• Judgments-A

  • A | B | D | E | F | G | H | I | | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z  

    Judgments-Index

    • A. Ayyasamy Vs A. Paramasivam & Ors.- Civil Appeal Nos. 8245-8246 OF 2016- SC-04.10.2016- Arbitration & Conciliation [Full PDF Judgment-I | Full PDF Judgment-II].  
    • Abati Bezbaruuah V. Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India-Appeal (Civil)  5193- 1997- SC-14.02.2003- Citation- AIR 2003 SC 1817- Interest- Held that interest is a compensation for forbearance from detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools Vs. Directorate Of Education - W.P.-C- 448 Of 2016 -Delhc-04.02.2016 [Full PDF Judgment]- Second Round Of Litigation- Directorate Of Education Vs. Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools - Lpa 89 Of 2016 - Delhc- 16.02.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. B. K. Jha and another- SC-09.02.1987- Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1987- 1987 AIR 725- 1987 SCC (2) 22- Preventive Detention- Detenu- Constitutional and Statutory safeguards- Successive detentions- Validity of- Whether the section be read down so that it does not offend the mandate of Article 22(4) of the Constitution-Procedural requirements stricts compliance of, reiterated [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Abdulla Versus State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi), Bail Appln. No. 72 of 2015- DHC-30-01-2015., Bench: Manmohan Singh, J, Delhi High Court- Proclaimed offender not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Abdulrahim Abdulmiya Pirzada & 1 Other Versus State Of Gujarat & 2 Others, Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 3993 of 2014,  Judgment Dated: 21.01.2016, Bench: J.B.Pardiwala, JJ, Gujrat High Court-Issue, maintenance rights of the wife against her in-laws- Held, "From the principles enunciated in the above referred decisions, it is apparent that any right which the wife has during the subsistence of her marriage and during the lifetime of her husband is against the husband and she has no right to claim any relief against the father-in-law or sister-in-law or any of the relatives of her husband inasmuch as the obligation to maintain her lies only on her husband. The complaint in question, therefore, appears to have been filed with the malafide intention to wreak vengeance for the purpose of settling personal scores and would fall within the ambit of Illustration (7) of the Illustrations delineated by the Supreme Court in the celebrated case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, viz. that the proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. For the aforesaid reasons, this application is allowed. The impugned order is hereby ordered to be quashed so far as the applicants are concerned. ". [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Abhiram Singh Vs. C.D. Commachen (Dead) By Lrs.& Ors.- Civil Appeal No - 37 Of 1992-02.01.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Abhishek Shukla Vs. High Court Of Judicature, Allahabad, AllHC-08.11.2017- Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 13243 of 2017- Encroachment- Unauthorised Construction- Religious freedom guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of Constitution [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Abrar Ali [Central Industrial Security Force Vs. Abrar Ali]- Civil Appeal No. 2148 of 2015-SC-14.12.2016- (2017) 4 SCC 507- Courts are not supposed to act as an appellate court- Reassessing of the evidence led in the domestic Inquiry not permissible- Ground that another view is possible on the material on record not permissible- Grounds available for challenge- (i) Inquiry not held fairly and properly- (ii) The findings based on no evidence- (iii) Question of adequacy of the evidence not open for reassessment- (iv) Perverse Findings- The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, based on the material on record- (v) Observance of the Principles of natural justice- (vi) violation of statutory regulations- (vii) If, the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, malafide or based on extraneous considerations- (viii) Penalty of dismissal from service disproportionate with the delinquency [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari Vs. State of Maharashtra and another- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 990 OF 2006-SC-10.09.2010-Citation-2011-11-SCC-214- Extradition Treaty [Full PDF Judgment].  
    • Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal- SC-25.08.2004- Appeal (Crl.) 91 of 2002- AIR 2004 SC 4674- Quashing-Crl. Complaint-Cheating Case- Summoning Order- The Only remedy against summoning order u/s 204 Cr.P.C. for the accused is to invoke the inherent power of the High Court- Held: “Hence in the absence of any review power or inherent power with the subordinate criminal courts, the remedy lies in invoking Section 482 of Code.”- Issue, the Appellant were summoned by a Magistrate in a Criminal Complaint under sections 120A, 120B, 405, 406, 415, 420, 463, 465 and 468 of the IPC.- Being aggrieved by the said order of issuance of process the appellant and some of the accused moved the Delhi High Court and the High Court in the said petition directed the petitioners therein to move the trial court against the order of summoning.- Pursuant to the said order of the High Court the appellant herein filed an application purported to be under section 203 Cr.P.C. and the learned trial Judge recalled the said summons- The said order of the learned Magistrate recalling the summons originally issued by him was challenged before the High Court on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to recall a summons issued under section 204 of the Code. The High Court by the impugned order has allowed the revision petition holding that while the trial court was justified in taking cognizance of the offences punishable under section 420 read with 120B IPC it erred in recalling the consequential summons issued because the said court did not have the power to review its own order.- Cases on which reliance made & referred to: K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala & Anr., 1992 1 SCC 217.- The correctness of the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Mathew’s case was considered and decided in this Case. This bench was unable to agree with the legal proposition, as laid down in Mathew’s Case. The Courts observations were as follows: “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the judgment of this Court in the case of Mathew (supra) we are unable to agree with the law laid down by this Court in the said case. If we analyse the reasons given by this Court in the said case of Mathew then we notice that the said view is based on the following facts : (a) The jurisdiction of the Magistrate to issue process arises only if the complaint contains the allegations involving the commission of a crime;(b) If the process is issued without there being an allegation in the complaint involving the accused in the commission of a crime it is open to the summoned accused to approach the court issuing summons and convince the court that there is no such allegation in the complaint which requires his summoning; (c) For so recalling the order of summons no specific provision of law is required.”.- Held, “It is true that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, issues process without there being any allegation against the accused or any material implicating the accused or in contravention  of provision of Sections 200  & 202, the order of the Magistrate may be vitiated, but then the relief an aggrieved accused can obtain at that stage is not by invoking section 203 of the Code because the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate a review of an order. Hence in the absence  of any review power or inherent  power  with the subordinate  criminal courts, the remedylies  in invoking  Section 482 of Code. Therefore,  in our opinion the observation of this Court in the case of Mathew (supra) that for recalling an order of issuance of process erroneously, no specific provision of law is required would run counter to the Scheme  of the Code which has not provided  for review  and prohibits interference at inter-locutory stages.  Therefore, we are of the opinion, that the view of this Court  in Mathew’s case (supra) that no specific  provision is required  for recalling an erroneous  order, amounting to one without jurisdiction,  does not lay down the correct law. In view of our  above conclusion, it is  not necessary for us to go into the question whether order issuing a process amounts to an interim order or not."[Full PDF Judgments].
    • Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors. - Writ Petition- Civil - No. 129 Of 2018 - SC - 16.12.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Adarsh Raj Singh Vs. Bar Council Of India- W.P.(C) 5062 Of 2018-DelHC-06.07.2018- Issue, Shortage of attendance [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar Vs. Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi- Appeal (Civil) 6534-6536 of 1995-SC-06.11.2001-Matrimonial- Desertion- What is? [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Adil Vs. State- CRL.M.C. 4159 Of 2009- DelHC-20.09.2010- DV Act Complaint- Maintainability- Enforcement of property rights-DV Act cannot be resorted-Resort to Domestic Violence Act can be done only where there is urgent requirement of wife to be maintained and provided residence when because of domestic violence, she had been rendered homeless and she had lost source of maintenance--Legal rights of property cannot be enforced by DV Act--No proof of domestic relationship--MM shall record evidence first and decide whether a domestic relationship existed between the parties and whether the applicant fell within the scope of `aggrieved person' [Full PDF Judgment].
    • ADM [Additional District Magistrate], Jabalpur Vs. S. S. Shukla- SC-28.04.1976- 1976 AIR 1207 1976=1976 SCC (2) 521- 1976 SCR 172- Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj) Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj) Khanna, Hans Raj Beg, M. Hameedullah Chandrachud, Y.V. Bhagwati, P.N., Jj, Supreme Court Of India- Quashing-MISA, 1971- Issues, Locus standi to move habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India-effect of the Presidential order dared June 27 1975- Constitution of India Articles 19 21 25, 226 and 359(1A).) read with Maintenance Of Internal Security Act (Act 26 of 1971),1971, section 3- Remedy way of writ petition to challenge the legality of an order of detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act is not open to a detenu during the emergency. Maintenance of Internal Security Act (Act 26 of 1971), 1971 Section 16A(9) is a rule of evidence and constitutionally valid-Not open to challenge oh the ground of any violation of Part III of the Constitution fn view of the provisions of article 359(1A). Maintenance of Internal Security Act (Act 26 of 1971), 1971-Section 18 applies to all orders of detention a valid piece of legislation and docs not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation Not open to challenge on the ground of the theory of basic structure re. Constitution of India-Article 21 is the sole repository of rights to life and liberty. Constitution of India Articles 358 and 359-Distinction between. Constitution of India Articles 20 and 21-Difference between. Disclosure to court section 16A(9) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (Act 26 of 1971) 1971 is an exception and constitutes an encroachment. on the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Eclipse theory of-Applicability to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Art. 359(1). Good return theory of-Not applicable to the practiced of Indian courts. Obiter dictum-When a decision] becomes an obiter dictum. Constitution of India article 256-Non-compliance with Article 256 by the State-Grievance at the instance of a private party not entertainable by courts. Rule Of Law-Constitution itself is the rule of law and the mandate. Judicial review-scope of during the period of emergency. Constitution of India Article 12-whether State Includes judiciary. Constitution of India 372-Law in force whether includes laws included fn Part 111 of the Con Construction of Article 372. Maintenance of Internal Security Act (Act 26 of 1971) 1971 Section 16 Leaves open a remedy by way of a suit for damages for wrongful confinement scope of Section. 16 173 Basic structure theory-Constitution of India Article 368-Emergency provisions themselves are to be regarded as the basic structure of the Constitution. objects of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (Act 26 of 1971), 1971 and the Amending Acts 31 of 1975 and 14 of 1976 thereto Presidential order under Art 359(1) and Martial Law under Articles 23 and 73 of the Constitution-Distinction Constitution of India Art. 359(1) 359(1A) 53 and 73 read with Art. 355 scope of. Constitution of India Article 226-extent of the powers of inquiry by the High Courts in a petition for writ of habeas corpus when once a prima facie valid detention order is shown to exist. Rule of law Concept of is inapplicable to emergency provisions since the emergency provisions themselves contain the rule of law for such situations. Separation of powers-Principles of-Preventive detention being placed exclusively within the control of the Executive authorities of the State for the duration ,. Of the emergency does not violate any principle of separation of powers. ’ Basic structure theory is nothing more than a mode of construction of documents of the Constitution. Jurisdiction of courts under Articles 136 and 226- Nature of. Constitution of India Articles 34 and 359, effect Whether powers of the courts to issue writ of habeas corpus during the period of Martial Law are taken away,. Rule of construction-decision of the Supreme Court and the other high judicial authorities-constitution of India Article 141 explained. Rights under s. 8 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (Act 26 of 1971), 1971-Nature of vis-a-vis rights under Constitution of India Article 22(5)-Rights under Article 22(5) do not bar the enforcement of right under Reflection theory of is not applicable to 5. 