Judgments - Supreme Court of India
BIVASH CHANDRA DEBNATH @ BIVASH D.&ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), RAIGAD Vs. M/S. FINACORD CHEMICALS (P) LTD. & ORS.
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION AND ANR. Vs. UNION OF INDIA
COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE,GOA Vs. M/S COSME FARMA LABORATORIES LTD.
SECY., MINOR IRRIGATION DEPTT.& R.E.S. Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI
ONGC PETRO ADDITIONS LTD. Vs. DAELIM INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. KOREA
SHAMIMA FAROOQUI Vs. SHAHID KHAN
JASBIR SINGH @ JAVRI @ JABBAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
RISHIROOP RUBBER (INTERNATIONAL ) LTD. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
JEYAR CONSULTANT & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,MADRAS
EXCEL DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. Vs. ASSET RECONST. COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. & OR
BALASAHEB ARJUN TORBOLE & ORS. Vs. THE ADMINISTRATOR & DIVNL.COMMR.& ORS.
STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SAURABH BAKSHI
It is sometimes said in an egocentric and uncivilised manner that law cannot bind the individual actions which are perceived as flaws by the large body of people, but, the truth is and has to be that when the law withstands the test of the constitutional scrutiny in a democracy, the individual notions are to be ignored. It is the duty of Full Judgment
P.R.YELUMALAI Vs. N.M.RAVI
However, we find that after the execution Court had dismissed the execution proceeding on the ground of delay in depositing the amount, the same question was dealt with by the original side of the Trial Court as well in the application for extension of time. Since both the Courts have given concurrent findings that the case for extension of time was not made out, we Full Judgment
RANBEER SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. Vs. STATE OF U.P.& ORS
The main contention is that when the case of prosecution has been believed and relied upon by the High Court and on that basis the main accused Shyamu is convicted, the present three respondents cannot be acquitted. Therefore, the only question before us is whether, in the given facts and circumstances the case, the role attributed to the present three Accused-respondents lead to Full Judgment
UMRALA GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. THE SEC.MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE UNION & ORS
They have also been working for similar number of hours, however, the discrepancy in the payment of wages/salary between the permanent and the non-permanent workmen is alarming and the same has to be construed as being an unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) of the ID Act r/w Entry No.10 of the Fifth Schedule to the ID Act, which is prohibited under Section 25(T) of the ID Full Judgment
ASHA VERMAN & ORS. Vs. MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS.
On applying the principles as laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), 50% of the salary must be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects of income, which comes to Rs.6,900/- per month, i.e. Rs.82,800/- per annum. Deducting 1/4th for personal expenses and applying the appropriate multiplier taking into consideration the age of Full Judgment