• Judgments-K

  • 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

    • K.A. Abbas Vs. Union of India & Another Writ Petition No-491 Of 1969-SC-24.09.1970-Citation-1971-AIR-481=1971-SCR-2-446=1970-SCC-2-780 [Full PDF Judgments
    • Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr. Versus State Of U.P. & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 2055 Of 2014,V. Gopala Gowda, & Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Quashing sought of the proceedings sought against the proceedings under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.– Held, “10. The parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are well known. If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the face of it, the criminal proceedings are abuse of Court’s process, quashing jurisdiction can be exercised. Reference may be made to K. Ramakrishna and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr, (2000) 5 SCC 207 (2000) 8 SCC 547, Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., (1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335, and Asmathunnisa vs. State of A.P. represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Anr., (2011) 11 SCC 259.".
    • Kali Prasad Agarwalla Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd & Ors- SC-31.03.1989-Civil Appeal No. 2647 of 1980- 1989 AIR 1530- 1989 SCR (2) 283- 1989 SCC Supl. (1) 628- Evidence & Witnesses- Proof & Proving- Pleading- Issues- Absence of specific pleading in the Plaint or WS or absence of issue being framed by the Court [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav-SC-12.03.2004- (2004) 7 SCC 528 =2004 CriLJ 1796= AIR 2004 SC 1866= 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977- Cancellation Of Bail [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Kalyan Singh [State Through CBI Vs. Shri Kalyan Singh, FormerCM Of UP]- Criminal Appeal No.751of_2017-SC-19.04.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Kalyaneshwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.- WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 260 OF 2004- SC-21.01.2011 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Kamala- Secretary To Government Of Tamil Nadu, Public - Law And Order- Revenue Department Vs. Kamala- Criminal Appeal No. 507 Of 2018 - Arising Out Of SLP- Crl - No 1600 Of 2018-Sc- 10.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Kamaraj- State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Namakkal Police Station Namakkal District Vs, Kamaraj- Criminal Appeal Nos.402 & 465 of 2017 - MadHC-25.10.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Kamini Lau, Dr., Ld.- Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.  Vs. Delhi Auto General Finance Pvt. Ltd- RFA No. 851 Of 2015- 22.12.2017-Contempt Courts Case- By a Judge- Ld. Dr. Kamini Lau, ASJ, Delhi [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Kamlesh @ Ghanti Vs. State Of M.P. - Criminal Appeal Nos.1720-1721 Of 2014- Sc-21.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Kamlesh Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh- Criminal Appeal No. 740/2015, Judgment Dated- 01.05.2015, Bench- Dipak Misra, J.: Prafulla C. Pant, J.Citation- 2015(6) SCALE 77 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Union Of India- 5JBSC- 17.04.1995-Appeal (Crl.) 764-65 of 1994- 1995 (3) SCR 279- Preventive Detention- Representation by the detenu, who is the competent authority to consider [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Kanchan Bedi And Anr. Vs. Gurpreet Singh Bedi- IA No. 847 Of 2003 In IPA No. 17 Of 2002-DelHC-07.02.2003 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Kanhaiya Kumar Vs. State Of NCT Of Delhi, W.P.(Crl) 558/2016, Judgment Dated: 02.03.2016, Bench: Pratibha Rani, J, Delhi High Court- FIR No.110/2016 [Dated: 11.2.2016], Offence under Section 124-A/34 IPC at PS Vasant Kunj North, Under Sections 124-A/120-B/34/147/149 IPC.- Slogans referred to in the Order-: ‘1. AFZAL GURU MAQBOOL BHATT JINDABAD. 2. BHARAT KI BARBADI TAK JUNG RAHEGI JUNG RAHEGI 3. GO INDIA GO BACK 4. INDIAN ARMY MURDABAD 5. BHARAT TERE TUKKDE HONGE– INSHAALLAHA INSHAALLAHA 6. AFZAL KI HATYA NAHI SAHENGE NAHI SAHENGE 7. BANDOOK KI DUM PE LENGE AAZADI.- Held, "39. As President of Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union, the petitioner was expected to be responsible and accountable for any antinational event organised in the campus. Freedom of speech guaranteed to the citizens of this country under the Constitution of India has enough room for every citizen to follow his own ideology or political affiliation within the framework of our Constitution. While dealing with the bail application of the petitioner, it has to be kept in mind by all concerned that they are enjoying this freedom only because our borders are guarded by our armed and paramilitary forces. Our forces are protecting our frontiers in the most difficult terrain in the world i.e. Siachen Glacier or Rann of Kutch.