8 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (Act 26 of 1971), 1971. Practice-Place of dissent in the court of last resortdesirability of unanimity among judges Constitution of India Article 141. Fundamental Rights-object of guaranteed Fundamental Right. Natural justice Rules of law being on the same footing as Fundamental Rights do not override the express terms of a statute.- Maxims: (1) Expression Facit cessare tacitum"- Applicability to Art. 21 of the Constitution. (ii) Ut res magis valeat quam pereat . (iii)Salus populi est supreme le.- Words and phrases: (a) Purported to be made under s. 3" in s. 18 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (Act 26 of 1971), 1971. (b) For any other purpose in Art. 226 of the Constitution-meaning of. (c) Conferred by Part III of the Constitution in Art. 359(1)-Intent- HELD . (Per majority A.N. Ray C.J. M.H. Beg. Y.V. Chandrachud and P.N. Bhagwati JJ.) (Khanna, J. dissenting): (1) In view of the Presidential Order. Dated June 27, 1975, under Clause (1) of Art. 359. no person has any locus standi to move any writ petition under Art 226 before a High Court for habeas corpus or any other writ or order or direction to challenge the legality of an order. Of detention on the ground that the order is not under or in compliance with the Act or is illegal or is vitiated by mala fides factual or legal or is based on extraneous considerations. [477 E-F]. (2) Section 16A(9) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 is constitutionally valid. [477 F] (3) Section 18 of the Maintenance of’ Internal Security Act, 1971 is not invalid. [240 A-D, 342 F-G, 414 D] 176 (4)Article 21 of the Constitution is the sole repository of rights to life and personal liberty against State. [246 B] [Full PDF Judgments]. 
    • A G C R Co-Op Housing Building Society Ltd Vs. Pankaj Kumar- FAO 426 of 2016- DelHC-08.01.2018-Commissioner under Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923- Held, the employment must be a contributory cause (solely or in addition to a disease) or acceleratory cause of injury or death, Cases referred,-Jyothi Ademma Vs. Plant Engineer, Nellore- 2006 (5) SCC 513 [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing Cum-Processing Service Society Limited, ______, (1999) 6 SCC 82- Issue, period of limitation in ID Act/ Labour Cases- ―It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • A Jayachandra Vs. Aneel Kaur- Appeal-Civil-7763-7764 of 2004-SC-02.12.2004-Citation- 2005-2-SCC-22- AIR 2005 SC 534- Divorce- HMA- S-13(1)(a)- Held, “….legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other.”- Further held, the cruelty should be “grave and weighty” and that too of such a nature that “the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse”. – Further held, “…It must be something more serious than “ordinary wear and tear of married life” and “..The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law.” [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Ajay Bansal Versus Anup Mehra & Others, Civil Appeal No.230 of 2007, Judgment Dated-16.01.2007, Bench: S B Sinha & Markandey Katju, JJ, Supreme Court Of India AIR 2007 SC 909 [Full PDF Judgment]- Application U/A-227 of Constitution against the Order dismissing application for "Leave to defend" not tenable, as the said order is Appealable U/S-96 CPC.- "Theory of dependent order does not apply- The Supreme Court however directed the High Court to convert the instant Petition into Appeal to avoid further multiplicity of litigation [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ajay Bhardwaj Vs. Jyotsna and others - Crl. Revision No. -F- 166 of 2015 -O&M- P&HHC - 23.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ajay Maken-Vs.- UOI-10.08.2016-W.P.(C) No.6681/2015- (2015) 7 SCC 1- Kejriwal Ads-Government Advertisement Guidelines, 2014 [PDF Judgment]
    • Ajaysingh Kuvarsingh Dahiya Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.- Criminal Writ Petition NO. 5301 OF 2017- BomHC- 18.06.2018- Issue, Prison Conditions in India- Rights of Prisoners/ Inmates/ Detainees/ Accused- Observed: "It is the duty of the State to take care of the petitioner who is in their custody"- The Following directions were also issued: "Prison Authorities and the State will continue to provide necessary medicines, injections and treatment to the petitioner free of cost and if found necessary, the petitioner will be admitted in the hospital".- Cases referred to and relied upon- Pt. Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India and ors. - (1989) 4 SCC 286-  Rama Murthy vs. State of Karnataka – (1997) 2 SCC 642- Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons – (2017) 10 SCC 658 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • A K Balaji [Bar Council Of India [BCI] Vs. A K Balaji]- Foreign law firms/companies or foreign lawyers- Cannot practice profession of law in India either in the litigation or in nonlitigation side- there was no bar for the foreign law firms or foreign lawyers to visit India for a temporary period on a “fly in and fly out” basis for the purpose of giving legal advice to their clients in India regarding foreign law or their own system of law and on diverse international legal issues. We hold that the expression “fly in and fly out” will only cover a casual visit not amounting to “practice” [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Akshay Chaudhary & Anr. Versus University Of Delhi & Anr.- W.P.(C) No.1897 of 2010- DelHC-08.09.2010- School & College- Ragging- Rustication [Full PDF Judgment].
