Filter by Date
Supreme Court of India

MADAN RAZAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS

Appeal (Crl.), 1612 of 2015, Judgment Date: Dec 01, 2015

Full Judgment

Allahabad High Court (Single Judge)

Pankaj Kumar V/s Smt. Chhaya & 3 Others

CIVIL REVISION DEFECTIVE, 240 of 2015, Judgment Date: Dec 01, 2015

Full Judgment

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

S.E.B.I. Vs. MAGNUM EQUITY SERVICES LTD. & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 4719 of 2008, Judgment Date: Nov 30, 2015

Full Judgment

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

State of Chhattisgarh and another V/s Chandra Bhan Singh and others

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, 188 of 2005, Judgment Date: Nov 29, 2015

Full Judgment

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

The State of M. P.(Now The State of C.G.) V/s Seetaram

CRA->CRIMINAL APPEAL, 1684 of 1997, Judgment Date: Nov 28, 2015

Full Judgment

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

D.N. JEEVARAJ Vs. CHIEF SEC., GOVT. OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 13785 of 2015, Judgment Date: Nov 27, 2015

This Court has repeatedly held that where discretion is required to be exercised by a statutory authority, it must be permitted to do so. It is not for the courts to take over the discretion available to a statutory authority and render a decision. In the present case, the High Court has virtually taken over the function of the BDA by requiring it to take action against Sadananda Gowda and Full Judgment

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

Ramlal Sharma V/s State of Chhattisgarh Through-Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, & Ors.

WPS->WRIT PETITON SERVICE MATTER, 352 of 2014, Judgment Date: Nov 27, 2015

Full Judgment

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

STATE OF H.P.& ORS. Vs. ASHWANI KUMAR & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 6015 of 2009, Judgment Date: Nov 26, 2015

We make it clear that to maintain certainty in the judicial decision, we have to restrain from interfering with the decision of the High Court which has stood for a long period on the principle of stare decisis. However, the said principle will be applicable where the meaning of the Statute is ambiguous and capable of more interpretation than one. In Full Judgment

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

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

Appeal (Civil), 5254 of 2010, Judgment Date: Nov 26, 2015

The doctrine of legitimate expectation ordinarily would not have any application when the legislature has enacted a statute. The legitimate expectation should be legitimate, reasonable and valid. For the application of doctrine of legitimate expectation, any representation or promise should be made by an authority. A person unconnected with the authority, who had Full Judgment

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

CHAIRMAN SEBI Vs. ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD.

Appeal (Civil), 1364-1365 of 2005, Judgment Date: Nov 26, 2015

Full Judgment

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

A.R. DAHIYA Vs. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA&ORS

Appeal (Civil), 2727 of 2006, Judgment Date: Nov 26, 2015

Full Judgment

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

STATE OF UP AND ORS Vs. AJAY KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR

Appeal (Civil), 13727 of 2015, Judgment Date: Nov 26, 2015

What then should be the position in regard to the effect of the law pronounced by a Division Bench in relation to a case raising the same point subsequently before a Division Bench of a smaller number of Judges? There is no constitutional or statutory prescription in the matter, and the point is governed entirely by the practice in India of the courts sanctified by repeated affirmation over a century of time. Full Judgment

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

M/S SHREE BHAGWATI STEEL ROLLING MILLS Vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 4280 of 2007, Judgment Date: Nov 24, 2015

Full Judgment

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

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. M/S NESTLE INDIA LTD

Appeal (Civil), 951 of 2008, Judgment Date: Nov 24, 2015

Full Judgment

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

K.S. SOUNDARARAJAN AND ORS. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF H.R. & C.E. AND ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 2401 of 2003, Judgment Date: Nov 24, 2015

Full Judgment

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

COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs. A INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeal (Civil), 2806 of 2015, Judgment Date: Nov 24, 2015

Full Judgment

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

SHAMSHER SINGH VERMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Appeal (Crl.), 1525 of 2015, Judgment Date: Nov 24, 2015

Special Judge, Kaithal, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2014, and rejected the application of the accused for getting exhibited the compact disc, filed in defence and to get the same proved from Forensic Science Laboratory. The only point of relevance at present is whether the accused has been denied right of defence or not. In Ziyauddin Barhanuddin Bukhari vs. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and Full Judgment

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

SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs. ICAP INDIA PVT. LTD.

Appeal (Civil), 5275 of 2006, Judgment Date: Nov 24, 2015

Full Judgment

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

BRIJ BIHARI SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.(R-1,4,7)

Appeal (Civil), 1217 of 2011, Judgment Date: Nov 20, 2015

It is well settled that a person who is required to answer a charge imposed should know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. The delinquent must be given fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to cross-examine the witnesses who prove the charge. The delinquent must also be given a chance to Full Judgment

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

RAJ SINGH @ RAJA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA TR.SEC.MINISTY OF HOME

Appeal (Crl.), 1475 of 2015, Judgment Date: Nov 20, 2015

Full Judgment