• Judgments-S

  • 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

    • Sabarimala-Temple-Issue-Title-Indian-Young-Lawyers-Association-Vs-State of Kerala.-5JBSC-13.10.2017 & 28.09.2018- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 Of 2006- Sabrimala Temple Entry Case- Five Judge bench of SC allows entry in the temple by 4:1 ratio [Full PDF- Interim Order dated-13.10.2017] [Full PDF-Final Judgment Dated-28.09.2018]. 
    • Sabu Mathew George Vs. Union Of India & Ors. - Writ Petition - Civil -    No. 341 of       2008 -  SC-19.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sachin & Anr v Jhabbu Lal & Anr- RSA 136 Of 2016- DelHC- 24.11.2016- S-4- Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007- Tribunal does have jurisdiction to evict son and daughter-in-law from the house of a senior citizen [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Sadhna Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company-Appeal (Civil) 557 of 2003- 3JBSC-23.01.2003- Writ- Art-226 and 227- Jurisdiction- High Courts-Parameters- Held, the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction. In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or tribunal and it is not open to it to review or reassess the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal has passed an order. The Trial Court had in the considered exercise of its jurisdiction allowed the amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. There was no reason for the High Court to interfere under Article 227 [Full PDF Judgment-I] [Full PDF Judgment-II].
    • Sadhu Saran Singh Versus State Of U.P. And Ors., Criminal Appeal Nos. 1467-1468 Of 2005, Judgment Dated: 26.02.2016, Bench: DIPAK MISRA & N.V. RAMANA, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Criminal Appeals- Appeal against acquittal- Issue, extent & scope of the power of the Appellate Court in an Appeal against acquittal- “18.....This Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, in the case of Sambasivan and Others V. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412, has held : “18.....The principles with regard to the scope of the powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal are well settled. The powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible the appellate Court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial Court. It is only when the approach of the trial Court in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal”. – “20. This Court in Chandrappa V. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, after referring to a catena of decisions, has laid down the following general principles with regard to powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge : (1)An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, ‘substantial and compelling reasons’, ‘good and sufficient grounds’, ‘very strong circumstances’, ‘distorted conclusions’, ‘glaring mistakes’, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ‘flourishes of language’ to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.”.  – Resolving the issue of inconsistency between the medical and ocular evidence the court relied on the following legal proposition, “21(iii)....This Court in Darbara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 476, wherein this Court has held : “…. So far as the question of inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence is concerned, the law is well settled that, unless the oral evidence available is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral evidence would have primacy. In the event of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence and when medical evidence makes the oral testimony improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of such evidence. It is only when the contradiction between the two is so extreme that the medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all, that the ocular evidence is liable to be disbelieved.”.- Acquittal by the HC reversed, handing out life imprisonment, modifying the death penalty awarded by the trial court [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sai Dr. Versus The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1381 Of 2015, Judgment Dated: 27.09.2016, Bench: A. V. Nirgude & V.L. Achliya, JJ, Delhi  High Court/ Supreme Court Of India- Quashing Of Criminal Complaint [Full PDF Judgments]. 
    • Sajjan Kumar-SC-20.09.2010-Framing of Charge-Discharge [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Sajjan-Kumar-Ors-04.11.2016-Issue- Recusal of a Judge from the case- Transfer-Of-Case from one Court to another [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India- Writ Petition (Civil) 496 of 2002-SC-02.08.2005-2005-6-SCC-344- Observed, “Construction of the rule or procedure which promotes justice and prevents miscarriage has to be preferred. The rules or procedure are handmaid of justice and not its mistress”. [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Salman Khan [State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan]- Appeal-Crl.-1508 of 2003-SC-18.12.2003- AIR 2004 SC 1189- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC.- The Court depreciated the practice of entertaining the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at a pre-mature stage. Held, “proceedings get protracted by the intervention of the superior courts.”.    Further held, “We are of the opinion that though it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the Code to quash charges framed by the trial Court, same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of charge can be done only at the stage of trial. We think the High Court was not justified in this case in giving a finding as to the non-existence of material to frame a charge for an offence punishable under Section 304, Part II, IPC, therefore so far as the finding given by the High Court is concerned, we are satisfied that it is too premature a finding and ought not to have been given at this stage." [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Salman Khurshid Vs. Delhi Public School Society- FAO-OS-260 Of 2017 - DelHC - 01.06.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh-Appeal (Civil) 151 of 2004-SC-26.03.2007- (2007) 4 SCC 511- Divorce-HMA- S- 13(1)(a) [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Samarth Mittal Versus  Union Of India & Ors, W.P.