    • A.L.A. FIRM Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS- Civil Appeal No. 570 of 1976- SC-21.02.1991- Citation-1989-189-ITR-285-SC=1991-SCR -1- 624= 1991 SCC-2- 558- Held, in the case of dissolution of a partnership firm, if the business is discontinued then stock-in-trade has to be valued at market price only [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj & Others Versus Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly & Another, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 455 OF 2015, Judgment Dated: 12.02.2016, Bench: J. Chelameswar & Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Sought a writ of order declaring the resolution passed in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, as unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.- Further pleaded, the petitioners’ fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution have been violated by the impugned resolution- Also pleaded, the term ‘occupation’ under Article 19(1)(g) is of the widest amplitude, and includes the office of a member of legislative assembly.- Held, “24. In T.M.A Pai Foundation (supra) , this court held that “Article 19(1)(g) employs four expressions viz. profession, occupation, trade and business. … Article 19(1)(g) uses the four expressions so as to cover all activities of a citizen in respect of which income or profit is generated, and which can consequently be regulated under Article 19(1)(6)”. The amplitude of the term ‘occupation’ is limited by the economic imperative of livelihood generation. Therefore, all the activities contemplated under Article 19(1)(g) are essentially activities which enable a citizen to generate economic benefits. The primary purpose and thrust of Article 19(1)(g) is to generate economic benefit and to protect the fruits of one’s labour. 25. The right to contest an election to the legislative bodies established by the Constitution is held not to be a fundamental right. Therefore, logically it would be difficult to accept the submission that the right to participate in the proceedings of the legislative bodies can be a fundamental right falling under Article 19(1)(g). No citizen is entitled as of right either to become or continue for the whole lifetime as member of a legislative assembly. Acquisition of the membership depends on the decision of the electorate and is conferred by a process established by law. Even after election, the tenure is limited. Fundamental rights do not come into existence upon the volition of others. They inhere in the citizens and are capable of being exercised independently without the need for any action or approval of others subject only to the restrictions imposed by law. Any member of a legislative assembly holds office until such membership comes to an end by some process established by law. Constitutional offices commencing from the office of the President of India are meant for and established for securing the goals adumbrated in the preamble to the Constitution. Each of these offices is a component in larger machinery established to make it possible for the people of this country to realise the goals indicated in the preamble of the Constitution. Any monetary benefit incidental to the holding of such offices is only to compensate for the time and energy expended by the holder of the office in the service of the nation. It is for this very reason that a member of a legislative assembly cannot be treated as holding office for the purpose of eking out a livelihood. 26. The economic underpinnings of an ‘occupation’ under Article 19(1)(g) and the transient and incidental nature of economic benefits flowing from the office of a legislator must inevitably lead to the conclusion that a member of the legislative assembly cannot be treated as pursuing an ‘occupation’ under Article 19(1)(g). We, therefore, reject the contention that the issue at hand involves the rights of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g).” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • A L Agarwal Versus Delhi University, CIC/RM/A/2014/000313­SA, Judgment Dated: 09.12.2015, Bench: Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), IC- Copy of the complaint lodged any victim, alleging sexual harassment, as also other related documents, if any,  got to be supplied to the Accused under RTI. The excuse that disclosing identity of complainant to the accused would endanger the life of complainant is irrelevant & wrong [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Allianz Convergence Private Limited Vs State Bank Of India- SARFAESI Act 2002 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Allokam Peddabbayya And Another Vs. Allahabad Bank And Others - Civil Appeal        Nos. 2763-2764 Of 2008 - SC - 19.06.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Alok Kumar Jain  Vs. Purnima Jain- CM(M) No.367 Of 2007- DHC- 17.04.2007- 2007(96) DRJ 115- Matrimonial- maintenance, pendentelite- What factors to be taken in account [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Amandeep Singh Johar Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr- W.P.-C- 7608 Of 2017 - DelHC- 07.02.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur- SC- 12.09.2017- Civil Appeal No. 11158 Of 2017- Issue, whether the minimum period of six months stipulated under Section-13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a motion for passing decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent is mandatory or directory, and whether the same can be relaxed in exceptional situations- Held, “18…where the Court dealing with a matter is satisfied that a case is made out to waive the statutory period under Section 13B(2), it can do so after considering the following : (i) the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself; (ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA Rule 3 CPC/Section 23(2) of the Act/Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts; (iii) the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties; (iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony. 19. The waiver application can be filed one week after the first motion giving reasons for the prayer for waiver. 20. If the above conditions are satisfied, the waiver of the waiting period for the second motion will be in the discretion of the concerned Court. 21. Since we are of the view that the period mentioned in Section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directory, it will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation. 22. Needless to say that in conducting such proceedings the Court can also use the medium of video conferencing and also permit genuine representation of the parties through close relations such as parents or siblings where the parties are unable to appear in person for any just and valid reason as may satisfy the Court, to advance the interest of justice.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Amarmani Tripathi-State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi- Appeal - Crl.- 1248 of 2005-SC-26.09.2005-Citation- 2005- 8- SCC-21- Bail [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Amarsang Nathaji As Himself And As Karta And Manager Vs. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel And Others - Civil Appeal No. 11120 Of 2016 - SC- 23.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State Of Gujarat- Civil Appeal Nos. 4250-4251 of 1986-SC-11.12.1986-1987 AIR 1073-1987 SCC (1) 213- Interpretation of Statutes- Interpretation must sub-serve and help implement intention of Act- Constitution of India-Art.-141- Precedent--Ratio of a decision to be understood in the background of facts of the case- Observed, the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ambrish Kumar Shukla Versus Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No. 97 Of 2016, Judgment Dated: 07.10.2016, Bench: D.K. Jain, President, V.K. Jain, Dr. B.C. Gupta, JJ, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- Consumer Protection Act- Consumer Complaint under Section 12(1)(c).- Maintainability of Class Action Suits.
    • Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   1407 OF 2012-SC-13.09.2012-Citation-2012-9-SCC-460- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC- Relative scope of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C.- Held, "17. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless the accused is discharged under Section 227 of the Code. Under both these provisions, the court is required to consider the "record of the case" and documents submitted therewith and, after hearing the parties, may either discharge the accused or where it appears to the court and in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the facts and ingredients of the section exists, then the court would be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed against the accused and frame the charge accordingly [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Amit Kumar Vs. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi- Bail Application No.848 Of 2014, Order Dated-14.10.2014, Bench- Sunita Gupta, J, High Court Of Delhi [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors.- Criminal Appeal Nos. 1171 Of 2016-SC-02.02.2017- S-173(8) CrPC [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ananthesh Bhakta Represented By Mother Usha A.Bhakta Vs. Nayana S. Bhakta & Ors.- Civil Appeal No.10837 Of 2016 - Sc - 15.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraja- Civil Appeal No. 5387 OF 2014- SC-07.05.2014- (2014) 7 SCC 547- The cruel and torturous practice of “Jallikattu”, held to be illegal and unconstitutional [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Anil Grover, Dr. Medical Council Of India Vs.  Dr Anil Grover & Ors .- LPA 577 Of  2017-DelHC-27.10.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Anil Kumar Shrivastava Versus Shaurya Sunil, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.718 of 2016, Judgment Dated- 20.01.2016, I. A. Ansari, ACJ., & Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J, Patna High Court [Full PDF Judgment].- Whether a Division Bench of a High Court can exercise its power of superintendence, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against an order made, in a suit, by a Single Bench? [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Anil Sharma [State Rep. By The C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma- SC-03.09.1997- Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das - Transfer Petition-Civil-No. 191 Of 2005-SC-29.08.2005 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Anju Choudhary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh- SC-13.12.2012- Criminal Appeal No. 2039 OF 2012- 2013- Cr.L.J. 776- S-156(3)-CrPC-Applicability of the Rule of Audi Alteram Partem- Accused is not entitled to hearing prior to registration of the FIR [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ankathil Ajayakumar [State Of Kerala Vs. Ankathil Ajayakumar]- WA Nos. - 2012, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018 & 2163 Of 2016 - KelHC-30.08.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ankit Sharma Versus Versus
Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar and another, Civil Writ Petition No.11226 of 2005, Judgment Dated: 01.08.2016, Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia, JJ, Punjab & Haryana High Court- Consumer Law- Issue, Education- Consumer Matter with regard to refund of Case: Held, admission brochure or the prospectus has a force of law which is to be strictly followed. The following Judgments were referred to and relied upon: Amardeep Singh Sahota Vs. State of Punjab 1993(4) S.C.T. 328; Raj Singh Vs. Maharishi Dayanand University 1994(2) S.C.T. 766; Sachin Gaur Vs. Punjabi University 1996(1) S.C.T. 837; Rahul Prabhakar Vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar 1997(3) S.C.T. 526; Indu Gupta Vs. Director of Sports, Punjab 1999(4) S.C.T. 113; and Rupinder Singh and others Vs. The Punjab State Board of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Chandigarh and others 2001(2) S.C.T. 726.- Finding of this Case: Refund denied.
    • Annie Nagaraja And Ors. Versus Union Of India & Ors., W.P(C) 7336/2010, Judgment Dated- 04.09.2015, Kailash Gambhir & Najmi Waziri, Delhi High Court- Constitution of India- Art-15- A Case Of sexiest bias against Navy women Officers [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Anokha (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (2004) 1 SCC 382- - Adoption- CARA- HAMA [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Anoop Singh [State Of MP Vs. Anoop Singh]- CrlA- 442 Of 2010- SC-03.07.2015- POSCO- Ocular Evidence, Medical Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Documentary Evidence, Police Investigation- Age Determination [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Ansari Vs. Shiji- Crl.MC.No. 6784 of 2017- KerHC-18.06.2018- DV Act, 2005- S-19 & S-23 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • A. P. Versus M. P., Mat.App. 7/2014, Judgment Dated; 05.01.2016, Bench: Vipin Sanghi, J, Delhi High Court- The Act Of The Husband In Living And Begetting A Child With Another Women Tantamount To Immense Mental Cruelty To Any Wife, In Terms Of Under S-13 (1) (Ia) Of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Hma], And Therefore Forms A Sufficient Ground For Dissolution Of Marriage By A Decree Of Divorce. Such Conduct Also Gives Rise To An Independent Ground For Dissolution Of Marriage By A Decree Of Divorce Under S-13 (1) (I) Of The Hma- High Court Dismissed The Appeal Of The Husband Subject To An Examplinary Cost Of Five [5] Lac.
