Judgments - Interpretation
JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD.), AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
SAMBHA PURSHOTTAM PALIKONDAWAR, YAVATMAL & 3 ORS. Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA MUMBAI & OTHERS.
It is well settled that the validity of the provisions of the Act cannot be challenged in comparison with similar provision in any other enactment. Full Judgment
State of MP V. Rajesh Sharma
PARTHA PRATIM BORTHAKUR VS M/S MEGHA TECHNICAL & ENGINEERS PVT. LTD
Swaraj Abhiyan (V) versus Union of India & Ors
M/S PALAM GAS SERVICE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
SRI GANESH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.
“Age determination inquiry” contemplated under Section 7-A of the Act read with Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules enables the court to seek evidence and in that process, the court can obtain the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available. Only in the absence of any matriculation or equivalent certificates, the court needs to obtain the date of birth certificate from the Full Judgment
AJAY SINGH AND ANR AND ETC. Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANR
Performance of judicial duty in the manner prescribed by law is fundamental to the concept of rule of law in a democratic State. It has been quite often said and, rightly so, that the judiciary is the protector and preserver of rule of law. Effective functioning of the said sacrosanct duty has been entrusted to the judiciary and that entrustment expects the courts to conduct Full Judgment
THE STATE OF TELANGANA Vs. HABIB ABDULLAH JEELANI & ORS.
The seminal issue that arises for consideration in this appeal, by special leave, is whether the High Court while refusing to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to interfere in an application for quashment of the investigation, can restrain the investigating agency not to arrest the accused persons during the course of investigation. There Full Judgment
GOPAL AND SONS (HUF) Vs. CIT KOLKATA-XI
ABHIRAM SINGH Vs. C.D. COMMACHEN (DEAD) BY LRS.& ORS.
KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH & ANR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SANTOSH GUPTA AND ANR. ETC.
VIVEK NARAYAN SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA
Whether the notification dated 8th November 2016 is ultra vires Section 26(2) and Sections 7,17,23,24,29 and 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Does the notification contravene the provisions of Article 300(A) of the Constitution; Assuming that the notification has been validly issued under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 whether it is ultra vires Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution; Whether the limit on withdrawal of Full Judgment