Filter by Date
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

VED MITTER GILL Vs. U.T. ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH & ORS

Appeal (Civil), 3194 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 26, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

A. RAGHU, SON OF RAJAIAH Vs. GOVT. OF A.P. & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 5862 of 2007, Judgment Date: Mar 26, 2015

The judgments cited pertain to the particular rule of seniority, which was subject matter of consideration. None of the seniority rules which were taken into consideration is akin to rule 15 which is to be applied for determining the inter se seniority of Sub- Inspectors of Police, in the present case. Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

S. SATYANARAYANA VERSUS ENERGO MASCH POWER ENGINEERING & CONSULTING PVT. LTD. & ORS

Appeal (Crl.), 516 - 518 of 2010, Judgment Date: Mar 26, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF U.P Vs. CHARAN SINGH

Appeal (Civil), 2381 of 2007, Judgment Date: Mar 26, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

PVR LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 10091 of 2010, Judgment Date: Mar 25, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

DASHMESH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs. PUNJAB URBAN DEVE.AUTHORITY & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 4684 - 4685 of 2005, Judgment Date: Mar 25, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

MOHAN SINGH GILL & ORS. ETC. ETC. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Appeal (Civil), 3177 - 3178 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 25, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR. Vs. GOODRICKE GROUP LTD. & ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 9043 of 2003, Judgment Date: Mar 25, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

SHREYA SINGHAL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA

Writ Petition (Crl.), 167 of 2012, Judgment Date: Mar 24, 2015

This batch of writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India raises very important and far-reaching questions relatable primarily to the fundamental right of free speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The immediate cause for concern in these petitions is Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000. 119. Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

MANMEET SINGH ALIAS GOLDIE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Appeal (Crl.), 505 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 24, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

D.D.A. Vs. GAURAV KUKREJA

Appeal (Civil), 3124 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 24, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF MP Vs. NOMI SINGH & ANR

Appeal (Civil), 3050 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 24, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF H P AND ORS Vs. PUNRA DEVI

Appeal (Civil), 34795 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 24, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, GAUHATI & ORS. Vs. M/S. SATI OIL UDYOG LTD. & ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 9133 - 9134 of 2003, Judgment Date: Mar 24, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

M/S MILLENNIUM WIRES P LTD Vs. STATE TRADING CORP. OF INDIA LTD & ORS

Appeal (Civil), 3103 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 23, 2015

It would suffice to say here that injunctions against the negotiating banks for making payments to the beneficiary must be given cautiously as constant judicial interference in the normal practices of market can have disastrous consequences as it affects the trustworthiness of the Indian banks and markets. In the circumstances as narrated above and in light of the settled law on the point of injunction against the banks to honour their Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF M.P. Vs. RAKESH MISHRA WITH State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Gyanendra Singh Jadon

Appeal (Crl.), 498 with 499 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 23, 2015

Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By the impugned judgment the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has allowed the three revision petitions, setting aside the orders of the First Additional Judge/ Special Judge, Indore, for framing charges against three accused persons, However, it would suffice to say that the law on this point is crystal clear that only charge-sheet along with the accompanying material is Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

PANNA LAL & ORS. Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Appeal (Crl.), 1453 of 2009, Judgment Date: Mar 23, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

KEDARI LAL Vs. STATE OF MP

Appeal (Crl.), 782 of 2011, Judgment Date: Mar 23, 2015

The expression "known sources of income" in Section 13(1) (e) of the Act has two elements, first the income must be received from a lawful source and secondly the receipt of such income must have been intimated in accordance with the provisions of law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to the public servant. The categories so enumerated are illustrative. Receipt by way of share Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

RAMESH Vs. HARBANS NAGPAL & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 3105 - 3106 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 23, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

DEEPA @ DEEP CHAND & ANR. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Appeal (Crl.), 1265 of 2009, Judgment Date: Mar 23, 2015

Full Judgment