Judgments - Supreme Court of India
LAXAMI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
The legal nodus that we are called upon to unravel in this Appeal is whether the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act for brevity) as amended from time to time, requires an Award to be passed even in respect of lands expropriated by the State pursuant to the exercise of special powers in cases of urgency contained in Section 17 thereof. It is indeed ironical that what Full Judgment
BASISTH NARYAN YADAV Vs. KAILASH RAI AND ORS
We find that although the case of the prosecution suffers from many infirmities and there has been unexplained reluctance in bringing the relevant witnesses on record, apart from parents of the deceased, the doctor and the Investigating Officer, even Triloki Sharma and the Chowkidar who saw the accused persons disposing of the body of the deceased, have also not been examined. Yet we may not Full Judgment
STATE OF M.P. Vs. ANOOP SINGH
With respect to this finding of the High Court, we are of the opinion that the High Court should have relied firstly on the documents as stipulated under Rule 12(3)(b) and only in the absence, the medical opinion should have been sought. We find that the Trial Court has also dealt with this aspect of the ossification test. The Trial Court noted that the respondent had cited Full Judgment
S.R.SUKUMAR Vs. S.SUNAAD RAGHURAM
7. Upon consideration of the rival contentions and materials on record, the points falling for determination are: (i) in the facts of the case, when did the Magistrate take cognizance of the complaint for the first time i.e. on 18.05.2007 or on 21.06.2007, when the Magistrate satisfied of a prima Full Judgment
SURENDRA KUMAR & ORS Vs. GREATER NOIDA IND. DEVELOPMENT AUTH.&ORS
The main issue that arises for consideration is whether the policy decision extending the benefit of regularisation to contractual employees against 60% vacant posts will be deemed to regularise the services of the appellants from the retrospective date, that is, 20.11.2002, when the said posts were first advertised. The appellants were Full Judgment
ZUARI CEMENT LTD. Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR,E.S.I CORP.& ORS.
Where there is want of jurisdiction, the order passed by the court/tribunal is a nullity or non-est. What is relevant is whether the Court had the power to grant the relief asked for. ESI Court did not have the jurisdiction to consider the question of grant of exemption, order passed by the ESI Court granting exemption and consequently setting aside the demand notices is Full Judgment
NK RAJENDRA MOHAN Vs. THIRVAMADI RUBBER CO. LTD AND ORS
SHAKUNTALA BAI & ORS. Vs. MAHAVEER PRASAD
DAYA RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP. LTD. Vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
UNION OF INDIA Vs. M/S BRIGHT POWER PROJECTS(I) P.LTD.
When parties to the contract had agreed to the fact that interest would not be awarded on the amount payable to the contractor under the contract, in our opinion, they were bound by their understanding. Having once agreed that the contractor would not claim Full Judgment
M/S.ESSAR OIL LTD. Vs. HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LTD. & ORS.
V. KRISHNAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU &ORS.
An application of this principle is that the aggrieved person should get that sum of money, which would put him in the same position if he had not sustained the wrong. It must necessarily result in compensating the aggrieved person for the financial loss suffered due to the event, the pain and suffering undergone and the liability that he/she would have to incur due to Full Judgment
CHAITANYA PRAKASH AUDICHYA Vs. CBI
It is further well established that where misconduct is proved, the alleged enmity between the complainant and the delinquent officer is immaterial. (See B. Hanumantha Rao v. State of A.P.[4]). Full Judgment
OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP. LTD. Vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
DEPOSIT INSURANCE & CREDIT GUARNT.CORPN. Vs. RAGUPATHI RAGAVAN & ORS.
STATE OF U.P. Vs. SATVEER & ORS.
STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SATEESH & OR.
STATE OF M.P. Vs. ASHOK & ORS.
In the light of the eye witness account and the post mortem report it is quite clear that the respondents were present when Tikaram was burning alive. The sequence of narration certainly shows that they were waiting in ambush. It may be that only two of them set Tikaram afire but the others definitely ensured by surrounding Tikaram that he would not be allowed to escape. Further, throwing of burning Full Judgment