• Judgments-N

  • 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

    • Nabam Rebia, and Bamang Felix  Versus Deputy Speaker and others, Civil Appeal Nos. 6203-6204 Of 2016, Judgment Dated: 13.07.2016, Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, Dipak Misra, Madan B. Lokur, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, N.V. Ramana, J, Supreme Court Of India- Constitutional provisions involved- Art-156, 163, 174, 175, 179, 191, and Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.- Held, The modification Order of the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh is unconstitutional and is set aside and the order of the Deputy Speaker is also set aside [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Nachiketa Walhekar Vs. Central Board of Film Certification-SC- W.P.(C) No.1119/2017-16.11.2017- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2- Grant Of Ex Parte Injunction- Public Interest- Held, “It is worthy to mention that freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct and the said right should not be ordinarily interfered with. That apart, when the respondent No.1, CBFC, has granted the certificate and only something with regard to the petitioner, which was shown in the media, is being reflected in the film, this Court should restrain itself in not entertaining the writ petition or granting injunction. Be it noted, a film or a drama or a novel or a book is a creation of art. An artist has his own freedom to express himself in a manner which is not prohibited in law and such prohibitions are not read by implication to crucify the rights of expressive mind. The human history records that there are many authors who express their thoughts according to the choice of their words, phrases, expressions and also create characters who may look absolutely different than an ordinary man would conceive of. A thought provoking film should never mean that it has to be didactic or in any way puritanical. It can be expressive and provoking the conscious or the sub-conscious thoughts of the viewer. If there has to be any limitation, that has to be as per the prescription in law. The Courts are to be extremely slow to pass any kind of restraint order in such a situation and should allow the respect that a creative man enjoys in writing a drama, a play, a playlet, a book on philosophy, or any kind of thought that is expressed on the celluloid or theatre, etc.” [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Nagaiah and another vs. Chowdamma (dead) By Lrs. and another- CIVIL APPEAL NO.  22969  OF 2017-SC-08.01.2018- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act- O-XXXII CPC- Who May Act As Next Friend Or Be Appointed Guardian For The Suit- No Court permission required before such appointment [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Nagendra Nath Bora & Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Ors.- SC-07.02.1958- (1958) SCR 1240- Writ of Certiorari- Mere formal or technical error in the order would not warrant exercise of writ jurisdiction [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Naima Khatoon Vs. Government Of India- W.P.(C) 10654 Of 2015-Del-03.01.2018- Pakistani Citizen-Property in India- Custodian of Enemy Property of India,- Enemy Property Act, 1968 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Nandini Satpathy Vs. Dani (P.L.) And Anr-SC-07.04.1978- Citation: 1978 AIR 1025= 1978 SCC-(2)- 424- Arrest, Detention, Custodial Death & Torture-Damages & Compensation- Bail- Investigation- Inquiry- Self-Incrimination- Entitlement To The Sanctuary Of Silence- Physical Or Like Pressure Or Duress Of An Unlawful Texture- Crypto-Compulsion- Psychic Coercion- Accused cannot be coerced or influenced into giving a statement pointing to her/his guilt- Accused must be informed of her/his right to remain silent and also of the right against self-incrimination- A person being interrogated has the right to have a lawyer by her/his side if she/he so wishes- An accused person must be informed of the right to consult a lawyer at the time of questioning, irrespective of the fact whether she/he is under arrest or in detention-
      Women should not be summoned to the police station for questioning in breach of Section 160 (1) CrPC.14- Constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination and breaches of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik  Vs. Lata Nandlal Badwaik & Anr.- Criminal Appeal No.24 Of 2014-SC-06.01.2014- Matrimonial- DNA Test [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Narendra Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.- Civil Appeal   Nos. 10429-10430 Of 2017 - SC-11.09.2017- Justice to poor and disadvantageous people [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Narendra & Company [Management Of Narendra & Company Private Limited Versus The Workmen Of Narendra & Company], Civil Appeal No.14 Of 2016, Judgment Dated: 04.01.2016, Bench: Kurian Joseph, & Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- In an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Narendra Vs. K. Meena- Civil Appeal No.3253 OF 2008- SC-06.10.2016- (2016) 9 SCC 455-Divorce- HMA [Full Pdf Judgment]. 
    • Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466= 2014 (2) Crimes 27 (SC)- Settlement- Compounding of Offence [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Nar Singh Vs. State of Haryana- Criminal Appeal No.2388  Of 2014- SC-11.11.2014 (2015) SCC 496- CrPC-S-313 [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Limited Vs. Union of India- Appeal (Civil)  6170 Of 2001-Sc-25.03.2003- (2003) 260 ITR 548- Held, where the law has itself been changed, the question of legislature overruling the judiciary did not arise  [Full PDF Judgments].
    • National Federation Of The Blind Vs. Union Of India- WP(C) 15828 Of 2006-DelHC-17.07.2014-DelHC-12.09.2014-Civil Appeal No.9096 OF 2013-SC-08.10.2013-Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 [Full PDF Judgment-DelHC-17.07.2014] [Full PDF Judgment-DelHC-12.09.2014] [Full PDF Judgment-SC-08.10.2013].  
    • National Kamgar Union  Vs. Kran Rader Pvt. Ltd.- CIVIL APPEAL No.20 OF 2018- SC-05.01.2018- S-25-FFA- S-25-K- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [ID Act ]- Statutory Requirements of Law-60 days Closure Notice- Minimum No. of employees-100- Issue before the Court, whether the closure in question was bad in law entitling the members of the appellant-Union to claim all consequential benefits arising therefrom as if there was no closure of the Unit- Conclusions that could be drawn from the judgment- Relevant factors to be examined by the SC qua Fact finding by HC- Whether the finding is against any provision of law or evidence, or wholly perverse to the extent that no average judicial person could ever record such finding. Secondly, whether the High Court assigned the reasons as to why the finding of the court below is not factually and legally sustainable. Also, whether  the reasons assigned are neither arbitrary nor against the record and nor perverse so as to call for any interference by SC. Thirdly, the question being a question of fact or a mixed question of law and fact, the SC is always slow to appreciate the entire evidence afresh, the finding being binding on the SC.- Other issue, Re-appreciation of the evidence how far permissible under Art-227 of the Constitution- Held, “31. It is the duty of the High Court while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction to see that the subordinate Court has exercised its powers in accordance with law and did not commit any illegality or perversity in reaching to its conclusion. 32. While recording a finding, if it is noticed by the High Court that the subordinate Court has failed to take into consideration the material evidence or recorded a finding without there being any evidence, then the High Court would be entitled to interfere in such finding in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.”.- Third Issue, Entitlement of the compensation (i) amount of Gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, (ii) closure compensation payable under the I.D. Act, and over and above these two statutory payments of compensation, (iii) 30 days’ wages for each completed year of service as ex gratia payment [Full PDF Judgment]
    • National Tobacco Company of India [Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta Vs. National Tobacco Company of India Ltd.]- Civil Appeal No. 1101 Of 1967-Sc-09.08.1972- AIR 1972 SC 2563- Criminal Law- Doctrine of Implied Powers of the Court [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Natural Resources Allocation case- Special Reference No. 1 of 2012- (2012) 10 SCC 1- Mineral Law-“Why must the renewal operate automatically when there needs to be application of mind to ascertain if the renewal would be in the interest of mineral development?” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Naveen Jindal V. Zee Media Corporation Ltd- Appeal- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2- Grant Of Ex Parte Injunction [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli- Appeal (Civil) 812 of 2004-SC-21.03.2006- AIR 2006 SC 1675- Divorce-HMA- S- 13(1)(a) [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Navinchandra Gangadhar Hegde Vs. The State Of Maharashtra- Criminal Writ Petition No.3438 Of 2017 - BomHC - 25.09.2017 [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Navjot Sandhu [State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru]- 04.08.2005- Appeal (Crl.) 373-375 of 2004-(2005) 11 SCC 600)- Evidence & Witness- The SC Court repelled the contention that obtaining evidence illegally by using tape recordings or photographs offend Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India as acquiring the evidence by such methods was not the procedure established by law. Other Cases where similar position was maintained- Yusufalli Esmail Nagree Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 147 Magraj Patodia v. R.K. Birla & Ors., 1970 (2) SCC 888; R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 157; Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection, Income-Tax, New Delhi & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 348 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Navneet Arora Vs. Surender Kaur- DelHC-10.09.2014- FAO(OS) 196 of 2014- 207 (2014) DLT 78 (DB)- Interpretation of Statutes- DV Act- Shared Household (S-2(s)-Domestic Relation (S-2(f)-Aggrieved Person (S-2(a)- Respondent(S-2(q) [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Nayanaben Firozkhan Pathan @ Nasimbanu Firozkhan Pathan Vs. Patel Shantaben Bhikhabhai & 4 - Special Civil Application No. 15825 Of 2017 - AhdHC - 26.09.