Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Dhruv Krishan Maggu v. Principal Director General, DGGI (HQRS.), RK Puram, New Delhi & Anr
The Delhi High Court held that seized documents and electronic devices related to GST fraud investigations can be lawfully retained beyond six months under the CGST Act, 2017, dismissing the petition seeking their immediate return.
Union of India v. RCCIVL -LITL (JV)
The Delhi High Court upheld the Arbitrator's order directing partial release of Performance Bank Guarantees to the contractor, holding that the appellant cannot withhold security after acknowledging contract completion and that interim relief must balance equities without pre-judging merits.
CAPSTECH NETWORK PVT LTD & ORS. v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR arising from a commercial dispute under Sections 420, 406, 120-B, and 34 IPC based on a bona fide settlement between the parties under its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Rohit Madan v. The State and Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 279 and 337 IPC based on an amicable settlement and compensation received, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
United Kingdom, AB157UE v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR and proceedings against the petitioner for non-cognizable offences registered without Magistrate's prior permission, holding such registration and investigation illegal under Section 155(2) CrPC.
Shivaji University Teachers Association v. Chief Election Officer, Maharashtra State Election Commission
The Bombay High Court upheld the State Election Commission's authority to requisition teachers from a state-aided college affiliated to a public university for panchayat election duties under Article 243-K and the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, dismissing the petition challenging such requisition.
Chandi Puliya v. State of West Bengal
The Supreme Court held that the applicability of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. must be considered at the discharge stage under Section 227 Cr.P.C. before framing charges, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration accordingly.
Chandi Puliya v. State of West Bengal
The Supreme Court held that the plea under Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. must be considered at the discharge stage under Section 227 Cr.P.C. before framing of charge, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration accordingly.
D.N. Krishnappa v. Deputy General Manager
The Supreme Court held that an employee is entitled to full back wages from the date of a reinstatement award that attains finality, despite interim stays, and that the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) to enforce such awards.
Lucknow Development Authority v. Mehdi Hasan
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken prior to the Act's commencement, even if compensation was not paid under the new Act.
Lucknow Vikas Pratishthan v. Mehdi Hasan
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition completed before the enforcement of the 2013 Rules cannot be invalidated under Rule 24(2) of those Rules, upholding the validity of acquisition under the 1894 Act.
Lucknow Development Authority v. Mehdi Hasan (Deceased) Thr. LRs. & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken prior to the Act's commencement, even if compensation was not paid at that time.
Manherlal v. Nayab Collector
The Supreme Court held that the six-month limitation under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is mandatory and cannot be extended, but allowed the appellants' appeal to remand the matter for merit consideration after condoning delay.
Manharlal Shivlal Panchal & Others v. Deputy Collector & Special Land Acquisition Officer & Others
The Supreme Court held that a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed within six months of dismissal of a special leave petition, pursuant to liberty reserved by the High Court, is not barred by limitation and must be decided on merits.
Manharlal Shivlal Panchal v. Nayab Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer
The Supreme Court held that the six-month limitation under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for filing a reference is mandatory but reckoned from dismissal of the last remedy, allowing the appellants’ reference filed within six months thereafter to be adjudicated on merits.
Manharlal Shivlal Panchal & Others v. The Deputy Collector & Special Land Acquisition Officer & Others
The Supreme Court held that a reference for enhancement of compensation filed within six months of dismissal of a writ petition with liberty reserved is not barred by limitation under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and remitted the matter for adjudication on merits.
Uttar Pradesh State v. Karunesh Kumar and Others
The Supreme Court held that the special 1978 Rules prevail over the 2015 Rules in recruitment to Gram Panchayat Adhikari posts and candidates who accept recruitment results cannot later challenge the process.
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that the later statutory 2015 Rules override the earlier 1978 Rules, denying unsuccessful candidates a waiting list benefit and upholding the recruitment process conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission.
Uttar Pradesh State v. Karunesh Kumar and Others
The Supreme Court held that the 2015 recruitment rules and UPSSSC rules override the 1978 Rules for Group C posts, barring candidates from challenging the finalized recruitment process after acceptance.
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that the 2015 recruitment rules override the 1978 special rules, no waiting list exists under the 2015 Rules, and candidates who participated in the process cannot later challenge it, thereby restoring the State's valid recruitment process.