(C) 6170/2015 & CM No.11211/2015, Judgment Dated: 06.07.2015, Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J, Delhi  High Court- Issue, quashing of Administrative Order/ Govt. Policy- Held, "Once a Bye-law admittedly stands on a higher footing than the administrative circular which has been issued, the understanding, if any, of the Controller of Examination thereof or the difficulties if any faced in introducing re-evaluation in all the subjects at the same time is irrelevant. Difficulty involved in implementing a law is no ground to apply the provision of law in a manner different from what the law means, as discussed by the Division Bench of which undersigned was a member in Amit Bhagat Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi MANU/DE/3351/2014." [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Samir Vidyasagar Bhardwaj V. Nandita S Bhardwaj-Review Petition (C) No. 2842 OF 2017 IN Civil Appeal NO. 6450 OF 2017 -SC-16.01.2018- Civil Appeal NO. 6450 OF 2017-SC-09.05.2017- S-19-1-B- DV Act- Removal Of Husband Frm House [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Sampurna Behura  Vs. Union Of India & Ors.- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 473 OF 2005- SC-09.02.2018-Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015- the JJ Act- [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.- Appeal (Crl.)  1708 of 2007-SC-13.02.2007- (2007) 13 SCC 165 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Sandeep Bera Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal & Ors., W. P. 24471 (W) of 2016, Judgment Dated: 12.05.2016, Bench: Dipankar Datta, J., Calcutta High Court/ Supreme Court Of India- Quashing Of Govt. Policies- Subversion of the rule of law.- Mixing of politics with religion- Arbitrary Decisions [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Sandhya Kumari Vs. Manish Kumar- Mat. App.-F.C.- 36 Of 2014- DelHC-21.10.2016- Divorce-False Allegations By the spouse against each other-Valid ground for divorce [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Sou. Vs. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade- Criminal Appeal No.271 OF 2011- SC-30.01.2011- 2011 (3) SCC 650- The legislature never intended to exclude female relatives of the husband or male partner from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sandhya Rani Debbarma & Ors. Vs. The National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. - Civil Appeal No. 9194 Of 2016 - Sc - 16.09.2016- Damages & Compensation-MV Act [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sanjay Bansal and Another Vs. Jawaharlal Vats and Others- Appeal (Crl.)  1453 of 2007-SC-22.10.2007- (2007) 3 SCC 71- 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 Judgment].
    • Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation- Criminal Appeal No.2178 OF 2011 - SC -23.11.2011- (2012) 1 SCC 40= (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 40- Bail in PMLA, ED, and Analogous Crimes [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sanjay Gandhi [State Versus Sanjay Gandhi]- Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 1978-SC-05.05.1978- AIR 1978 SC 961=AIR 1978 SC 961- Cancellation Of Bail [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sanjay Singh [State  Vs. Sanjay Singh]- Crl.A.766 Of 2017- DelHC-08.01.2018- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA) [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh- Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1278 of 2016 and 422 of 2017- SC-09.10.2017- Matrimonial- Divorce- Child Custody- Counselor- Settlement- Transfer Petition- Right of video conferencing- Family Court had been given ample power to modulate its own procedure [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Santosh Vs. The State Of Maharashtra - Criminal Appeal No.1759 Of 2017-SC-10.10.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Santosh Alias Ravi Vs. State- CRL.A. 855 of 2002- DelHC-04.01.2018- Adverse inference- Non-examination of material witnesses- Sole testimony- Onus to prove [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Santosh Kumar Dohare Vs. State of MP -MPGWLRHC-24.05.2018- State got to compensate the Accused for his malicious compensation [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sapna Sinha Vs. GNCT, DHC-30.10.2017- W.P.-C- 765-2013- Cancelation Of Unutilized Chambers in Dwarka Court [Full PDF Judgments].  
    • Saraswati Sugar Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise- Civil Appeal No. 5295 OF 2003-SC-02.08.2011- 2011 (270) ELT 465 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Sardul Singh Vs Pritam Singh- SC-18.03.1999- Appeal (Civil) 1763 of 1993- 1999 (2) SCR 22- 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: “It is well-settled that notwithstanding the absence of pleadings before a court or authority, still if an issue is framed and the parties were conscious of it and went to trial on that issue and adduced evidence and had an opportunity to produce evidence or cross examine witnesses in relation to the said issue, no objection as to want of specific pleading can be permitted to be raised later…” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sarojni Bhoi Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Writ Petition (S) No. 296 OF 2014, Judgment Dated: 30.11.2015, Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal, J, Chhattisgarh High Court- Policy of Compassionate appointment excluding married daughter for consideration is a retrograde policy of Welfare State and violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sarvesh Security Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. University Of Delhi- DelHC-08.12.2017-W.P.(C) 10931/2017- Tender- Bid- Technical Evaluation Stage- All Compliance complete- Certificates of statutory Registrations- Registration under Employee Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1952 (EPFMPA)- Registration under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI)- Registration under The Contract Labour (Regulation &Abolition) Act, 1970- Registration under the Private Security Agencies Regulation Act, 2005- Registration under GST,TIN/TAN/PAN- Registration with Labour Department of the State/Central Govt.- Any other, if required.