- Further Held, "41. Suffice it to note that such persons enjoy the freedom to raise such slogans in the comfort of University Campus but without realising that they are in this safe environment because our forces are there at the battle field situated at the highest altitude of the world where even the oxygen is so scarce that those who are shouting anti-national slogans holding posters of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt close to their chest honoring their martyrdom, may not be even able to withstand those conditions for an hour even. 42. The kind of slogans raised may have demoralizing effect on the family of those martyrs who returned home in coffin draped in tricolor. 43. The petitioner claims his right regarding freedom of speech and expression guaranteed in Part-III under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India. He has also to be reminded that under Part-IV under Article 51A of Constitution of India fundamental duties of every citizen have been specified along with the fact that rights and duties are two sides of the same coin.".- Futher Held, "46. The reason behind anti-national views in the mind of students who raised slogans on the death anniversary of Afzal Guru, who was convicted for attack on our Parliament, which led to this situation have not only to be found by them but remedial steps are also required to be taken in this regard by those managing the affairs of the JNU so that there is no recurrence of such incident. 47. The investigation in this case is at nascent stage. The thoughts reflected in the slogans raised by some of the students of JNU who organized and participated in that programme cannot be claimed to be protected as fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. I consider this as a kind of infection from which such students are suffering which needs to be controlled/cured before it becomes an epidemic. 48. Whenever some infection is spread in a limb, effort is made to cure the same by giving antibiotics orally and if that does not work, by following second line of treatment. Sometimes it may require surgical intervention also. However, if the infection results in infecting the limb to the extent that it becomes gangrene, amputation is the only treatment. 49. During the period spent by the petitioner in judicial custody, he might have introspected about the events that had taken place. To enable him to remain in the main stream, at present I am inclined to provide conservative method of treatment." [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Kapur Chand Godha Vs. Mir Nawab Himayatalikhan Azamjah- Civil Appeal No. 52 of 60- SC-12.04.1962- AIR 1963 SC 250- S-41- Contract Act, 1872 [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Karmanya Singh Sareen And Anr Vs. Union Of India And Ors- W.P.-C- 7663 Of 2016 & C.M.No.31553 Of 2016 -Directions-Delhc-23.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Karna Vs. M.Jothisorupan- Crl. OP -MD-No.13285 of 2013 and MP-MD-No.1 of 2013-MadHC-05.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Karti P Chidambram Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation- Bail Appln. 573 Of 2018- DelHC-23.03.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Karthik Gangadhar Bhat Vs. Nirmala Namdeo Wagh- BomHC-03.11.2017-Writ Petition No. 11151 OF 2017-Evidence & Witness- Secondary Witness [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Kashi Math Samsthan Vs Srimadsudhindrathirthaswamy- Civil Appeal Nos.7966-7967 Of 2009-SC-02.12.2009- Prima Facie Factor  Takes Precedence on remaining two prerequisites [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Kashmeri Devi vs. Delhi Administration- 1988 Supp SCC 482- Parameters laid down therein for investigation to be handed-over to an independent agency- Investigation- Independent Agency- CBI- Mere filing of charge-sheet would not preclude the power of the High Court to hand-over investigation to an independent agency [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Kathi Kalu [State of Bombay V. Kathi Kalu Oghad]- SC-04.08.1961-Citations: 1962-SCR-3-10= AIR- 1961- SC- 1808- Criminal Law- Inquiry & Investigation- S-73- Evidence Act- absence of any specific provision- Practice & Procedure- inherent powers- ancillary powers- Held, Where there is no specific provision in any law to authorize a particular course of action, the Trial Court can use its inherent or ancillary powers [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Kavita Manikikar Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation- Writ Petition No.1142 Of 2018 - BomHc- 16.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors.  