Judgments - Supreme Court of India
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PRAKASH @ GAJENDRA
Simpliciter, it has been observed that a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence has been made but we find from the judgment that no such exercise has been done. Mere statement in the judgment to that effect is not enough. Evidence is not only required to be mentioned in the judgment but its evidentiary value has to be assessed carefully. Full Judgment
COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE Vs. M/S. G.M. EXPORTS & ORS.
The question of law which arises in the instant appeals is whether anti-dumping duty imposed with respect to imports made during the period between the expiry of the provisional anti-dumping duty and the imposition of the final anti-dumping duty is legal and valid. Full Judgment
INTERNL.ADV.RES.CEN.FOR P.M.& N.M.& ORS. Vs. NIMRA CERGLASS (P) LTD.& ANR.
The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is, as to whether uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint establish the offence. The High Court being superior court of the State should refrain from analyzing the materials which are yet to be adduced and seen in their true perspective. The Full Judgment
UNION OF INDIA Vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ORS.
SUSHIL ANSAL Vs. STATE THR.CBI
SRI.S.N.WADITAR(DEAD) THROUGH LR Vs. COMMNR. OF WEALTH TAX,KARNATAKA
JASBIR SINGH Vs. TARA SINGH & ORS
STATE OF M.P. Vs. MUNNA @ SHAMBHOO NATH
In view of the evidence on record and the rationale in the aforementioned cases, we are of a considered view that the prosecution has totally failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the girl was less than 16 years of age at the time of the incident. Therefore, it can be held that the girl was more than 16 years of age and she was competent to give her consent Full Judgment
STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. CHAND BASHA
The prosecution story relies upon the ‘last seen together’ theory, which resulted into the death of Ganesh. This Court has time and again laid down the ingredients to be made out by the prosecution to prove the ‘last seen together’ theory. The Court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said offence has been committed or not, may Full Judgment
MITHUSINH PANNASINH CHAUHAN Vs. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. & ANR
KOSHA INVESTMENTS LTD. Vs. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BD OF INDIA & ANR.
BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Vs. PRAMILA SANFUI AND ORS.
RAM NIRANJAN KAJARIA Vs. SHEO PRAKASH KAJARIA & ORS.
Kiran Chander Asri Vs State of Haryana
COMMITTEE FOR C.R.OF C.A.P. & ORS Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST Vs. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANR.
STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) Vs. NITIN GUNWANT SHAH
This Court has time and again laid down the ingredients to be made out by the prosecution to prove criminal conspiracy. It is now, however, well settled that a conspiracy ordinarily is hatched in secrecy. The Court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said Full Judgment
JITENDRA VORA Vs. BHAVANA Y.SHAH & ORS.
EDARA HARIBABU Vs. TULLURI VENKATA NARASIMHAM AND ORS
BHANUBEN AND ANR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Merely because an accused has been held liable to be punished under Section 498A IPC, it does not follow that on the same evidence, he must also and necessarily be held guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the women concerned under 306 IPC. Therefore, the conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Full Judgment