Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Karan v. Madhya Pradesh State
The Supreme Court held that the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offence, set aside the death sentence, upheld conviction, and ordered release under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Karan @ Fatiya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court held that a person found to be a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 at the time of offence cannot be sentenced beyond the Act's limits, set aside the death sentence, upheld conviction, and ordered immediate release after excess incarceration.
Karan @ Fatiya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction but set aside the death sentence after holding he was a juvenile below 16 years at the time of the offence, ordering his immediate release as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015.
State of Haryana v. Satpal
The Supreme Court held that unauthorized occupation of Panchayat land reserved for school and playground cannot be regularized and directed eviction of encroachers within 12 months.
Haryana State v. Satpal & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that illegal encroachment of Gram Panchayat land reserved for school and playground purposes cannot be regularized by payment of market value and directed eviction of encroachers within 12 months.
Haryana State v. Satpal
The Supreme Court held that unauthorized occupation of Panchayat land designated for school playgrounds cannot be regularized by payment of market value and must be evicted to preserve public interest.
State of Haryana v. Satpal
The Supreme Court held that unauthorized occupation of Panchayat land reserved for school premises cannot be legalized and directed eviction within 12 months, setting aside the High Court's order permitting regularization on payment or exchange.
Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited v. R.K. Mohatta Family Trust
The Supreme Court approved the Resolution Plan for Reliance Home Finance Limited under Article 142, allowing dissenting debenture holders to opt out, thereby balancing expeditious resolution with creditor rights.
Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited v. R.K. Mohatta Family Trust
The Supreme Court approved the Resolution Plan for Reliance Home Finance Limited under Article 142, allowing dissenting debenture holders to opt out, and held that such approval cannot be granted by the High Court under Section 151 CPC.
Madhya Pradesh State v. Karan
The Supreme Court held that the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offense, upheld his conviction but set aside the death sentence, directing release under juvenile justice provisions.
Mudhit Madanlal Gupta v. Emgee Enclave LLP
The Bombay High Court held that the same arbitrator can be appointed again under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act despite prior arbitration on related issues, rejecting objections based on constructive res judicata and Fifth Schedule provisions.
Aditya Birla Finance Limited v. Santanu Dey and Ors
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate a financial dispute where respondents failed to respond or appear.
MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED v. M/S SKYNET PLACEMENTS & ORS.
The Delhi High Court decreed an uncontested suit granting permanent injunction against former employees and their agencies for infringement and passing off of the registered trademark 'MACLEODS' without requiring evidence.
Mahender Kumar v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 308 IPC but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone considering the prolonged trial and appellant's conduct.
Brij Kishore Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking pay revision benefits under the 2010 General Insurance Scheme on the ground of inordinate delay and non-eligibility under the scheme.
Ritu Joshi v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition against Air India on maintainability grounds following its privatization, holding that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not extend to private companies.
Manharan Sahu & Anr v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal against the Railway Claims Tribunal's dismissal of compensation for death due to fall from a train, holding that delay in ticket recovery and lack of eyewitnesses do not bar compensation under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.
Mahipal Singh v. Govt of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court directed the respondent authority to decide the petitioner's pending representation regarding land possession within three months, enforcing the statutory duty to decide representations expeditiously.
Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal v. Lock & Locking Devices
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's application to recall an order imposing a Rs. 1,00,000 penalty for non-disclosure of his relationship with the distributor, affirming that suppression of material facts and abuse of court process warrant penalties.
Mahesh Gupta v. Registrar of Trademarks and Anr
The Delhi High Court upheld the deemed abandonment of a trademark opposition due to failure to file evidence within the mandatory timelines prescribed under the Trade Marks Rules, 2002, dismissing the appellant's appeal.