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union Of IndiaWrit Petition-(Criminal)-N0. 76 OF 2016-SC5J-06.09.2018 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Naz Foundation-Delhi Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi-DelHC-02.07.2009-WP-C-No.7455 of 2001 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Nazir Khan And Others Vs. State Of Delhi- 2003 SCC (Crl.) 2033- Bail- S-121-A IPC- Waging Of War Against The State [Full PDF Judgment]
    • NCT- Government of NCT of Delhi   Vs. Union of India & Another- Civil Appeal No. 2357 OF 2017- SC-04.07.2018- Issue, NCT & Centre’s power tussle- Observed, “The status of NCT of Delhi is sui generis, a class apart, and   the   status   of   the   Lieutenant Governor of Delhi is not that of a Governor of a State,   rather   he   remains   an   Administrator,   in   a limited   sense”- Further observed, “Lieutenant Governor has to be treated as a titular head”.- Further observed, “There is no room for absolutism. There is no space   for   anarchy”. [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Nedunari Kameshwaramma Vs. Sampati Subba Rao- 3JBSC-17.04.1962- 1963 AIR 884- 1963-2-SCR 208- Evidence & Witnesses- Proof & Proving- Pleading- Issues- Absence of specific pleading in the Plaint or WS or absence of issue being framed by the Court- Held, "Though the appellant had not mentioned a Karnikam service in am parties well understood that the two cases opposed to each other were of Dharmila Sarvadumbala inam as against a Karnikam service inam. The evidence which has been led in the case clearly showed that the respondent attempted to prove that this was a Dharmila inam and to refute that this was a Karnikam service inam. No doubt, no issue was framed, and the one, which was framed, could have been more elaborate; but since the parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case and led all the evidence not only in support of their contentions but in refutation of those of the other side, it cannot be said that in absence of an issue was fatal to the case, or that there was that mis-trial which vitiates proceedings.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Neeru Yadav  Vs.State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another- Criminal Appeal No.1272 Of 2015- (2016) 15 Scc 422- Bail- SC-29-09-2015 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • News Nation Networks Private Limited Vs. News Nation Gujarat And Ors.- C.S. (COMM) 334/2016- DelHC-22.12.2017- Civil Suit- Jurisdiction- cause of action- Facebook Case- Held, “merely hosting a web page on facebook would not be sufficient to confer jurisdiction on a Court where the defendant does not carry on business. Merely because facebook is an interactive site and permits the users to offer comments or indicate whether they “like what they see” on the site, would not be sufficient to provide a cause of action for passing off in a jurisdiction where the defendant does not enter into any commercial transaction”.  [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1302 OF 2008, Judgment Dated: 20.8.2008, Bench: Altamas Kabir & Markandey Katju, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, Citation: (2008) 9 SCC 677 Papaiah: Union Public Service Commission  Va. Papaiah and Others – AIR 1997 SC 3876- It is no more open to any Court to prematurely terminate a criminal case (Quash an FIR ) behind the back of the complainant/whistle blower without giving him an opportunity of being heard  [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Nirbhaya Case-Ram Singh-DelHC-13.03.2014-CRL. APP. No. 1398 of 2013 [Full PDF Judgments]  [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj-  Criminal Appeal Nos. 703 Of 1989 -SC-07.08.1990- (1990) 4 SCC 76- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 245  &  246 CrPC. - At the stage of framing the charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence- Cases referred-State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39, Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4 and Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja (1979) 4 SCC 274 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab- Civil Appeal Nos. 6198 Of 2008-SC-22.10.2008- 2009(1) SCC 441- Investigation- Independent Agency- CBI- Parameters laid down therein for investigation to be handed-over to an independent agency- 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].