    • A.R. Antulay Vs. Ramadas Sriniwas Nayak- SC-16.02.1984-1984 (2) SCC 500= 1984 AIR 718- Quashing- Order of summoning- Private Complaint- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections-4, 6,  190, 200,  202, 238- Offences committed by Public Servants- Criminal Jurisdiction shall have all powers except those specifically  excluded. Legislation by in corporation, doctrine applied. [Full PDF Judgments]. 
    • Arial I Kumar Vs Shikha Kumar- FAM No. 103 of 2015- CHHHC- 07.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Arjun Mallik vs. State of Bihar- Criminal Appeal No. 367 of 1992-SC-02.03.1994-Citation-1994 Supp-2-SCC-372=JT 1994-2-627=1994-SCALE-  1-821- Criminal Law- Motive- Held, “mere absence of proof of motive for commission of a crime cannot be a ground to presume the innocence of an accused if the involvement of the accused is otherwise established. But it has to be remembered that in incidents in which the only evidence available is circumstantial evidence then in that event the motive does assume importance if it is established from the evidence on record that the accused had a strong motive and also an opportunity to commit the crime and the established circumstances along with the explanation of the accused, if any, exclude the reasonable possibility of anybody else being the perpetrator of the crime then the chain of evidence may be considered to show that within all human probability the crime must have been committed by the accused.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Arnesh Kumar Vs. State Of Bihar- SC-02.07.2014- Criminal Appeal No. 1277  OF 2014- (2014) 8 SCC 273- Anticipatory Bail- U/S-438 CrPC- Offence- IPC-S-498A- S-4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961- Observed as follows: “There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. “Crime in India 2012 Statistics” published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is a battle between the law makers and the police and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the Cr.PC. It has not come out of its colonial image despite six decades of independence, it is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been emphasized time and again by Courts but has not yielded desired result. Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive. Law Commissions, Police Commissions and this Court in a large number of judgments emphasized the need to maintain a balance between individual liberty and societal order while exercising the power of arrest. Police officers make arrest as they believe that they possess the power to do so. As the arrest curtails freedom, brings humiliation and casts scars forever, we feel differently. We believe that no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-bailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for the police officers to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing, the justification for the exercise of it is quite another. Apart from power to arrest, the police officers must be able to justify the reasons thereof. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness of the allegation. Despite this legal position, the Legislature did not find any improvement. Numbers of arrest have not decreased. Ultimately, the Parliament had to intervene and on the recommendation of the 177th Report of the Law Commission submitted in the year 2001, Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.PC), in the present form came to be enacted. It is interesting to note that such a recommendation was made by the Law Commission in its 152nd and 154th Report submitted as back in the year 1994. The value of the proportionality permeates the amendment relating to arrest. As the offence with which we are concerned in the present appeal, provides for a maximum punishment of imprisonment which may extend to seven years and fine.- No Arrest Guidelines Issued ”- Issue, impending arrest in a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.- Observed, our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the Following direction: (1) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the  parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC; (2) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);(3) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;(4) The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;(5) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;(6) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;(7) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.(8) Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Arti Gujar Vs. State Of  U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home And Anr. - Misc. Bench No. - 22997 Of 2016 - High Court Of Judicature At AllHC-23.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Arun Kumar Agrawal Versus CPIO, SEBI, F.No.CIC/SM/A/2012/001020, Judgment Dated: 28.11.2014, Bench: M.A. Khan Yusufi, IC, Manjula Prasher, IC, Vijai Sharma, IC- The names and addresses of the entities (name of individuals, partners, directors and major shareholders if companies) involved in the short sale of shares of Reliance Petroleum & the name of the brokers cannot be disclosed, as it might impede the ongoing enquiry by SEBI against RIL [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Aruna Rodrigues Vs. Union of India-Writ Petition-Civil- No. 260 of 2005-SC-10.05.2012-Citation-2012-4-SCR-553=2012-5-SCC-331= 2012-5-JT 319=2012-5-SCALE 262=2012-3-Supreme-644-2012-4-SLT-45- Environmental Law- Constitution of India- Article 32- Public interest litigation- Regarding bio-safety concerns- Appointment of expert committee, direction for- Release of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the environment without examining the biosafety concerns- Challenged- Imposition of an absolute ban sought for in release of GMOs- Appointment of Expert Committee to advise on the issue- Parties were ad idem on the constitution of expert committee and terms of reference as suggested in the ministry's meeting dt. 15.3.2011- Directions issued for constitution of Expert Committee- Consent order passed (Para 6).
    • Arun Jaitley Vs. Arvind Kejriwal-DelHC-29.04.2016-CPC-O-VI-R-16- Striking Out Of Pleadings [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Arun Jaitley Vs. Arvind Kejriwal-DelHC-08.02.2016-CPC-O-VII-R-11- Rejection Of Plaint [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Arun Jaitley Vs. State Of U.P., Application U/S 482 No.- 32703 of 2015, Order & Judgment Dated- 05.11.2015: Bench- Honb'le Yashwant Varma, J.- Quashing- Judicial Order & Summoning Order- Allahabad High Court quashes and sets aside Mahoba Judicial Magistrate’s order summoning Finance Minister  Arun Jaitley in a sedition case [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Arushi Talwar-Nupur Talwar-Rajesh Talwar-AllHC-12.10.2017-Crl. Appeal No.-293 of 2014-IPC-S-302-Acquittal.
