Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Jasmeet Singh v. ICICI Bank Ltd
The Delhi High Court modified the Trial Court’s order to allow procedural correction of power of attorney without disregarding previously recorded evidence and preserved the petitioner’s right to cross-examine.
Neeru Bhalla v. B R Gambhir & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner a final opportunity to lead evidence subject to payment of costs, emphasizing that cases should be decided on merits rather than procedural technicalities.
Raj Kumar v. State of Delhi and Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed recall of the prosecutrix for limited re-cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to confront her with crucial evidence, emphasizing the court's duty to ensure a fair trial and just decision.
Reliance Communication Limited v. Rajendra P. Bansal
The Bombay High Court held that monies deposited in Court as security for stay of execution remain the property of the depositor pending appeal and that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC does not bar withdrawal of such monies, while affirming that jurisdiction over the appeal and interim application lies with the civil court, not the NCLT.
Savita Balaso Niruke v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition seeking grace marks and condonation under university ordinances, holding that the provisions must be strictly interpreted per semester examination and cannot be liberally construed to allow unmeritorious passing.
Sonali Shivram Dupare; Smita Amrut Patil; Tushar Madhukar Shelar v. The Thane District Central Co-operative Bank; The District Deputy Registrar, Thane District Co-operative Societies; The Commissioner of Co-operation Maharashtra State; State of Maharashtr
The Bombay High Court quashed the irregular recruitment process of a co-operative bank and directed a fresh recruitment, holding the writ petition maintainable and emphasizing strict adherence to State guidelines and public interest.
Deepak Ananda Patil v. The State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court held that disqualification of cooperative society members under Section 11 requires individual enquiry and disclosure of all material to comply with natural justice, setting aside omnibus orders lacking such procedural fairness.
Deepak Ananda Patil v. The State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court held that disqualifying cooperative society members without individual enquiry and disclosure of material violates natural justice, setting aside prior orders and remanding for fresh proceedings.
Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Aloys Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that the moratorium period under SICA suspends limitation for filing Section 9 IBC applications and a genuine prior dispute justifies rejection of such applications.
Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Aloys Ltd.
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a Section 9 IBC application as barred by limitation and due to a prior existing dispute, excluding the SICA moratorium period from limitation computation.
Sabarmati Gas Limited v. Shah Alloys Limited
The Supreme Court held that the suspension period under Section 22 of SICA is excludable for limitation under IBC and that a plausible pre-existing dispute mandates dismissal of a Section 9 application at the threshold.
IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. SICGIL INDIA LIMITED
The Supreme Court held that the National Company Law Tribunal's rectificatory jurisdiction under Section 59 is summary and cannot be invoked to adjudicate violations of SEBI regulations, which fall exclusively within SEBI's regulatory domain.
IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. SICGIL INDIA LIMITED
The Supreme Court held that the National Company Law Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate violations of SEBI regulations under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013, affirming SEBI's exclusive regulatory and adjudicatory authority.
M/s Indian Medicines Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh Ayurvedic Co-operative Society Limited & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that procurement of AYUSH medicines under the National AYUSH Mission must be through a fair tendering process involving all eligible manufacturers, and exclusive supply orders to IMPCL without such process violate Article 14.
M/s Indian Medicines Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited v. Keral Ayurvedic Co-operative Society Limited & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that procurement of Ayurvedic medicines under the National Ayush Mission must be conducted through transparent tendering inviting all eligible manufacturers, and exclusive procurement from IMPCL without such process violates Article 14.
Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that procurement of Ayurvedic medicines under the National AYUSH Mission must be through a transparent tender process involving all eligible entities, and exclusive nomination of IMPCL without tender violates Article 14.
K C Theatre v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
The Supreme Court held that cinema hall owners may lawfully prohibit outside food inside theatres, and the High Court erred in directing otherwise under its writ jurisdiction absent statutory mandate.
K C Theatre v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
The Supreme Court held that cinema hall owners may prohibit outside food inside theatres as a legitimate business decision, setting aside the High Court's direction that such prohibition violates fundamental rights.
Muthoot Leasing and Finance Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax
The Supreme Court held that interest embedded in hire-purchase instalments is not taxable under the Interest-Tax Act, 1974 as it does not constitute interest on loans and advances.
Muthoot Leasing and Finance Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax
The Supreme Court held that interest embedded in hire-purchase instalments does not qualify as taxable interest under the Interest-Tax Act, 1974, and set aside the High Court's contrary ruling.