    • N. M. Thomas- State Of Kerala & Anr. Vs. N. M. Thomas & Ors.- Appeal Civil 1160 Of 1974-SC-19.09.1975- Bench: Ray, A.N. (CJ) & Khanna, Hans Raj & Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien Beg & M. Hameedullah & Krishnaiyer, V.R. & Gupta, A.C. & Fazalali, Syed Murtaza, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Quashing Of Legislations- Kerala State Subordinate  Services  [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Nitin Kumar v. State, Bail Appln. No. 437/2015(06/04/2015), 2015(219) DLT 227: 2015(4) AD(Delhi) 109 [Manmohan Singh, J.] [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Nitish Katara Murder-Vikas & Vishal Yadav-02.04.2014-CRL.A. 741 of 2008- IPC-S-302, 34 [Full PDF Judgments- 02.04.2014 | 06.02.2015 | SC-03.10.2016].
    • Nitya Dharmananda Alias K. Lenin Vs. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy Also Known As Nithya Bhaktananda- SC- 07.12.2017- Criminal Appeal No. 2114 Of 2017- S-91 CrPC- Summoning Of Documents collected by the IO durig investigations-  Held, “9. Thus, it is clear that while ordinarily the Court has to proceed on the basis of material produced with the charge sheet for dealing with the issue of charge but if the court is satisfied that there is material of sterling quality which has been withheld by the investigator/prosecutor, the court is not debarred from summoning or relying upon the same even if such document is not a part of the charge sheet. It does not mean that the defence has a right to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. de hors the satisfaction of the court, at the stage of charge.- Cases Referred and relied upon: State of Orissa versus Debendra Nath Padhi [5JBSC] (2005) 1 SCC 568 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Nityanand Sharma Vs. State of Bihar & others, (1996) 3 SCC 576- Held, Constitutional Laws- Constitution- Art-16(4)- Reservation- reservation under Article 16(4) is not made in favour of a "caste" but a “Backward Class”. Once a caste satisfies the criteria of backwardness, it becomes a Backward Class for the purpose of Article 16(4) [Full PDF Judgment].
    • NOIDA Toll Bridge Company Ltd.-PIL No.-Federation Of NOIDA Residents Welfare- PIL No. - 60214 of 2012 -AllHC-26.10.2016-Quashing-Arbitrary action of the State or its instrumentality [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Noorjehan Safia Niaz Dr. Versus State of Maharashtra & Haji Ali Dargah Trust, Public Interest Litigation No. 106 Of 2014, Judgment Dated: 26.08.2016, Bench: V. M. Kanade &
 Revati Mohite Dere, JJ, Bomaby High Court: Issue, a PIL, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where some social activists have alleged gender discrimination and arbitrary denial of access to women in the sanctum sanctorum at the Haji Ali Dargah.- Held, “38. Accordingly, the petition must succeed and is allowed. We hold that the ban imposed by the respondent No. 2 Trust, prohibiting women from entering the sanctum sanctorum of the Haji Ali Dargah contravenes Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the Constitution, and as such restore status-quo ante i.e. women be permitted to enter the sanctum sanctorum at par with men. The State and the respondent No. 2 Trust to take effective steps to ensure the safety and security of women at the said place of worship.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • N.R. Sharma Vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited C.G. - Writ Petition -C- No.3341 Of 2017 - ChaHC- 0212018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • N R Vairamani- [Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs. N.R. Vairamani]-Civil Appeal Nos. 7467 Of 2003- SC-01.10.2004- AIR 2004 SC 4778-Interpretation of Statutes- Observed, Court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclids theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of the context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Nupur Talwar Respondent Vs. State Of U.P. And Anr. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 293 of 2014 - AllHC-12.10.2017- Arushi murder case [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