Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Usha Kakade v. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd.
Appeals against orders in enforcement proceedings under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are not maintainable under the Commercial Courts Act or CPC, and the maintainability issue is conclusively settled by res judicata.
Pramod Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction for forgery under Sections 467 and 468 IPC, emphasizing cautious reliance on handwriting expert evidence supported by corroborative proof.
Pramod Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The court upheld the appellant's conviction for forgery under Sections 467 and 468 IPC based on corroborated expert and circumstantial evidence but reduced the sentence considering the case's facts and delay.
Shiv Developers v. Aksharay Developers
The Supreme Court held that Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act bars suits by unregistered firms only when enforcing contractual rights arising from business dealings, and does not bar suits enforcing statutory or common law rights including those based on fraud.
Hiraman Yashwant Kathe & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that disputes over compensation fixed by agreement under Section 33(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act cannot be referred under Section 34, and the 2013 Act applies only to compensation determined unilaterally by the Collector.
Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court directed Maharashtra to comply with Supreme Court mandates and statutory obligations under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, ensuring effective child protection through proper staffing, functioning, and monitoring of all related authorities and institutions.
Dr. Prabal Pal v. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Ors.
The Delhi High Court partly allowed the writ petition by quashing the second Article of Charge for lack of actionable misconduct while permitting the disciplinary inquiry to continue on the first charge.
Suryakant Kisan Pawar v. Deputy Collector, Mumbai and Presiding Officer Parents and Senior Citizens Subsistence Tribunal, Mumbai City; Kusum Kisan Pawar
The Bombay High Court upheld the eviction of a son unlawfully occupying his senior citizen mother's tenement under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, affirming the Tribunal's protective jurisdiction.
MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. TIRUPATI TRADING COMPANY
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition to refer disputes under a loan agreement to arbitration, holding that unilateral appointment clauses are unenforceable and arbitration must proceed under institutional rules.
GENESISINFRATECHPVTLTD v. TARUNPURI
The Delhi High Court directed disputes arising from loan and sale agreements to arbitration while allowing concurrent criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act to continue.
Girish Sahakari Griharachana Sanstha Maryadit v. Mallikarjun Madhavrao Navande
The court held that refusal of membership in a co-operative society must be based on statutory or bye-law grounds and cannot be justified by alleged unauthorized construction, breach of land use conditions, or contractual clauses absent express statutory disqualification.
Yedage Vishnu Baba v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that the Minister exceeded jurisdiction by reviewing his own order without new evidence or error apparent on record, setting aside the review order and upholding the original restoration of licenses.
Chandralok (B) CHS Ltd. v. Manish Rajnikant Jaitha & Ors.
The High Court upheld the trial court's order allowing impleadment of legal heirs after death of a plaintiff, condoning delay in substitution application under Order 22 CPC and Limitation Act to ensure adjudication on merits.
PURI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
The Delhi High Court held that payments of External Development Charges to Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran attract TDS under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, making the petitioners liable for tax deduction and penalty proceedings.
Dhananjay Shivram Mapare and Ors. v. Vilas Eknath Kapre and Ors.
The High Court allowed the revision to reject a vexatious suit filed to challenge a final partition decree, holding that no real cause of action existed and the plaint was liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Nishant Karsan Bhagat v. The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.
The Court upheld CIDCO's authority to allot lands prior to publication of the NMMC's Draft Development Plan and dismissed petitions challenging such allotments and State Government directives protecting them.
Indira Gandhi National Open University v. Dr. T.R Srinivasan
The Delhi High Court held that administrative staff of IGNOU are not "teachers" under the Act and Statutes and thus not entitled to superannuation at 65 years or Career Advancement Scheme benefits, setting aside the Single Judge's contrary decision based on an invalid Ordinance.
Vitthalrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court remanded the issue of EMI deduction for determining sugarcane revenue sharing price for 2016-2017 to the statutory Board for fresh consideration in light of subsequent policy developments.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. R.D. Sharma
The Supreme Court held that a pensioner retiring before post upgradation under amended service rules is not entitled to retrospective pension benefits of the upgraded post, rejecting the application of 'equal pay for equal work' in such cases.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. R.D. Sharma
The Supreme Court held that a pensioner retired before post upgradation under the 2008 Rules is not entitled to the upgraded apex scale pension, rejecting the application of 'equal pay for equal work' retrospectively.