Filter by Date
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

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

VIVEK RAI & ANR. Vs. HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND THR.REG.GEN & OR

Writ Petition (Crl.), WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.61 OF 2012 Judgment Date: Feb 04, 2015

This writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and provisions of Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.").- It Full Judgment

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

DR.VINOD BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF M. P.

Appeal (Crl.), CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2015 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 04, 2015

It is well settled that at pre-conviction stage, there is presumption of innocence. The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive. Seriousness of the allegation or the availability of material in support thereof Full Judgment

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

M/S CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN SERVICES Vs. DELHI DEVT.AUTH

Appeal (Civil), 1440-1441 OF 2015 Judgment Date: Feb 04, 2015

Once it is held that even in absence of specific evidence, the respondent could be held to have suffered loss on account of breach of contract, and it is entitled to compensation to the extent of loss suffered, it is for the appellant to show that stipulated damages are by way of penalty - The Full Judgment

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

KANDIVALI CO-OP. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE & ANR Vs. MUNICIPAL CORP. OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 1431 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 04, 2015

-Elaborating the distinction between the tax and a fee, this Court in number of decisions held that the element of compulsion or coercion is present in all impositions, though in different degrees and that it is not totally absent in fees. The compulsion lies in the fact that payment is enforceable by law against a man in spite of his unwillingness or want of consent Full Judgment

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

S.T. SADIQ Vs. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 3962 of 2007, Judgment Date: Feb 04, 2015

It is well-settled that if a statute requires an authority to exercise power, when such authority is satisfied that conditions exist for exercise of that power, the satisfaction has to be based on the existence of grounds mentioned in the statute. The grounds must be made out on the basis of the relevant material. If the existence of the conditions required for the exercise of the power is challenged, the courts Full Judgment

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

Brajesh And 5 Others Vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 2 Others

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION, 1596 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 04, 2015

Full Judgment

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

Kunwar Jeet Singh And 3 Others Vs State Of U.P.And 2 Others

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION, 2077 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 04, 2015

Full Judgment