Filter by Date
Supreme Court of India ()

Sonu Gupta Versus Deepak Gupta & Ors.

Appeal (Crl.), 285-287 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 11, 2015

-At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or Full Judgment

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

KRISHNA HARE GAUR Vs. VINOD KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS

Appeal (Civil), 1755 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 11, 2015

-When the appointment is made de hors the rules, the same is a nullity. In such an eventuality, the statutory bar like doctrine of res judicata is not attracted. -"From the above, it is evident that even in judicial proceedings, once a fraud is proved, all advantages gained by playing fraud can be taken away. In such an eventuality the questions of non-executing of the Full Judgment

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

MADHUKAR SADBHA SHIVARKAR (D) BY LRS. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 1751 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 11, 2015

In our considered view, the orders impugned in the writ petitions which are affirmed by the High Court, are perfectly legal and valid and therefore, the same do not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, but on the other hand, the aforesaid orders of the State Government can also be traceable to executive power of Full Judgment

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

C/M Govind Prasad Shukla Inter College Gaura Chouki & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.Thru.The Prin.Secy.Secondary Education & 5 Ors.

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, 445 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 11, 2015

Full Judgment

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

PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 4510 of 2006, Judgment Date: Feb 10, 2015

An appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is maintainable before this Court only on the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 100 CPC in turn permits filing of an appeal only if the case involves a substantial question of law- The appeal is, therefore, dismissed Full Judgment

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

M/S BENNET COLEMAN & CO.LTD. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 269 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 10, 2015

Full Judgment

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

Amarnath Agrawal Vs Jai Singh Agrawal & others

ACQA->ACQUITTAL APPEAL [ APPEAL U/S 378 ], 116 of 20 13 , 149 of 201 4 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 10, 2015

Full Judgment

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

Indresh Sharma and another Vs Indresh Sharma and another

99 OF 2013 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 10, 2015

Full Judgment

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

Bharat Vs State of Chhattisgarh & others

ACQA->ACQUITTAL APPEAL [ APPEAL U/S 378 ], 3939 of 2004 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 10, 2015

Full Judgment

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

State Of U.P. And Anr. Vs Achal Singh

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, 89 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 10, 2015

Full Judgment

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

KHURSHEED AHMAD KHAN VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 1662 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 09, 2015

In absence thereof the second marriage  is a misconduct under the Conduct Rules- Polygamy  was  not  integral  part  of  religion  and monogamy was a reform within the power of the State under Article 25.- Even if bigamy be regarded as an  integral  part of Hindu religion, Rule 27 of the U.P. Government  Servants'  Conduct  Rules requiring permission of the  Government  before  contracting  such  marriage must be held to come  under  the  protection  of  Article  25(2)(b)  of  the Constitution- What  is permitted or not prohibited by  a  religion  does  not  become  Full Judgment

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

Budru Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh & others ,Yogendra Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh & others ,Smt. Madhukala Jha Vs State of Chhattisgarh & others ,Father Thedor Toppo Vs State of Chhattisgarh & others

ACQA->ACQUITTAL APPEAL [ APPEAL U/S 378 ], 3908 of 2008 ,3693 of 2007,4089 of 2007 ,4608 of 2008 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 09, 2015

Full Judgment

Allahabad High Court (Single Judge)

Ram Chandra Vs State Of U.P. And Anr.

WRIT - C, 7425 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 09, 2015

Full Judgment

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

RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 8224 OF 2012 Judgment Date: Feb 06, 2015

In view of the law laid down by this Court, we are of the view that if any person who is or was a legal practitioner, including a retired Hon'ble Judge is appointed as Inquiry Officer in an inquiry initiated against an employee, the denial of assistance of legal practitioner to the charged employee would be unfair. Full Judgment

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

M/S ANVIL CABLES PVT LTD Vs. COMMNR.OF CENTRAL TAXES & SERVICE TAX

Appeal (Civil), 1651 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 06, 2015

-Looking at the peculiar facts of the case, in the interests of justice, we direct that upon payment of Rs. 25,000/- by way of costs to the sole respondent within two months from today, the impugned Judgment shall be set aside and Tax Appeal No. 3 of 2013 shall be restored to its original number and shall be heard on merits by the High Court.   Full Judgment

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

L.LAXMIKANTA Vs. STATE TR.SUPDT.OF POLICE LOKAYUKTA

Appeal (Crl.), 593 OF 2012 Judgment Date: Feb 05, 2015

It is a settled principle in law laid down by this Court in a number of decisions that once the demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification knowing it to be the bribe are proved by evidence then conviction must follow under Section 7 ibid against the accused. Indeed, these twin requirements are sine qua non for proving the Full Judgment

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

KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. SIVAKUMAR & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 1478 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 05, 2015

Full Judgment

Allahabad High Court (Single Judge)

Gokul Prasad Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division) & 3 Others

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227, 416 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 05, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India ()

KANAKLATA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Appeal (Crl.), CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 222 OF 2015 Judgment Date: Feb 04, 2015

  Held: The question is whether the apprehension of the complainant is reasonable for us to direct a transfer. Justice must not only be done but must seem to have been done. A lurking suspicion in the mind of the complainant will leave him with a brooding sense of having suffered injustice not because he had no case, but because the Presiding Officer had a preconceived notion about it. Full Judgment

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

BHAVANBHAI BHAYABHAI PANELLA Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Appeal (Crl.), CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2323 OF 2014 Judgment Date: Feb 04, 2015

The only question which survives for consideration is the sentence to be awarded- Having regard to the totality of circumstances, we are of the view that ends of justice will be met if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to RI for ten years. However, sentence of fine and compensation as also default sentence and direction for recovery of the amount payable as compensation are Full Judgment