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

GVK INDS. LTD & ANR Vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR

Appeal (Crl.), 7796 of 1997, Judgment Date: Feb 18, 2015

It is well settled that the source based taxation is accepted and applied in international taxation law.- The nature​ of service referred by the NRC, can be said with certainty would come within the ambit and sweep of the term 'consultancy service' and, therefore, it has been rightly held that the tax at source should have been deducted as the amount paid as fee could be taxable under the head Full Judgment

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

GHUSABHAI RAISANGBHAI CHORASIYA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Appeal (Crl.), 262 of 2009, Judgment Date: Feb 18, 2015

The singular issue that requires to be scrutinized is whether there was such cruelty by the husband and his relations that could have driven the deceased to commit suicide. - ​​ "Marital relationship means the legally protected marital interest of one spouse to another which include marital obligation to another like companionship, living under the same roof, Full Judgment

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

M. SURENDER REDDY Vs. GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 5099 of 2006, Judgment Date: Feb 18, 2015

The questions that arise for determination in this case are: (a)whether G.O.Ms.124 dated 7th March, 2002 is retrospective in nature in order to make it applicable to the posts for which selection process has already started pursuant to 1999 advertisement, and (b) If the said G.O.Ms. is retrospective, whether it is required to review the entire select Full Judgment

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

JAKIR HUSSEIN Vs. SABIR & ORS

Appeal (Civil), 2006 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 18, 2015

With regard to the pain, suffering and trauma which have been caused to the appellant due to his crushed hand, it is contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was meagre and insufficient. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered Full Judgment

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

M/S THI PACK PVT.LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Writ Petition (Civil), 293 of 2012, Judgment Date: Feb 18, 2015

Full Judgment

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

PETROMARINE PRODUCTS LTD. Vs. OCEAN MARINE SERVICES CO. LTD. & ANR

Appeal (Civil), 6156 of 2005, Judgment Date: Feb 17, 2015

It has not been disputed by the appellant that the Bombay High Court while passing the order of attachment was not aware about the fact that the vessel was seized by the Madras High Court much prior to the filing of the suit by the appellant in Bombay High Court. The Division Bench in the impugned order has recorded the finding that Madras High Full Judgment

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

RASHMI BEHL Vs. STATE OF U.P & ORS

Writ Petition (Crl.), 218 of 2013, Judgment Date: Feb 17, 2015

Taking into consideration the entire facts of the case and very serious allegations made against all the respondents including police officers, it is a fit case where the investigation has to be handed over to an independent agency like CBI for the purpose of fair and unbiased investigation. We, therefore, allow this petition and direct the Central Bureau Full Judgment

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

N.M.KRISHNAKUMARI & ORS. Vs. THALAKKAL ASSIYA & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 1942-1943 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 17, 2015

Whether the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Act in re-examining the case and holding that the findings of the Appellate Authority are not only erroneous but also error in law? The Appellate Authority has completely ignored the undisputed pleadings and material documents on record in favour of the respondents and the said finding of the Appellate Authority is erroneous Full Judgment

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

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. V.K.KRISHNAN & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 2532 of 2010, Judgment Date: Feb 17, 2015

As stated hereinabove, seniority list for employees working in different grades should be different and there cannot be any common seniority list for all the employees working in one particular group. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment affirming the order of the Tribunal and also direct that according to the provisions of the aforestated paras contained in the Manual, the appellants Full Judgment

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

PRAVEENBHAI S KHAMBHAYATA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD AND ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 1970 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 17, 2015

The insurance policy of a public service vehicle is deemed to cover an employee engaged in the said vehicle and the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation for the death or injuries sustained by the workman. Payment of compensation for the death of workman or injuries sustained by the workman is limited to the liability arising in the Employers Compensation Act, 1923. The Full Judgment

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

NAWAL KISHOR MISHRA & ORS. Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD &ORS

Appeal (Civil), 1956-1957 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 17, 2015

