Judgments - Supreme Court of India
JOGENDRA YADAV & ORS. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
KIRPAL KAUR Vs. JITENDER PAL SINGH & ORS.
VIJAY MALLYA Vs. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE,MIN.OF FINANCE.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors Vs Anand Mohan & Anr
OM PRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
F.C.I. Vs. SANKAR GHOSH & ORS.
NANDKISHORE LALBHAI MEHTA Vs. NEW ERA FABRICS P.LTD.& ORS.
RIJU PRASAD SARMA ETC.ETC. Vs. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
M/S BHS INDUSTRIES Vs. EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORP.& ANR.
CHANDRA BABU @ MOSES Vs. STATE TR.INSP.OF POLICE & ORS.
JOGENDRASINHGJI VIKAYSINHJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS
In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to summarise our conclusions as follows:- (A) Whether a letters patent appeal would lie against the order passed by the learned Single Judge that has travelled to him from the other tribunals or authorities, would depend upon many a facet. The Court fee payable on a petition to make it under Article 226 or Article 227 or both, would depend upon Full Judgment
MAINUDDIN ABDUL SATTAR SHAIKH Vs. VIJAY D SAVLI
SIRAJUL & ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR
24. It is, therefore, well settled that the right to speedy trial in all criminal persecutions (sic prosecutions) is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution. This right is applicable not only to the actual proceedings in court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigations as well. The right to speedy trial extends equally Full Judgment
STATE OF M.P Vs. MANISH & ORS
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs. PAN ASIA ADVISORS LTD. & ANR
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