Judgments - Supreme Court of India
M/S. COMPETENT AUTOMOBILES CO. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
The said Award must predate the commencement of the Act, i.e., 01.01.2014., by at least five years (or more), ie., the Award must have been passed on or before 01.01.2009. This having been established, if possession is found to not have been taken, or compensation not paid, then the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. Thereafter, the Full Judgment
BATHIDA DEV. AUTH. FORMERLY KNOWN AS (PUDA) Vs. IQBAL SINGH AND ORS
This Appeal assails the Order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which had allowed the Writ Petitions before it, and declared that the acquisition had lapsed for the reason that the possession had not been taken and compensation, too, not paid. This is sufficient ground for protection under the provision of Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The Appeal is dismissed in the above terms. Full Judgment
RAVINDRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.
In light of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the opinion that the case of the appellant is a fit case for invoking the proviso to Section 376(2)(g) of IPC for awarding lesser sentence, as the incident is 20 years old and the fact that the parties are married and have entered into a compromise, are the adequate and special reasons. Full Judgment
AMRUTLAL LILADHARBHAI KOTAK & ORS. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
Given that the statute with which we are dealing must be given a fair, pragmatic, and common sense interpretation so as to fulfill the object sought to be achieved by Parliament, we feel that the judgment in Appasaheb's case followed by the judgment of Kulwant Singh do not state the law correctly. We, therefore, Full Judgment
BADRU RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
The Doctrine of parity cannot replace the substantive evidence of the two injured eye-witnesses mentioned above, who have been believed concurrently by the courts below. The evidence of the two injured eye-witnesses is clear - this is not a case of sudden provocation and the mere absence of motive does not bring home the lesser charge. The appeal Full Judgment
GUJARAT MINERAL DEV.CORPN. Vs. RAM SANG BHAILALBHAI & ANR.
BANK OF SHARJAH Vs. JOPLIN OVERSEAS INVESTMENT PVT LTD AND ANR
SUBHASH @ DHILLU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
To make out the offence under Section 120-B of IPC, the prosecution must lead evidence to prove the existence of some agreement between the accused persons. There is no specific evidence as to where and when the conspiracy was hatched and what was the specific purpose of such Full Judgment
A.P.INDL.INFRASTRUCTURAL CORP.LTD.& ANR. Vs. M/S. SHIVANI ENGINEERING INDUSTERIES
MACKINON MACKENZIE LTD. Vs. MACKINNON EMPLOYEES UNION
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. ANGAD SINGH TITARIA
VINOD CHANDRA SEMWAL Vs. SPL.POLICE ESTABLISGHMENT UJJAIN
There is nothing on record to suggest that it was executed at the instance of the appellant. If the delegatee has not acted in terms of the delegated powers, we are of the view that the delegator cannot be held to be guilty for such execution of the exchange deed. Though for some other reasons, we are of the view that it was not a fit Full Judgment
Ramchander Vs. Ananta
OM AGGARWAL Vs. HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
law laid down by the Hon'ble 5 Judges of the Apex Court of India reported in AIR 1969 SC 78 that in case the Statutory Authorities do not act in Full Judgment