Malafide [PDF Judgment].

Municipal Council Ratlam Vs. Shri Vardichan and others- SC-29.07.1980-1980 (4) SCC 162= 1980 AIR 1622- Writ- Constitution of India- Art- 226 & 32- Basic Amenities- Water- Food- Road- Education- Electricity- Municipality not providing sanitary facilities  and construction of public conveniences for slum  dwellers-Whether Courts  can compel municipal body to carry  out its duty to the community to provide amenities and abate nuisance [Full PDF Judgment].

Muniswamy L [State Of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy] –3JBSC-03.03.1977- 1977 AIR 1489- 1977 SCC (2) 699- Framing of Charge- Discharge [Full PDF Judgment].

Judgments-Index

Nabam Rebia, and Bamang Felix  Versus Deputy Speaker and others, Civil Appeal Nos. 6203-6204 Of 2016, Judgment Dated: 13.07.2016, Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, Dipak Misra, Madan B. Lokur, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, N.V. Ramana, J, Supreme Court Of India- Constitutional provisions involved- Art-156, 163, 174, 175, 179, 191, and Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.- Held, The modification Order of the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh is unconstitutional and is set aside and the order of the Deputy Speaker is also set aside [Full PDF Judgment].

Nagaiah and another vs. Chowdamma (dead) By Lrs. and another- CIVIL APPEAL NO.  22969  OF 2017-SC-08.01.2018- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act- O-XXXII CPC- Who May Act As Next Friend Or Be Appointed Guardian For The Suit- No Court permission required before such appointment [Full PDF Judgment].

Nagendra Nath Bora & Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Ors.- SC-07.02.1958- (1958) SCR 1240- Writ of Certiorari- Mere formal or technical error in the order would not warrant exercise of writ jurisdiction [Full PDF Judgment].

Naima Khatoon Vs. Government Of India- W.P.(C) 10654 Of 2015-Del-03.01.2018- Pakistani Citizen-Property in India- Custodian of Enemy Property of India,- Enemy Property Act, 1968 [Full PDF Judgments].

Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik  Vs. Lata Nandlal Badwaik & Anr.- Criminal Appeal No.24 Of 2014-SC-06.01.2014- Matrimonial- DNA Test [Full PDF Judgment]

Narendra Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.- Civil Appeal   Nos. 10429-10430 Of 2017 – SC-11.09.2017- Justice to poor and disadvantageous people [Full PDF Judgment]

Narendra & Company [Management Of Narendra & Company Private Limited Versus The Workmen Of Narendra & Company], Civil Appeal No.14 Of 2016, Judgment Dated: 04.01.2016, Bench: Kurian Joseph, & Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- In an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief [Full PDF Judgments].

Narendra Vs. K. Meena- Civil Appeal No.3253 OF 2008- SC-06.10.2016- (2016) 9 SCC 455- Divorce- HMA [Full Pdf Judgment].

Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr., 2014 (2) Crimes 27 (SC)  [Full PDF Judgments].

Nar Singh Vs. State of Haryana- Criminal Appeal