Bail – Conditions – Condition of pre-deposit – Held to be bad. (2023-2)210 PLR 309 (SC)
Makhijani Pushpak Harish v. The State of Gujarat, (2023-2)210 PLR 309 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Prsent : Justice Krishna ...
Tag: Judgment
Pleasure doctrine – Applicability – Nominated members continue only till the pleasure of the government – Municipality .
Pleasure doctrine - Applicability - Nominated members - Municipality
Motor Vehicles Act, S. 173 – Pay and Recover – Insurance Company exonerated – Appeal by claimants for making insurance company liable – This Section empowers that any person can file Appeal so there is no need to consider who is aggrieved person – Appellants being Claimants have right to file Appeal – Though owner of offending truck has not challenged the impugned order, it cannot be said that the Claimants can’t challenge it – Order in appeal changed to Pay and Recover.
HIGH COURT BOMBAY Before : Justice Shivkumar Dige. Shubhash Waman Baviskar v. Adinath Hambirrao Budhwant First Appeal No.410 Of 2016 ...
HMA – COI Art. 142 – Transfer Petition – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Mutual consent divorce granted. [2023 SCeJ 0234]
LogIn to for full text. Click here 2023 SCeJ 0234 = PLRonline 445602 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Present: Justice Sanjay ...
Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, Section 28 – Lambardar – Appointment of – Age – Is a relevant factor . [PLRonline 119102]
2008 SupremeCourtOnline 0201 ; PLRonline 119102 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ( Before : S. B. Sinha, J; Cyriac Joseph, J ...
Execution – Limitation – Filed after 12 years.. [PLRonline 114800]
LogIn required to read judgment: Click here 1987 SupremeCourtOnline 0003 (PLRonline 114800) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ( Before : Sabyasachi ...
NIA S. 138 – Conviction – courts should, unless there are special circumstances, in all cases of conviction, uniformly exercise the power to levy fine upto twice the cheque amount keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at nine per cent per annum [2014 PLRonline 0208 (SC)]
2014 PLRonline 0208 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ( Before : Ranjana Prakash Desai J; N.V. Ramana J ) H. ...
Criminal Trial – Circumstantial evidence – Chain of evidence must be so complete as to not leave any reasonable grounds for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused; the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty, before the Court can convict. [2023 SCeJ 0226 = 2023 PLRonline 437602 (SC)]
Dakkata Balaram Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh., 2023 SCeJ 0226 = 2023 PLRonline 437602 (SC) Supreme Court of India ...
IPC – Grevious hurt – The injuries were not intended to cause death but were sufficient to cause grievous injury. It was not a premeditated act – The scissors used by the appellant were little scissors used by tailors. [2023 PLRonline 0100]
PANCHRAM v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH , 2023 PLRonline 0100 IPC, S. 326, 307, 341, 506 – Grievous hurt - ...
IPC S. 149 – When five persons were specifically named in the FIR and five persons are facing the trial may be separately, Section 149 IPC would be attracted – FIR- Delay of 3 ½ days – Properly explained. [2023 SupremeCourtOnline 0009]
Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2023 PLRonline 0009 LogIn to read Full text (click on the menu) ...
DNA – Right to personal liberty, privacy – Refusal. [2021 PLRonline 5203]
2021 PLRonline 5203, ASHOK KUMAR v. RAJ GUPTA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh ...
Limitation Act, S. 5 – Appeal by government – Delay of more than 4 years
State of Bihar through District Magistrate v. Suchit Halwai, 2017 PLRonline 0207 Supreme Court of India J. Chelameswar J. , ...
Limitation ActS. 5 – Sufficient cause – Substantial justice – Every day’s delay must be explained
1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can ...
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11, Section 18, Section 4, Section 6
2012 PLRonline 9001 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Jagdish Singh Khehar J; B.S. Chauhan J Chhanga Singh v. Union Of ...
Land Acquisition Act of 1894 – Claimant is entitled to payment of interest on solatium from the date of entitlement as provided under the provisions of the Act and payment of interest cannot be restricted from the date of Sunder case decided. Obiter in Gurpreet Singh’s case, which incidentally made some observation with regard to the payment of interest on solatium, is not the binding precedent. [2015 PLRonline 0205 (SC)]
2015 PLRonline 0205 (SC), Periyar And Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State Of Kerala SUPREME COURT OF INDIA V. Gopala Gowda ...