Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala
The Supreme Court held that the 180-day time limit for wildlife stock declaration under the 2003 Rules is mandatory and non-extendable, dismissing the appellant's delayed application for ownership certificate.
Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala
The Supreme Court held that the 180-day time limit for filing declarations under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is mandatory and cannot be relaxed, dismissing the appellant's claim for ownership certificate filed beyond the prescribed period.
Prakash Kumar Jena & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
The Supreme Court upheld the entitlement of Home Guards in Orissa to Duty Call-up Allowance at Rs.533 per day from the date of filing the writ petition, affirming compliance with its earlier Grah Rakshak judgment.
Prakash Kumar Jena & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
The Supreme Court upheld the entitlement of Home Guards in Orissa to Duty Call-up Allowance at Rs.533/- per day from June 2018, affirming compliance with its earlier Grah Rakshak judgment and rejecting the State's appeal.
State of Orissa & Anr. v. Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Karmachari Sangh & Anr.
The Supreme Court held that employees of the Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board are not entitled to pensionary benefits contrary to the unchallenged Regulation 52 excluding pension, and financial constraints justify denial of retrospective pension, setting aside the High Court's directions to amend the regulations.
State of Orissa & Anr. v. Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Karmachari Sangh & Anr.
The Supreme Court held that employees of the Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board are not entitled to pension benefits under existing regulations, and the High Court erred in directing amendment to grant such benefits.
R SUNDARAM v. THE TAMIL NADU STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
The Supreme Court held that denial of post-retirement benefits based on a delayed and procedurally flawed enquiry into the appellant's community certificate violated his constitutional right to pension and principles of natural justice, and directed payment of withheld benefits with interest.
R. Sundaram v. Tamil Nadu State Level Inquiry Committee & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that withholding post-retirement benefits based on a cancelled caste certificate without fair inquiry and opportunity to be heard violates constitutional rights and directed payment of all withheld benefits with interest.
R Sundaram v. Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee
The Supreme Court held that post-retirement benefits cannot be withheld without due process and proper enquiry into the genuineness of a Scheduled Tribe community certificate, emphasizing the right to pension as a constitutional right.
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
The Supreme Court held that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, allowing circumstantial evidence but setting aside conviction where such proof was lacking.
ICON EDUCATION SOCIETY v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS
The Supreme Court held that minority unaided educational institutions must submit proposed fees to the AFRC for regulatory approval under the Madhya Pradesh Act, but the AFRC cannot unilaterally fix fees, balancing minority rights with regulatory oversight.
ICON EDUCATION SOCIETY v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS
The Supreme Court held that minority educational institutions must submit proposed fees to the regulatory committee for supervision but the committee cannot unilaterally fix fees, balancing minority rights with regulatory oversight under the Madhya Pradesh Act of 2007.
The Willingdon Sports Club v. Nagnesh alias B.S. Akhade & Ors.
The High Court upheld the Executing Court’s order holding that the decree for possession of one hut was fully satisfied and rejected the Plaintiff’s attempt to recover additional land not included in the suit premises.
Narendra Sharma v. State Through SHO and Ors.
The High Court upheld the Magistrate's discretion to refuse police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. where the complainant is capable of producing evidence, dismissing the petition challenging this refusal.
Anil @ Bahuwa @ Hakla v. State
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the murder conviction due to unreliable eyewitness testimony and lack of corroborative evidence linking the appellant to the weapon and crime.
Kumar Shailender v. University Grants Commission
The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of UGC-NET eligibility criteria requiring AIU equivalence for postgraduate diplomas, dismissing petitions challenging the withholding of certificates for lack of such equivalence.
Kamruddin Saifi v. Gautam Chopra
The Delhi High Court dismissed appeals challenging the striking off of defence for non-compliance with a consent order directing deposit of rent arrears under Order XV-A CPC, affirming the binding nature of consent orders and limited discretion to permit delayed deposits.
Firoj Khan & Anr v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors
The Delhi Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition as the insurer carried on business there, and returning the petition after evidence was led was improper.
M/S Universal Offsets v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court directed the National Faceless Assessment Centre to dispose of the petitioner’s pending income tax appeals within ten weeks, addressing undue delay in adjudication.
Innovision Ltd v. Nayati Healthcare and Research NCR Private Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that pre-arbitration negotiation clauses are directory and appointed an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve disputes under a Security Service Agreement.