Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Mehboob Ayub Khan & Ors. v. Afzal Khan & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that a subsequent suit filed without prior leave under Order II Rule 2 CPC on the same cause of action is barred, and dismissed the High Court suit challenging a Will for non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements.
Ashish Nandwana v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Ashish Nandwana for murder, rejecting the defense claim of accidental injury based on credible forensic and medical evidence disproving accidental fall and affirming the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Pardeep Dev v. State
The Delhi High Court held that absence of threat or harm to the kidnapped child negated Section 364A IPC, but upheld convictions for kidnapping for ransom and conspiracy under Sections 363 and 120B IPC, modifying the sentence accordingly.
Pardeep Dev v. State; Vishnu Vishwas v. State
The Delhi High Court modified the appellants' conviction from kidnapping with threat under Section 364A IPC to kidnapping for ransom under Section 363 IPC and conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, sentencing them to the period already served.
Bhanuchandra J. Doshi v. M/s. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd. & M/s. R. Natwarlal Parekh Securities P. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court upheld arbitral awards under NSE bye-laws, holding the three-month deadline for awards is directory and rejecting claims of delay, back-dating, and unauthorized trades.
Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain v. State of Gujarat
The Supreme Court acquitted appellants for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC due to lack of evidence proving their common intention and participation in the crime.
Narhari Chandrayya Kanda v. Heren Damji Gala
The Bombay High Court affirmed that tenancy rights devolve on legal heirs absent eviction or surrender, and the Court of Small Causes has exclusive jurisdiction over tenancy and possession suits under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
Neeta Shivaji Tekawade v. The Director; The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that the petitioner qualified for reservation under the sportsperson category as per the Government Resolution and quashed her appointment cancellation and related orders, directing reinstatement.
Kripal Singh v. State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction of Kripal Singh based on reliable ocular and medical evidence despite acquittal of co-accused, emphasizing cautious appraisal of evidence and rejecting rigid application of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus.
Kripal Singh v. State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction of Kripal Singh based on reliable sole eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical and recovery evidence, rejecting the plea that acquittal of co-accused undermined his guilt.
The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai v. Vidyavatidevi Ramnarayan Sahani
The Bombay High Court upheld the quashing of a vague Section 354A notice issued by the Municipal Corporation for unauthorized repairs, emphasizing the mandatory requirement to pass a reasoned order upon receipt of a reply.
Pravin Girish Chamaria & Nishit Bechar Patel v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that disputes over apportionment of land acquisition compensation must be referred by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Civil Court, quashing the order directing disbursal to individual partners.
Punjab & Sind Bank v. Nand Lal Phatnani
The Delhi High Court upheld that departmental proceedings against pensioners cannot be initiated for events older than four years under Regulation 48(2) of the Punjab & Sind Bank Pension Regulations, dismissing the bank's appeal.
Punjab & Sind Bank v. Nand Lal Phatnani
The Delhi High Court upheld that departmental proceedings against pensioners cannot be initiated for events older than four years under Punjab & Sind Bank Pension Regulations, dismissing the bank's appeals.
Punjab & Sind Bank v. Nand Lal Phatnani
The Delhi High Court held that departmental proceedings against pensioners cannot be initiated for misconduct occurring more than four years prior, upholding the limitation under Regulation 48(2) of the Punjab & Sind Bank Pension Regulations.
Punjab & Sind Bank v. Nand Lal Phatnani
The Delhi High Court upheld that departmental proceedings against pensioners cannot be initiated for events older than four years under Punjab & Sind Bank Pension Regulations, dismissing the bank's appeal.
Punjab & Sind Bank v. Nand Lal Phatnani
The Delhi High Court upheld that departmental proceedings against pensioners are barred if initiated more than four years after the alleged misconduct under Regulation 48(2) of Punjab & Sind Bank Pension Regulations, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of UP v. Krishna Pandey.
Bharti Infratel Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Another
The Delhi High Court held that reassessment beyond four years under Section 147 is invalid if the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all material facts, and reopening on mere change of opinion is impermissible.