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

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TPT CORPN. Vs. ALEXIX SONIER & ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 2967 of 2012, Judgment Date: Oct 08, 2015

Full Judgment

Allahabad High Court (Single Judge)

Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division-Ii Vs Chairman Permanent Lok Adalat And 4 Others

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227, 4068 of 2015, Judgment Date: Sep 17, 2015

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Smt. Meena Shrivastava Vs Union of India & others.

WRIT PETITION, 6243 of 2015, Judgment Date: Sep 16, 2015

Full Judgment

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

SHRI NANAK CHAND Vs NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

LPA, 719 of 2014, Judgment Date: Sep 11, 2015

Full Judgment

Delhi High Court (Single Judge)

RAJU GAS SERVICE Vs SAROJ BALA & ORS

RFA, 514,619 of 2014, Judgment Date: Sep 10, 2015

Full Judgment

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

Degeshwari, wife of Shiv Kumar Sahu Vs Santosh Kumar Duseja & rs.O

MAC->MISC.APPEAL OF COPENSATION, 472 of 2013, Judgment Date: Sep 03, 2015

Full Judgment

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

STATE OF M.P. Vs. MOHAN LAL

Appeal (Civil), 6650 of 2015, Judgment Date: Aug 28, 2015

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the Order dated 15.09.2014 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 9675 of 2014 titled as “State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Vinod Kumar Tiwari”, in our considered opinion, it is a fit case where some compensation should be awarded to the respondent instead of directing the appellant to reinstate Full Judgment

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

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. JAINUDEEN SHEKH AND ANR.

Appeal (Crl.), 1085 of 2015, Judgment Date: Aug 25, 2015

Full Judgment

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

PEERAPPA HANMANTHA HARIJAN(D) BY LRS.&OR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Appeal (Civil), 5804 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jul 30, 2015

Full Judgment

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

KRISHAN & ORS Vs THE MANAGEMENT OF THE AIR FORCE SCHOOL

LPA, 305 of 2013, Judgment Date: Jul 29, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

TALUKDAR SINGH Vs. TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD

Appeal (Civil), 5701 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jul 24, 2015

Full Judgment

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

Bharat Lal Dewangan & Anr. Vs Kamal Kumar Verma & Ors.

MAC->MISC.APPEAL OF COPENSATION, 193,219 of 2008, Judgment Date: Jul 01, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD Vs. NEW PINK CITY NIRMAN SAHKA.SAM.LD.& ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 1527-1536 of 2013, Judgment Date: May 01, 2015

Constructive notice in legal fiction signifies that the individual person should know as a reasonable person would have. Even if they have no actual knowledge of it. Constructive notice means a man ought to have known a fact. A person is said to have notice of a fact when he actually knows a fact but for Full Judgment

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

KHUB RAM Vs. DALBIR SINGH & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 2734 of 2015, Judgment Date: Apr 29, 2015

  Mr. Patwalia has rightly placed reliance to support the aforesaid submissions, on a judgment of this Court in the case of Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy (2010) 8 SCC 383. The law relating to effect of fraud upon a competent authority to get an appointment/office as well as effect of fraud upon court has been discussed in detail in paragraphs 28 to 36 Full Judgment

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rais And Anr

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, 988 of 2015, Judgment Date: Apr 22, 2015

Full Judgment

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

GAURI SHANKER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Appeal (Civil), 3701 of 2015, Judgment Date: Apr 16, 2015

Whether the Labour Court was justified in not awarding backwages and granting Rs.2,500/- as compensation in lieu of backwages though it has awarded reinstatement in the absence of gainful employment of workman? Whether the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, is justified in interfering with the finding of facts recorded on the points of dispute recorded by the Labour Full Judgment

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

STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SAURABH BAKSHI

Appeal (Crl.), 520 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 30, 2015

It is sometimes said in an egocentric and uncivilised manner that law cannot bind the individual actions which are perceived as flaws by the large body of people, but, the truth is and has to be that when the law withstands the test of the constitutional scrutiny in a democracy, the individual notions are to be ignored. It is the duty of Full Judgment

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

ASHA VERMAN & ORS. Vs. MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 3211 - 3212 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 27, 2015

On applying the principles as laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), 50% of the salary must be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects of income, which comes to Rs.6,900/- per month, i.e. Rs.82,800/- per annum. Deducting 1/4th for personal expenses and applying the appropriate multiplier taking into consideration the age of Full Judgment

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

SURTI GUPTA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 2933 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 17, 2015

It has also been observed by the High Court for the purpose of calculation of future loss of dependency of the appellant that the deceased at the time of the accident on 10.7.1990 was drawing a salary of Rs.4,214/- per month and was 45 years of age. However, we are of the view that the salary of the deceased at the time of her death taken by the High Court 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