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

ANIRUDH KUMAR Vs. MUNICIPAL CORP. OF DELHI & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 8284 of 2013, Judgment Date: Mar 20, 2015

Be as that may, this nature of ligation cannot be allowed to be settled between the parties as it involves public interest and violation of rule of law. The running of the Pathological Lab in the building by the respondent-owners amount to violation of the rule of law and affects the public interest, therefore, it is public interest litigation even though the appellant herein Full Judgment

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

AVAS AYUKT,U.P.AVAS EVAM VIKAS PAR.& ORS Vs. BHAGWAN TIWARI & ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 3134 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 20, 2015

Full Judgment

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

TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Appeal (Crl.), 338 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 19, 2015

the question that arises for consideration is whether liberty on the one hand and fair and effective investigation on the other, make out a case for extending the benefit under Section 438 CrPC. Needless to say "Liberty is to the collective body, what health is to every individual body. Without health, no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society. Having stated about the Full Judgment

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

SANJIV KUMAR @ GORA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Appeal (Crl.), 1424 of 2009, Judgment Date: Mar 19, 2015

We have considered the rival submissions of the parties, and we are of the view that sentencing for any offence has a social goal. In each case, facts and circumstances of that case are always required to be taken into consideration. For the purpose of just and proper Full Judgment

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

HMT WATCHES LTD. Vs. M.A. ABIDA & ANR

Appeal (Crl.), 471 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 19, 2015

Whether the cheques were given as security or not, or whether there was outstanding liability or not is a question of fact which could have been determined only by the trial court after recording evidence of the parties. In our opinion, the High Court should not have Full Judgment

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

PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA & ANR Vs. STATE OF U.P.& ORS.

Appeal (Crl.), 781 of 2012, Judgment Date: Mar 19, 2015

Full Judgment

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

VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY Vs. GUJARAT COOP. MILK MARKT. FED. LTD & ORS

Appeal (Civil), 3047 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 19, 2015

Full Judgment

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

DHROPADABAI & ORS. Vs. M/S. TECHNOCRAFT TOOLINGS

Appeal (Civil), 8155 of 2014, Judgment Date: Mar 19, 2015

Full Judgment

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

T.NADU TERMD.FULL TIME TEM.LIC EMP.ASSN. Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORP.OF INDIA & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 6950 of 2009, Judgment Date: Mar 18, 2015

The concerned workmen are the members of the appellant-Associations, Federation of Employees Association, Workers Association and other concerned individual workmen who were working in the branches of the Corporation at various places in the country have raised the existing industrial dispute between the concerned workmen and the management of Full Judgment

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

RAM SINGH & ORS Vs. UOI

Writ Petition (Civil), 274 of 2014, Judgment Date: Mar 17, 2015

The challenge in the present group of writ petitions is to a Notification published in the Gazette of India dated 04.03.2014 by which the Jat Community has been included in the Central List of Backward Classes for the States of Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, NCT of Delhi, Bharatpur and Dholpur districts of Rajasthan, Full Judgment

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

STATE OF MP. & ORS. Vs. MALA BANERJEE

Appeal (Civil), 2944 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 17, 2015

3 Very briefly stated, the dispute pertains to the eligibility of the Respondents, all of whom are Lecturers/Teachers in the employment of the Education and Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, for increased pay scales. The Respondents claim the benefits of the Kramonnati Scheme with effect from 19.4.1999, whereas the Appellants assert that they are willing to grant the benefit of the Kramonnati Scheme Full Judgment

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

DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. Vs. INTERNATIONAL LEASE FINANCE CORP.& ORS

Appeal (Civil), 2932 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 17, 2015

The issue falling for consideration is whether minutes of meeting can override statutory regulations. Article 77 of the Constitution of India deals with the conduct of business of Government of India while Article 166 of the Constitution of India deals with the conduct of business of the Government of Full Judgment

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

JYOTI LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. BHARAT J. PATEL & OTHERS

Appeal (Civil), 2935-36 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 17, 2015

The maintainability of a suit is question of law. Though, by virtue of declaration under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, all suits of civil nature are maintainable unless barred either by an express provision or by implication of law. We are of the opinion that the directions in paras 7.2 and 7.3 are inconsistent with the directions in para 7.4. Apart from Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India ()

TATA STEEL LTD Vs. UOI & ORS

Appeal (Civil), 2938-2939 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 17, 2015

The appeals are disposed of as above. The question for our consideration in the set of appeals filed by Tata Steel is whether royalty is chargeable under Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Second Schedule thereto on raw or unprocessed or Run-of-Mine (ROM) coal at the pit-head or is it chargeable on coal after it is processed and Full Judgment

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

M. MAHENDAR KUMAR Vs. M. MANI AND ORS

Appeal (Crl.), 461 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 17, 2015

It was clearly on account of non application of mind to such relevant fact that the impugned order came to be passed at the initial stage of admission without noticing any counter affidavit or reply and/or its absence. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are constrained to and hereby set aside the impugned order as it has Full Judgment

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

SURTI GUPTA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 2933 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 17, 2015

It has also been observed by the High Court for the purpose of calculation of future loss of dependency of the appellant that the deceased at the time of the accident on 10.7.1990 was drawing a salary of Rs.4,214/- per month and was 45 years of age. However, we are of the view that the salary of the deceased at the time of her death taken by the High Court Full Judgment

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

VESA HOLDINGS P.LTD.& ANR Vs. STATE KERALA & ORS.

Appeal (Crl.), 2341 of 2011, Judgment Date: Mar 17, 2015

Full Judgment

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

R.DINESHKUMAR@DEENA Vs. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS.

Appeal (Crl.), 454 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 16, 2015

The question before the High Court was whether the Sessions Court was justified in declining to summon PW64 in exercise of its authority under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. as an additional accused in Sessions Case No.73 of 2009. It is the settled legal position that an offence of conspiracy[3] is complete the moment two or more persons agree to do an illegal act, or agree to Full Judgment

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

ABDUL RAZZAQ Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Miscellaneous Petition(Crl.), 17870 of 2014, Judgment Date: Mar 16, 2015

ABDUL RAZZAQ Vs. STATE OF U.P. For Details View PDF. Full Judgment

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

TARAMANI PARAKH Vs. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.

Appeal (Crl.), 456 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 16, 2015

Full Judgment