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the questions that arise for consideration in these appeals are as under: Whether the appellants have the locus standi to challenge the appointments made by the High Court in the filling up of the unfilled vacancies of the reserved categories in the Direct Recruitment Posts by way of promotion of the 'in service candidates'? Whether the High Court could have validly adopted the Reservation Act of 1994 Full Judgment

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

ROXANN SHARMA Vs. ARUN SHARMA

Appeal (Civil), 1966 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 17, 2015

There can be no cavil that when a Court is confronted by conflicting claims of custody there are no rights of the parents which have to be enforced; the child is not a chattel or a ball that is bounced to and fro the parents. It is only the child's welfare which is the focal point for consideration. Full Judgment

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

MAHATMA EDUCATION SOCIETY'S PILLAI'S INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, ENGIN Vs. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND ORS.

Writ Petition (Civil), 1034 of 2014, Judgment Date: Feb 16, 2015

The short question involved in this petition is with regard to grant of approval to educational institutions run by the petitioner society. It is not in dispute that the petitioner society has been imparting education to students through its colleges for the last 15 years. If approval is not granted, the students, who have already been admitted by an interim Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Single Judge)

M/S SYSTEM FOR INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES Vs. M/S RAHUL COACH BUILDERS P. LTD

Arbitration Petition, 6 of 2014, Judgment Date: Feb 16, 2015

Upon perusal of the said clause it is very clear that the parties to the agreement had agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration under the provisions of the 'By-laws of Indian Companies Act, 1956'. The learned counsel appearing for the parties had fairly conceded that there are no by-laws framed under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Though an Full Judgment

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

STATE OF KARNATAKA TR.SEC.HSG.& URB.&ANR Vs. VASAVADATTA CEMENT & ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 1918 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 16, 2015

The appeal has been preferred by the State of Karnataka. The State has neither created any document nor filed the same before the High Court or this Court. If any document is created by any officer to keep it on record so as to produce it before the Court, it is a serious matter which requires to be inquired into by the concerned authority. In Full Judgment

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

STATE OF M P AND ORS Vs. HITKISHORE GOSWAMI

Appeal (Civil), 1892 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 16, 2015

The question, which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Courts below were justified in allowing the respondent's writ petition and in consequence justified in issuing directions in the nature of writ of mandamus in relation to respondent's pension case. It was for the reason that respondent having voluntarily tendered his resignation from the said service without there being any condition Full Judgment

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

WARSALIGANJ SAHKARI CHINI MILL MAZD.UNIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 3937-3938 of 2011, Judgment Date: Feb 16, 2015

Whether seasonal workers of the sugar factories stopped crushing years back would be entitled to retaining allowance, was the main issue agitated by the appellant-union before the High Court. In order to avoid any confusion, it is clarified that the seasonal workers attached to the sugar Full Judgment

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

AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA THR ITS SECRETARY & ANR

Appeal (Civil), 1912 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 16, 2015

Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, however, has rightly relied on a series of Judgments of this Court, including O.P. Gupta v. Union of India 1987 (4) SCC 328, where this Court has enunciated that the suspension of an employee is injurious to his interests and must not be continued for an unreasonably long period; that, therefore, an order of suspension should not be lightly passed. Suspension, specially preceding Full Judgment

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

BINOY AND ANR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Appeal (Crl.), 288-289 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 13, 2015

Full Judgment

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

P.V. GURU RAJ REDDY & ANR. Vs. P. NEERADHA REDDY & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 5254 of 2006, Judgment Date: Feb 13, 2015

-The  finding  of  the High Court in this regard proceeds on the  basis  that  the  plaintiffs  had admitted in the plaint that the  property  purchased  in  the  name  of  the defendant No.3 belonged to  the  plaintiffs.  Therefore  the  provisions  of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 would apply. We fail to see  how the aforesaid view of the  High  Court  can  be  sustained.   The  suits  in question were not filed for recovery of any property held in benami  by  the defendants. Rather, the suit was for declaration of  Full Judgment