Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
M/S. M.S.P.L. LIMITED v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of land acquisition under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 for industrial projects, emphasizing strict procedural compliance and public purpose, and dismissed challenges based on environmental clearance and acquisition for single companies.
S. Vasanthi & Anr. v. M/s Adhiparasakthi Engg College & Anr.
The Supreme Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim by fixing a higher notional income based on the deceased student's employment prospects and applying established principles for future prospects and personal expenses deductions.
M/s. ASHOKA INVESTMENT CO. v. M/s. UNITED TOWERS INDIA (PVT.) LTD.
The Supreme Court held that a purchaser of flats is a consumer entitled to refund with contractual interest where possession is not delivered and cancelled unlawfully, enhancing interest from 9% to 18% per annum.
M/s. ASHOKA INVESTMENT CO. v. M/s. UNITED TOWERS INDIA (PVT.) LTD.
The Supreme Court held that a purchaser under an agreement to sell is a consumer entitled to refund with contractual interest at 18% per annum upon unlawful cancellation and non-delivery of possession.
Dashrathbhai Tritrakambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel
The court held that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies only if a legally enforceable debt exists at cheque presentation, and partial payment before presentation negates criminal liability for cheque dishonour.
Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr.
The Supreme Court held that Section 138 offence arises only if the dishonoured cheque represents the legally enforceable debt at presentation, and part payments must be endorsed on the cheque, dismissing the appeal against acquittal where part payment reduced the debt.
Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not apply if the cheque represents a debt partially discharged before presentation, and the legal notice must specify the cheque amount to be valid.
Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr.
The Supreme Court held that Section 138 offence arises only if the cheque dishonoured represents the legally enforceable debt at presentation, and part payments must be endorsed on the cheque, dismissing the appeal against acquittal where part payment reduced the debt.
Vijay Rajmohan v. State
The Supreme Court held that consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission before granting sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act is lawful and that the mandatory three-month time limit for sanction must be observed, but delay does not automatically quash prosecution; instead, the sanctioning authority is accountable.
Vijay Rajmohan v. State
The Supreme Court held that consulting the Central Vigilance Commission does not vitiate sanction for prosecution if the appointing authority applies independent mind, and that the statutory time limit for sanction is mandatory but delay does not automatically quash proceedings.
State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that only the Chancellor has the power to appoint or re-appoint the Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University, and the State government's re-appointment order was invalid and set aside.
Ashok Trikha v. Munesh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and granted interim injunction restraining transfer of disputed property upon finding fresh cause of action and satisfaction of interim relief tests after dismissal of an earlier similar application.
M/S HERO MOTOCORP LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing revenue instructions and communications that prohibited the petitioner ISD from transitioning accumulated unutilized CENVAT credit under Section 140 of the CGST Act.
Pritam Priyatosh Swain v. State NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 25 Arms Act against a student found with ammunition at the airport, holding that unintentional possession supported by evidence and absence of criminal history justified quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Combitic Global Caplet Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition directing refund of customs duty drawback under the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 without requiring actual duty-paid documents where CENVAT credit was availed, reading down the impugned provisions accordingly.
Sudeep Chatterjee v. Shailly Prabha
The Delhi High Court directed the trial court to expeditiously decide the petitioner’s pending application under Order XV-A read with Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC concerning rent arrears.
Shaukatali Abdulsalem Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the conviction under Section 397 IPC due to lack of evidence of grievous hurt, upheld the conviction under Section 392 IPC based on recovery of stolen property, and reduced the sentence accordingly.
Gali Janardhan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Supreme Court upheld bail conditions restricting the accused's movement to prevent witness tampering and directed the trial court to conduct the trial expeditiously, dismissing the accused's application to relax these conditions.
Gali Janardhan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Supreme Court upheld bail conditions restricting the accused's movement to prevent witness tampering, directed expeditious trial, and allowed temporary limited relief for family reasons.
Garg Builders v. Hindustan Prefab Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that failure of a designated authority to appoint an arbitrator does not preclude court appointment under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, and pre-arbitral protocols must be exhausted before invoking arbitration.