    • Arvind Kejriwal-Case No.-No.- 6779 of 2016-Lucknow HC-21.10.2016- Quashing of FIR [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Arvind Kejriwal & Ors Versus Amit Sibal & Anr, Crl.M.C. 5245/2013, Judgment Dated: 16.01.2014, Bench: J.R. Midha, J, Delhi High Court- Issue, Challenge To Summoning Order in a defamation Case- Inherent jurisdiction U/S-482 Cr.P.C.of the HC invoked- Issues, a challenged to the summoning order/ Extent & Scope of the Section 199(1) Cr.P.C. "aggrieved person"/ Quashing of criminal complaint/ Personal Exemption from appearing before the Court- Held, “20. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Bhushan Kumar (supra), Krishna Kumar Variar (supra) and Maneka Gandhi (supra) and of this Court in Raujeev Taneja (supra), Urrshila Kerkar (supra) and S.K.Bhalla (supra), the accused are entitled to hearing before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C in all summons cases arising out of complaints and the Magistrate has to frame the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. only upon satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused. However, in the event of the learned Magistrate not finding a prima facie case against the accused, the Magistrate shall discharge/drop the proceedings against the accused. Since there is no express provision or prohibition in this regard in the Code of Criminal Procedure, these directions are being issued in exercise of power under Section 482 read with Section 483 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution to secure the ends of justice; to avoid needless multiplicity of procedures, unnecessary delay in trial/protraction of proceedings; to keep the path of justice clear of obstructions and to give effect to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhushan Kumar (supra), Krishna Kumar Variar (supra) and Maneka Gandhi (supra). 21. Applying the aforesaid principles to this case, the petitioners are permitted to urge the pleas raised in this petition before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. whereupon the learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall consider them and pass a speaking order. The learned Magistrate shall frame the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. only upon satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate shall be empowered to discharge/drop the proceedings against the petitioners if no case is made out against them. Needless to say, if the learned Magistrate chooses to frame notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., the petitioners would be at liberty to avail the remedies as available in law. 22. This petition and the applications are disposed of on the above terms. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the contentions of the parties on merits which shall be considered by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 23. The petitioners seek exemption from personal appearance before the learned Trial Court till the passing of the order on notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. The learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the petitioners should approach the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 Cr.P.C. in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in TGN Kumar v. State of Kerala, (2011) 2 SCC 772 and Narinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 210. In view of the objections raised, the petitioners are directed to file the appropriate application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. for exemption before the Metropolitan Magistrate and upon such an application, disclosing sufficient grounds, being filed, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall not insist the personal appearance till the passing of the order under Section 251 Cr.P.C. subject to the petitioners being represented by a duly authorised counsel who shall not seek any adjournment.” [Full PDF Judgments]
    • Arvind Kejriwal Vs Arun Jaitley- DelHC-19.10.2016- Crl.M.C. 2417 of 2016-Quashing- Judicial Order- Interlocutory Order- Defamation Case [Full PDF Judgments]
    • Arvind Kejriwal Versus The State Of U.P And Ors.-AllHC-27.08.2015- U/S-482/378/407 No.- 4136 of 2015,- Bench: Aditya Nath Mittal, JJ, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench- Case, Quashing Petition.- Arising out of Criminal Case No.360 of 2014, Titled as "State of U.P. vs. Arvind Kejriwal"  Case Crime No.608 of 2014, under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, Police Station-Kotwali Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Musafirkhana, District-Amethi.- Outcome- Held, “No substantial ground has been made out which may justify interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C”.- While disposing of the petition, the HC was pleased to grant the following relief: “Considering the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is provided that if the petitioner, Arvind Kejriwal, surrenders before the court below within four weeks from today and moves an application for bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law and in terms of law laid down in the case of Smt. Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P., 2005; Cr.L.J.755, which has been affirmed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2009) 4 SCC 437. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Arun Jaitley Vs. Arvind Kejriwal- DelHC- 12.12.2017- CS-(OS)- 236 Of 2017-O-6, R-16, CPC- Striking out of pleadings- Abuse Of The Process Of The Court- Unnecessary, Scandalous, Frivolous Or Vexatious Pleadings- Pleadings Which May Tend To Prejudice, Embarrass Or Delay The Fair Trial [Full PDF Judgment].
    • A. Satyanarayana Reddy And Others Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Others- Civil Appeal No. 3053 Of 2008-SC-29.04.2008 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Asgar Yusuf Mukada and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another- 2004 CRI. L. J. 4312 (Bom High Court)- Criminal Law- Right of Accused- Right of Prisoner- Home Food.
    • Ashik Muhammad Mohiyudheen A.M. Vs. State Of Kerala- Bail Appl. No. 2150 of 2018- KerHC-29.05.2018- Bail- Anticipatory Bail- POCSO [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ashish Khetan Vs. Union Of India And Anr., Writ Petition-Criminal-No.  135/2016,SC-03.10.2016- Quashing Of Legislation- IPC- S-295A-Ultra Vires Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution [Full PDF Judgement].