Versus State of Kerala and Anr, Writ Petition (Civil) 135 of 1970- SC-24.04.1973- Bench: S.M. Sikri & A.N. Grover & A.N. Ray & D.G. Palekar & H.R. Khanna & J.M. Shelat & K.K. Mathew & K.S. Hegde & M.H. Beg & P. Jaganmohan Reddy & S.N. Dwivedi & Y.V.Chandrachud,, JJ, Supreme Court Of India– 1973) 4 SCC 225Quashing- 29th Constitutional Amendment - Held,  “2242. The decision of the leading majority in the Golak Nath case that the then Article 368 of the Constitution merely prescribed the procedure for amendment of the Constitution and that the power of amendment had to be traced to Entry 97 of List I, Schedule VII read with Articles 245, 246 and 248 is not correct. 2243. The decision of the leading majority and of Hidayatullah J. that there is no distinction between an ordinary law and a law amending the Constitution is incorrect. Article 13(2) took in only ordinary laws, not amendments to the Constitution effected under Article 368. 2244. The decision of the leading majority and of Hidayatullah J. that Parliament had no power to amend the Constitution so as to abrogate or take away Fundamental Rights is incorrect. 2245. The power of amendment of the Constitution conferred by the then Article 368 was wide and unfettered. It reached every part and provision of the Constitution. 2246. Preamble is a part of the Constitution and is not outside the reach of the amending power under Article 368. 2247. There are no inherent limitations on the amending power in the sense that the Amending Body lacks the power to make amendments so as to damage or destroy the essential features or the fundamental principles of the Constitution. 2248. The 24th Amendment only declares the true legal position as it obtained before that Amendment and is valid. 2249. Section 2(a) and Section 2(b) of the 25th Amendment are valid. Though courts have no power to question a law described in Article 31(2) substituted by Section 2(a) of the Amendment Act, OP the ground that the amount fixed or determined for compulsory acquisition or requisition is not adequate or that the whole or any part of such amount is to be given otherwise than in cash, courts have the power to question such a law if (i) the amount fixed is illusory; or (ii) if the principles, if any are stated, for determining the amount are wholly irrelevant for fixation of the amount; or (iii) if the power of compulsory acquisition or requisition is exercised for a collateral purpose; or (iv) if the law of compulsory acquisition or requisition offends the principles of Constitution other than the one which is expressly excepted under Article 31(2B) introduced by Section 2(b) of the 25th Amendment Act - namely Article 19(1)(f); or (v) if the law is in the nature of a fraud on the Constitution. 2250. Section 3 of the 25th Amendment which introduced Article 31C into the Constitution is valid. In spite, however, of the purported conclusiveness of the declaration therein mentioned, the Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ascertain whether the law is for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specifie d in Article 39(b) or (c). If there is no direct and reasonable nexus between such a law and the provisions of Article 39(b) or (c), the law will not, as stated in Article 31C, receive immunity from a challenge under Articles 14, 19 or 31. 2251. The 29th Amendment Act is valid. The two Kerala Acts mentioned therein, having been included in the Ninth Schedule, are entitled to the protection of Article 31B of the Constitution [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Keshav Dutt v. State of Haryana- 2010-9-SCC-286- Criminal Law-  report of the handwriting expert- where the conviction was sought to be based solely on the report of the handwriting expert. [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Keshub Mahindra [CBI Vs  Keshub Mahindra]-Constn.BenchSC- 11.05.2011- Curative Petition (Crl.) NOS.39-42 OF 2010 In CRL. APPEAL NOs. 1672-1675 OF 1996- AIR 2011 SC 2037- Held, No Decision By Any Court, This Court Not Excluded, Can Be Read In A Manner As To Nullify The Express Provisions Of An Act Or The Code- Further held, when the charges are framed, the court makes an endorsement till that stage. So charges are framed on the materials produced by the prosecution for framing the charges "at that stage". Such indication is necessary otherwise the provisions contained in Sections 216, 323, 386, 397, 399, 401 etc. Cr.P.C., would be rendered nugatory and denuded a competent court of the powers under those provisions. The court cannot be restrained from exercising its powers either under Section 323 or Section 216 Cr.P.C [Full PDF Judgments].
    • K. G. Vs State Of Delhi- W.P.(Crl) 374 of 2017-DelHC-16.11.2017- Child Custody- NRI & Foreigner-Guardianship- Visitation Rights- Jurisdiction [Full PDF Judgment].   
    • Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 1- Judge & Decision- Held, "13. A Judge cannot be expected to give reasons other than those that have been enumerated in the judgment or order. The application filed by the petitioner before the public authority is per se illegal and unwarranted. A judicial officer is entitled to get protection and the object of the same is not to protect malicious or corrupt Judges, but to protect the public from the dangers to which the administration of justice would be exposed if the judicial officers concerned were subject to inquiry as to malice, or to litigation with those whom their decisions might offend. If anything is done contrary to this, it would certainly affect the independence of the judiciary. A Judge should be free to make independent decisions.". 
    • Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor- The Custodian Of Evacuee Property,Bangalore Vs.Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor, Etc.- 20.02.1961- 1961 AIR 1087, 1961 SCR (3) 855- Writ of Certiorari  [Full Pdf Judgment].
    • Kharak Singh V. State Of U.P., (1964) 1 SCR 332- Protection Of Right Of Privacy Vis-A-Vis Defamation [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Khursida Begum (D) By Lrs. & Ors. Versus Komammad Farooq (D) By Lrs. & Anr., Civil Appeal No.2845 Of 2006, Judgment Dated: 01.02.2016, Bench: Anil R. Dave & Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Validity of a gift deed executed by a Muslim in favour of his son was the sole question for consideration.- The gift was by father to his minor son. Property was under tenancy. The gift is by a registered deed.- The courts below held the same to be a gift of undivided share of property which was capable of division and thus invalid under Muslim Law being hiba-bil-musha.- It has also been held that gift was of no effect as possession was not delivered to the donee.- The Supreme Court reversed the concurrent finding holding, inter alia,  “14.....The gift had no infirmity under the Muslim Law either on the ground that the possession was not delivered or on the ground that the gift was hit by Hiba-bil-Musha. Right to collect rent stands transferred to donee.- The SC further held, “13. Requirement of possession is  met when right to collect rent has been assigned to the plaintiff under the gift deed.”.
    • Khushwant Singh V. Menaka Gandhi- AIR 2002 Delhi 58- O-39, R-1 & 2- Grant Of Ex Parte Injunction [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Kihoto Hollohan Vs. Zachillhu And Others- Sc-18.02.1992- Writ Petition No.17 Of 1991= Transfer Petition No. 40 Of 1991= Writ Petition No. 17 Of 1991- 1992 Scr (1) 686, 1992 Scc Supl. (2) 651- Anti-Defection Law- Disqualification [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Kiran Lohia Vs. The State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors - W.P.- Crl - 357 Of 2018 - DelHC - 01.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Kiran Pal Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.- Civil Appeal No. 2622 OF 2018- 3JBSC-17.05.2018- Panchayat- no confidence motion against the Pramukh [Full PDF Judgment].
    • K. Karunakaran v. State of Kerala-Appeal (Crl.) 801 of 2003- SC-06.12.2006- (2007) 1 SCC 59- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC [Full PDF Judgments].
    • K.K. Mishra Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr- Criminal Appeal Nos. 547 Of 2018- Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition - Criminal- No. 6064 Of 2017 - Sc - 13.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]
    • K.M. Mathew Vs. Kerala-SC-19.11.1991-AIR-2206=1992-1-SCC-217-Quashing-Summoning-Defamation [Full PDF Judgment]
    • K.M. NANAVATI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA-24.11.1961-1962-AIR-605-1962. 
    • Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v Govt of A.P.- 29.01.2002-Appeal (Civil) 2063 of 1999-AIR 2002 SC 1012- Evidence & Witnesses- Proof & Proving- Pleading- Issues- Absence of specific pleading in the Plaint or WS or absence of issue being framed by the Court- So long as the parties are left without doubt as to what is required to be traversed, inexactitude in the plea is not a bar. It is the substance of the pleading that matter, rather than the text.- Held, “..it is a settled position that if the parties have understood the pleadings of each other correctly, an issue was also framed by the Court, the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases, then the absence of a specific plea would be no difference.”The rule itself is not immutable [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Versus Kamal Chauhan & Anr., O.M.P(I) No. 540/2015, Judgment Dated: 23.12.2015, Bench: J.R. Midha, J, Delhi  High Court- Issue, Appointment of a Receiver Of a Vehicle under S-9 Of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- Following guidelines formulated by the Court- “6. The receiver shall take over the possession of the vehicle from the respondent at the address(es) given in the loan application. If the vehicle is not available at the said address(es), the receiver shall be at liberty to recover the vehicle wherever found. However, the receiver shall not stop a running vehicle on the road to forcibly take out the driver to take the possession of the vehicle. The receiver shall also not make any attempt to block the passage of a car to bring it to a halt to take its possession. 7. The receiver shall avoid taking the possession of the vehicle if the vehicle is occupied by a woman who is not accompanied by a male member or an elderly, infirm or physically/mentally challenged person. In such cases, the receiver shall take the possession of the vehicle from the borrower’s residence. 8. The receiver shall be at liberty to take the assistance of the local police, if required, for taking over possession of the vehicle. The concerned SHO shall provide assistance to the receiver as and when requested. 9. The receiver shall also ensure that the repossession of the vehicle does not result in any breach of peace. In the event of any breach of peace, the receiver shall not proceed without assistance of police. 10. At the time of taking the custody of the vehicle, the receiver shall deliver a copy of this order to the person from whom the possession it is taken. 11. At the time of taking the custody of the vehicle, the receiver shall take the photographs of the vehicle from different angles along with the person(s) occupying the vehicle as well as the place of taking over the possession. 12. The receiver shall prepare an inventory of the articles/accessories found in the vehicle and shall furnish the copy of the inventory to the person from whom the possession is taken. 13. After taking the vehicle in possession, the receiver shall keep the vehicle in safe custody. 14. If the respondent makes payment of the outstanding instalments as on date of possession, the receiver shall release the vehicle in question to the respondent on superdari subject to an undertaking by the respondents to the receiver for regular repayment of future monthly instalments till the expiry of the tenure and a declaration not to part with the vehicle or create third party interest in the vehicle until the entire amount is paid. 15. If the respondent is not in a position to clear the entire outstanding instalments, the receiver shall give him another opportunity to pay the outstanding instalments within 30 days of taking over the possession of the vehicle and in case the respondent makes the payment the outstanding instalments within the said period, the receiver shall release the vehicle to the respondent subject to an undertaking as aforementioned. 16. If the respondent does not make the payment of the outstanding amount to the appellant bank within 60 days, the receiver, with the prior permission of the arbitrator, would be authorised to sell the vehicle in question in a public auction with prior written notice (to be sent by Speed Post AD) of the date of auction to the respondent at the address(es) mentioned in the loan agreement or the address from where the vehicle is taken into possession so that the respondent may also be able to participate in the auction to enable the appellant to fetch maximum amount from the sale of the vehicle. The receiver shall carry out video recording of the auction proceedings and shall submit the same before the arbitrator along with his final report. 17. The receiver shall submit his report before this Court within 10 days of taking the custody of the vehicle along with the photographs and inventory mentioned above.” Copy of the Order circulated in all District Courts/ Trial Courts [Full PDF Judgment].
    • K. Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka- (2015) 2 SCC 638- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA)- premeditation- predetermined motive or enmity- constant quarrel ever ensued [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Krishna Veni Nagam Vs. Harish Nagam- Transfer petition (CIVIL) NO. 1912 OF 2014- SC-09.03.2017- Matrimonial- Divorce- Child Custody- Counselor- Settlement- Transfer Petition- 09.032017- i) Availability of video conferencing facility- ii) Availability of legal aid service.- iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of Order XXV Code of Civil Procedure.- iv) E-mail address/phone number, if any, at which litigant from out station may communicate [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Krishan Chander Nayar v. The Chairman, Central Tractor Organisation & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 602- Affidavit- It is an essential characteristic of an affidavit that it should be made on oath or affirmation before a person having authority to administer the oath or affirmation, and thus, duty to state on oath on the part of the deponent is sacrosanct. Same remains the position in respect of administration of oath as required under the Oaths Act 1873. Other relevant Court Cases- Chhotan Prasad Singh & Ors. v. Hari Dusadh & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 407; and M. Veerabhadra Rao v. Tek Chand, AIR 1985 SC 28 [Full PDF Judgments].K. M. Mathew Vs Kerala-SC-19.11.1991- 1991 AIR 2206=1992-1-SCC-217- Quashing-Summoning-Defamation [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Krishna Bhatacharjee Versus Sarathi Choudhury And Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 1545 Of 2015 (@ SLP(Crl) No. 10223 Of 2014), Judgment Dated 20.11.2015,  Dipak Misra, J & Prafulla C Panta, J, Supreme Court Of India- Judicially separated wife is an “aggrieved person” under section 2(a) of the DV Act, 2005 Act.
    • Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54- Presumption of debt & liability U/S-139 of the NI Act & Right to rebuttal.
    • Krishnakumar Vs RPJJ.No. 3 Of 2018 State Of Kerala- KerHC- 18.06.2018- Revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the order of the Child Welfare Committee [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Krishna Kumar Singh Vs. State Of Bihar- Civil Appeal No. 5875 OF 1994- SC-02.01.2017- Ordinance promulgation- State Legislature- Art.-213(2)-Constitution of India- Failure to lay an Ordinance before the legislature is a fraud on the constitution [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul  Vs. Pratima Maity- Appeal (Civil) 7133 of 2003- SC-09.09.2003- 2003 Supp(3) SCR 496- S-101-S-102-Indian Evidence Act (IEA)- “Right to Begin” the evidence- Plaintiff or defendant [Full PDF Judgment]
    • K. Srinivas Rao Vs D.A. Deepa- SC-22.02.2013-Civil Appeal No. 1794 OF 2013-2013 (5) SCC 226- Cruelty-S-13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.- Illustrative of mental cruelty- (1) Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse.- Cases Referred to and relied upon: G.V.N. Kameswara Rao Vs. G. Jabilli, (2002) 2 SCC 296- Parveen Mehta Vs. Inderjit Mehta, (2002) 5 SCC 706- Vijayakumar R. Bhate Vs. Neela Vijayakumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334- Durga Prasanna Tripathy Vs. Arundhati Tripathy, (2005) 7 SCC 353- Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558- Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Kuldeep Singh Versus State, Crl. M.C. No.3387/2014, Judgment dated- 25th August, 2014, Ved Prakash Vaish, J, Delhi High Court [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Kuldeep Singh Vs. Rajinder Kumar And Ors.- Civil Appeal No.10223 Of 2016- Sc-20.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Kuldeep  Vs. Union Of India- W.P.(C)- 8470 of 2015- DelHC-04.01.2018- Land Acquisition- Acquisition proceedings lapsed- S--24(2)- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari & Anr- Criminal Appeal No. 516 Of 2016- SC- 18.04.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Kurukshetra University Vs. State of Haryana – AIR 1977 SC 2229= (1977) 4 SCC 451- If the High Court was ultimately exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.PC, it is impermissible for the High Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC during the stage of investigation.- The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only in respect of a matter which is pending before an inferior criminal court subordinate to the High Court.
    • Kushal Kishore Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No.113/2016, Supreme Court Of India; Case Status: [Pending]: Bulandshahr Gang Rape Case- The Courts has formulated the following four (4) issues for its consideration: When a victim files an F.I.R. alleging rape, gang rape or murder or such other heinous offences against another person or group of persons, whether any individual holding a public office or a person in authority or in-charge of governance, should be allowed to comment on the crime stating that “it is an outcome of political controversy”, more so, when as an individual, he has nothing to do with the offences in question? (b)  Should the “State”, the protector of citizens and responsible for law and order situation, allow these comments as they have the effect potentiality to create a distrust in the mind of the victim as regards the fair investigation and, in a way, the entire system? (c) Whether the statements do come within the ambit and sweep of freedom of speech and expression or exceed the boundary that is not permissible? (d) Whether such comments (which are not meant for self protection) defeat the concept of constitutional compassion and also conception of constitutional sensitivity?: Date Of Hearings: 28.08.2016; 27.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Kush Kalra Vs. Union Of India & Anr- W.P.(C)No.10498 of 2015- DelHC-05.01.2018- Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India- Institutional Discrimination- mandamus sought to place female gainfully employed candidates at par with similarly placed male candidate- The recruitment into the Indian Territorial Army [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Kusum Lata Sharma  Vs. State - Crl. M.C. No. 725 Of 2011-DelHC-02.09.2011- Quashing- DV Act Complaint- S-2-q Of DV Act [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Kusum Sharma  Vs. Mahinder Kumar Sharma- FAO 369 Of 1996- DelHC-14.01.2015- 29.05.2017-06.12.2017- Maintenance- Wife- Children-Income Affidavit Format & Guidelines [Full PDF Judgment Dated-14.01.2015] [Full PDF Judgment Dated-29.05.2017] [Full PDF Judgment Dated-06.12.2017]. 

    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