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

NAGRAJ Vs. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T.N.

Appeal (Crl.), 1311 of 2006, Judgment Date: Mar 10, 2015

Full Judgment

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

D. VELAYUTHAM Vs. STATE REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Appeal (Crl.), 787 of 2011, Judgment Date: Mar 10, 2015

He has admitted the receipt of the bribe amount. The only effort at proving his innocence has been the submission that receipt of the entire sum was on behalf of Accused 1, no part of which was demanded by Accused 2 for his own keeping and consumption. This Court has ratiocinated in significant length and detail on the nature of evidence commonly encountered in trap cases Full Judgment

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

BHARGAVA & ASSOCIATES PVT.LTD.& ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 5099 of 2008, Judgment Date: Mar 10, 2015

Full Judgment

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

DEEPAK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Appeal (Crl.), 65 of 2012, Judgment Date: Mar 10, 2015

Full Judgment

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

JIBAN KRISHNA MONDAL & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 6373 of 2010, Judgment Date: Mar 10, 2015

Full Judgment

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

ARUNBHAI KALYANBHAI SUTARIYA Vs. NUTAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD.& ANR

Appeal (Civil), 2822 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 10, 2015

Full Judgment

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

V.KRISHNASWAMY & ANR. Vs. KARNATAKA RAJYA KAIGARIKA SAHAKARI &ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 2874 - 75 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 10, 2015

Full Judgment

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

MOHAMMED HUSSAIN WAREKAR Vs. U.O.I. & ORS.

Writ Petition (Civil), 37 of 2013, Judgment Date: Mar 10, 2015

Full Judgment

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

ST.MARY'S HOTEL(P) LTD.& ANR Vs. KOTTAYAM DIST.COOP.BANK LTD.& ORS.

Writ Petition (Civil), 367 of 2011, Judgment Date: Mar 10, 2015

Full Judgment

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

ANIL JOSHI & ORS. Vs. STATE OF H.P.& ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 6097-6100 of 2009, Judgment Date: Mar 09, 2015

Full Judgment

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

U.O.I & ORS Vs. GURDAYAL SINGH

Appeal (Civil), 2865-2866 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 09, 2015

Full Judgment

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

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAM PAL

Appeal (Crl.), 393 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 27, 2015

Only question raised for consideration is whether the sentence imposed in the facts and circumstances is fair and just. Moreover, in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court does not re-appreciate the evidence, in absence of perversity or patent legal error, merely because a different view was also possible. We are thus, not inclined to reopen Full Judgment

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

MOHD. AKBAR Vs. ASHOK SAHU & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 2538-40 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 27, 2015

Broadly, it is in the above-mentioned background the instant SLP  came to be filed complaining that notwithstanding the mandate of Section 86, sub- Section (7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951,  the  High  Court has not disposed of the election petition so far.  It was the pious hope of the Parliament that election  disputes  under the  Representation  of  the   People   Act,   1951   should   be   resolved expeditiously.   The purpose is obvious.  The tenure of the members  of  the Parliament as well as the Legislature of Full Judgment

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

M/S SHERALI KHAN MOHAMED MANEKIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 2475-2476 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 27, 2015

The short question, therefore, that falls for consideration is as to whether after the disposal of the appeal, the Court Receiver stands discharged or whether he continues in his office till an order of discharge is passed by the Court? In our view, when a Receiver is appointed pending suit or appeal, the prime objective is to preserve the property by taking possession Full Judgment

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

SHYAM LAL Vs. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS

Appeal (Civil), 4245 of 2012, Judgment Date: Feb 27, 2015

The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the plaintiff-appellant became a trespasser after expiry of the lease period or continued to be a tenant having protection for eviction under the tenancy laws. Taking into consideration the various tenancy laws applicable in the State of Punjab and the law discussed by this Court and the High Court, in our considered opinion the trial court, the appellate court Full Judgment

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

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS Vs. JAGJIT SINGH AND ORS

Appeal (Civil), 2592 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 27, 2015

Any determination under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, must proceed sequentially. First, the factum of an Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, must be clearly established. The said Award must predate the commencement of the Act, i.e., Full Judgment

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

RAMAKANT MISHRA @ LALU ETC. Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Appeal (Crl.), 1279-1281 of 2011, Judgment Date: Feb 27, 2015

Succinctly stated, it had been held therein that the use of word 'shown' instead of 'proved' in Section 304B indicates that the onus cast on the prosecution would stand satisfied on the anvil of a mere preponderance of probability. In other words, 'shown' will have to be read up to mean 'proved' but only to the extent of preponderance of probability. Thereafter, the word 'deemed' Full Judgment

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

SURYA VADANAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU & ORS

Appeal (Crl.), 395 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 27, 2015

The question before us relates to the refusal by the Madras High Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus for the production of the children of Surya Vadanan and Mayura Vadanan. The appellant sought their production to enable him to take the children with him to the U.K. since they were wards of the court in the U.K. to enable the foreign court to decide the issue of their custody. The principle Full Judgment

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

K.P. Manu Versus Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificate

Appeal (Civil), 7065 of 2008, Judgment Date: Feb 26, 2015

As we perceive, the controversy fundamentally has three arenas, namely, (1) whether on conversion and at what stage a person born to Christian parents can, after reconversion to the Hindu religion, be eligible to claim the benefit of his original caste; (ii) whether after his eligibility is accepted and his original community on a collective basis takes him within its fold, he still can be denied the Full Judgment

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

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. DILEEP KUMAR SINGH

Appeal (Civil), 2466 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 26, 2015

These appeals raise an interesting question as to  the  interpretation of a proviso contained in  Section  47  of  the  Persons  with  Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of  Rights  and  Full  Participation)  Act, 1995 (in short the "1995 Act"). It is well settled that the provisions  of  a  statute  must  be  read harmoniously together.  However, if this is not possible then it is  settled law that where there is a conflict between  two  Sections,  and  you  cannot reconcile the two, you have to determine which is the leading provision  Full Judgment