    • Ashok Vs State of Maharashtra- Criminal Appeal No.216 OF 2013-BomHC-14.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh-SC-05.04.2011- Criminal Appeal No.1438 OF 2008-(2011) 5 SCC 123- Non-production of seized contraband- Fatal for the case for prosecution [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Ashok Chaturvedi Vs.Shitul H Chanchani- SC-13.08.1998-1998 (7) SCC 698 =AIR 1998 SC 2796- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Ashok Chawla Vs. Ram Chander Garvan, Inspector CBI- - W.P.-Criminal- No. 1429 of 2010-HC-28.02.2011- Citation- MANU/DE/1243/2011; 2011 Cri LJ 2353 (Delhi High Court)- Section- 91 Cr.P.C.- Summons to produce document or other thing [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ashok Kumar Vs. Mona - Mat. A. - F.C.- 59 Of 2015-DelHC- 16.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ashok Kumar Vs. State Of Bihar & Ors - Civil Appeal No. 9092 Of 2012 - SC -21.10.2016- Quashing-Selection Process  [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Ashok Shankarrao Chavan Vs. His Excellency Shri. Ch. Vidyasagar Rao, The Hon'ble Governor Of Maharashtra–Writ Petition No. 776 Of 2016- BomHC-22.12.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ashok Sharma Vs UOI- DelHC- 02.12.2016- W.P.-C-11130 of 2016-Quashing-Administrative Order-Demonetisation [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Petitioner(S) Vs Union Of India- Writ Petition (Civil) No(S). 699 of 2016- MLAs/MPs Criminal Cases Trial [Full PDF Judgments-01.11.2017 | 14.12.2017].
    • Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. Vs. Director Of Income Tax, ITA No.131 Of 2003 with ITA No.134 Of 2003-DHC-31.01.2011- Appeals Under The Income Tax, 1961- Following substantial questions of law were involved in this Case: ―(i) the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amounts received by the Appellant (a non-resident) from its non-resident customers for availing transponder capacity was chargeable to tax in India where the satellite was not stationed over Indian airspace and in directing how much income is to be determined? (ii) the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellant had a business connection in India through or from which it earned income? (iii) the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount paid to the Appellant by its customers represented income by way of royalty as the said expression is defined in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) (vi) of the Income Tax Act? (iv) the Tribunal was justified in holding that the customers of the Appellant were either carrying on business in India or had a source of income in India and, hence, the amount received by the Appellant from its customers were chargeable to tax in India? (v) Whether the Tribunal was justified in admitting the additional ground raised by the revenue seeking to assess the amounts received by the Appellant as fees for technical services in terms of Section 9(1)(vii)? (vi) Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the expenditure relatable to India only whilst computing the income chargeable to tax in India? (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in holding that depreciation was admissible to the appellant only on a proportionate basis?- (viii) Whether the ITAT is right in law in holding that the interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be calculated by giving benefit to the assessee of tax deductible under Section 195 by the payer though no such deduction in fact was made? (ix) Whether Ld. ITAT is right in law in holding that sec.9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable in the case of the assessee? (x) Whether the Ld. ITAT has erred in not deciding the issue whether income of the assessee is taxable u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (xi) Whether ITAT is right in holding that transponders cannot be regarded as equipment under Explanation 2 clause (iva) to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Asian Resurfacing Of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation- Criminal Appeal Nos. 1375-1376 Of 2013- SC-28.03.2018- Civil Proceedings- Criminal Proceedings- Stay/ Injunction- There cannot be a stay/ injunction of Civil or Criminal proceedings beyond six months. A speaking order would be needed to be passed if stay/ injunction prolongs beyond six months. [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Asraf Ali Vs. State of Assam, (2008) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 174 OF 2001-SC-17.07.2008-Citation-16-SCC-328-Cr.PC-S-313 [Full PDF Judgements].
    • Atanu Chattopadhyay Vs. Debangsu Basak, The Hon’ble Justice Of High Court At Calcutta & Ors.- W.P. 28879(W) Of 2017 -CalHC-04.01.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Atlas Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (126 (2006) DLT 504) - Corporate, Business & Commercial Law- Commercial Contracts- Determinable Clauses- Termination Clause- Principle of “just, fair and devoid of arbitrariness”.
    • ATV Projects (India) Ltd Vs. Union Of India & Ors.- W.P.- C - 4340 Of 2017 - DelHC - 05.12.2017-Quashing-Legislation-SICA-S-4 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Avinash Kumar Vs. State- Crl.A. 74 Of 2001-DelHC-14.12.2017- Custody- Custodial Death [Full PDF Judgment].
    • AVINDER SINGH ETC.Vs.STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. ETC.- Writ Petitions-Civil-Nos. 4038 of 1978-SC-19.09.1978-CITATION-1979-AIR-321=1979-SCR-1-845 = 1979 SCC-1-137- Constitution  of India-Articles 14,265- Vice of excessive  delegation- Absence of  guidelines- What  can  be delegated- Delegation of essential legislative functions- Excessive delegation of legislative powers- Judgment came in a taxation Case  [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Aveek Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal- Criminal Appeal No.902 Of 2004-SC-03.02.2014- Quashing of FIR- Obscenity Case-Boris Becker Case [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Azadi Bachao Andolan [Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan]- SC-07.10.2003- Appeal (civil)  8161-8162 of 2003= Appeal (civil)  8163-8164 of 2003- (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC)- Tax Matters- Quashing Of a CBDT Circular- Whether circular is/ was ultra vires the provisions of Section 90 and S-119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Held, the Court to examine the merits or demerits of such a policy and how the provisions of the statute can best be implemented [Full PDF Judgment

    Kindly CLICK HERE or e-mail us at office@hellocounsel.com if you are facing any Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empanelled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.

    A | B | D | E | F | G | H | I | | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z  

Live2Support.com
All original content on these pages is fingerprinted and certified by Digiprove