Filter by Date
Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

A.K. Construction Company Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

ACQA->ACQUITTAL APPEAL [ APPEAL U/S 378 ], 1533 of 2000 ,1530 of 2000 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 09, 2015

Full Judgment

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

Smt. Chhaya Roy W/o Durga Shankar Roy, aged about 58 years, R/o Satipara Ambikapur, P.S. City Kotwali & P.O. Ambikapur, Civil & Revenue District - Ambikapur (C.G.) 2. Shri Durga Shankar Roy S/o Late Prabhakar Roy, aged about 69 Years, R/o Satipara Amb

ACQA->ACQUITTAL APPEAL [ APPEAL U/S 378 ], 218 of 2014 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 09, 2015

Full Judgment

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

Vijay Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

ACQA->ACQUITTAL APPEAL [ APPEAL U/S 378 ], 83 of 2015 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 04, 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

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

Hridesh Chandra And 3 Others Vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, 198 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 27, 2015

Full Judgment

Allahabad High Court (Single Judge)

C/M Lokmanya Tilak Inter College Thru Manager & Another Vs State Of U.P.Thru Secy.Deptt. Of Secondary Education &8 Ors

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, 526 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 27, 2015

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

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

DHIRENDRA KUMAR @ DHIROO Vs. STATE OF UTTARKHAND

Appeal (Crl.), 1848 of 2008, Judgment Date: Feb 26, 2015

As far as reliability of evidence on record is concerned, we are of the view that re-appreciation of evidence is not called for in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution in absence of patent illegality or perversity merely because a different view could also be taken. Question whether a case falls under Section 302 or 304 has to be decided from Full Judgment

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

TEJRAM PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Appeal (Crl.), 1330 of 2009, Judgment Date: Feb 26, 2015

  The decision of this appeal will rest on the answers to the  following two questions : (i)   Reliability of DD Exhibit 45 recorded by PSI Sunil Eknadi  Wanjari  PW 4 made by deceased Savita; (ii)  Admissibility and reliability of DDs made  by  Prabhabai  recorded  by SJM, Rajiv Babarao Raut Exhibit 41) and PSI Bhila Narayan Bachao (Exhibit 43). ​ However,  the Court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit mental  condition  to make the  DD  and  that  the  statement  was  faithfully  recorded  and  was otherwise reliable.  Full Judgment

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

ASSISTANT G.M. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS Vs. RADHEY SHYAM PANDEY

Appeal (Civil), 2463 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 26, 2015

Full Judgment

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

M/S. COMPETENT AUTOMOBILES CO. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 5054 of 2008, Judgment Date: Feb 26, 2015

The said Award must predate the commencement of the Act, i.e., 01.01.2014., by at least five years (or more), ie., the Award must have been passed on or before 01.01.2009. This having been established, if possession is found to not have been taken, or compensation not paid, then the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. Thereafter, the Full Judgment

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

BATHIDA DEV. AUTH. FORMERLY KNOWN AS (PUDA) Vs. IQBAL SINGH AND ORS

Appeal (Civil), 2464 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 26, 2015

This Appeal assails the Order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which had allowed the Writ Petitions before it, and declared that the acquisition had lapsed for the reason that the possession had not been taken and compensation, too, not paid. This is sufficient ground for protection under the provision of Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The Appeal is dismissed in the above terms.     Full Judgment

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

RAVINDRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Appeal (Crl.), 1410 of 2013, Judgment Date: Feb 26, 2015

In light of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the opinion that the case of the appellant is a fit case for invoking the proviso to Section 376(2)(g) of IPC for awarding lesser sentence, as the incident is 20 years old and the fact that the parties are married and have entered into a compromise, are the adequate and special reasons. Full Judgment