Judgments - Supreme Court of India
ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY Vs. SUSHIL ANSAL AND ANR.
B.K.PAVITRA & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
It is clear from the above discussion that exercise for determining ‘inadequacy of representation’, ‘backwardness’ and ‘overall efficiency’, is a must for exercise of power under Article 16(4A). Mere fact that there is no proportionate representation in promotional posts for the population of SCs and STs is not by itself enough to grant consequential seniority to promotees who are otherwise junior and thereby denying seniority to those who are given Full Judgment
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
VIJAY KUMAR AHLUWALIA AND ORS Vs. BISHAN CHAND MAHESHWARI AND ANR
It is a settled principle of law that while considering the grant of leave to contest the eviction proceedings under the Rent Laws, the Authority/Court is not expected to examine the merits and demerits of the grounds raised in the application for grant of leave to contest and if the Authority/Court finds that the grounds raised prima facie disclose Full Judgment
NIDHI Vs. RAM KRIPAL SHARMA (D) THR. LRS.
The point falling for consideration is whether the marriage of the appellant/landlady as subsequent event can extinguish the bona fide requirement of a landlady and disentitle her for the relief sought in the release application filed prior to her marriage. In the facts of present case, the change in subsequent events is not such that would deprive the appellant of her Full Judgment
DURGA PRASAD Vs. NARAYAN RAM CHANDAANI (D) THR. LR
MANORANJANA SINH @ GUPTA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
That detention in custody of under-trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution was highlighted. Full Judgment
SANGITA VILAS INGLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS
STATE OF U.P. Vs. PURAN SINGH & ORS.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. FATEHKARAN MEHDU
The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C. at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and Full Judgment