      [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sarwan Singh Vs. State, Bail Appln.No. 2102/2014, Judgment Dated- 20/01/2015, Bench- Manmohan Singh, J, Citation- 2015(1) JCC 703 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sashi Prasad Barohaa v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer (1977) 107 ITR 784 (SC)- - Taxation Laws- Held, “it is not unconstitutional for the legislature to leave it to the executive to determine details relating to the working of taxation laws, such as the selection of persons on whom the tax is to be laid, the rates at which it is to be charged in respect of different clauses of goods and the like.” [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Sasi Thomas Vs.State-SC-24.11.2006- Appeal (Crl.) 1211 of 2006-2006 (12) SCC 421- Fundamental Rights- Right of an accused to fair trial and fair investigation- Proper and fair investigation on the part of the investigating officer is the backbone of rule of law. A proper and effective investigation into a serious offence and particularly in a case where there is no direct evidence assumes great significance as collection of adequate materials to prove the circumstantial evidence becomes essential [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Satish Ahuja Versus Union Of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 580/2015, Judgment Dated: 27.04.2016, Bench: Manmohan, J, Delhi High Court- Issue Of Territorial Jurisdiction-  Petition seeking resitement of a retail outlet petrol pump allotted by the Indian Oil Corporation.- Judgments referred to & relied upon- Jagdambay Auto Station and Anr. v. UOI and Others, WP(C) 6398/2010, Judgment Dated: 01.11.2012, Bench: Vipin Sanghi, J, Delhii High Court [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Satvinder Kaur Vs. State, (1999) 8 SCC 728 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, Government Of India- Writ petitions Nos. 230 of 1966 and 30 of 1967-SC-10.04.1967- SC-10.04.1967- 1967 AIR 1836- Visa & Passport- The right to travel abroad is a part of a person’s personal liberty of which he could not be deprived, except according to the procedure established by law in terms of Art-21 of constitution of India- S-6(1)(a) of the Passport Act, 1967- Passports Rules, 1980 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Satya Narayan Tiwari @ Jolly & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. - Criminal Appeal No(S). 1168 Of 2005 - Sc - 28.10.2010 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Satyawati Tondon [United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon]- Civil Appeal No. OF 2010- SC-26.07.2010- (2010) 8 SCC 110- SARFAESI Act- Invocation of the extraordinary power under Article 226/227 in challenging the actions taken under the SARFAESI Act [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sayeeda Farhana Shamim Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.- Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Criminal Appeal NO. OF 2008 SC-16.05.2008- (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 218- Section- 91 Cr.P.C.- Summons to produce document or other thing [Full PDF Judgment].
    • S.B. Johari [State of M.P Vs. S.B. Johari]- SC-17.01.2000- 2000 SCC(Cri) 311)- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 245  &  246 CrPC [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya Vs. State Of Gujrat- GujHC- Criminal- CrPC, 1973- S- 195 & 340- Prosecution of a wife who deposed falsely on an Affidavit.- 20.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Setu Niket Versus Union Of India & Ors, W.P.(C) 1089/2013 & CM No.2073/2013, Judgment Dated- 19.11.2015, Bench- Chief Justice  & Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J, Delhi High Court [Full PDF Judgment]- Railway Claims [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Shafhi Mohammad Versus The State Of Himachal Pradesh- Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.2302 of 2017- SC-30.01.2018- Evidence Act- S-3, 63, 65, 65B(4), 65B- Electronic evidence- secondary evidence- Videography- Body-Worn Cameras- Document [Full Pdf Judgment]. 
    • Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M. & Ors [Hadia Case]- Criminal Appeal No. 366 OF 2018- SC-09.04.2018- Annulment of marriage- Live-in Relationships- Live-in Partners [3JB-Full PDF Judgment].
    • Shahabuddin, Md. [State of Bihar Vs. Md. Shahabuddin]- SC-30.09.2016-Crl. Appeal-932 of 2016-Cancellation of Bail.
    • Shah Bano Begum [Mohd. Ahmed Khan Vs. Shah Bano Begum]- 5JBSC-23.04.1995- 1985 AIR  945- 1985 SCC  (2) 556- Maintenance- S-125 CrPC- Muslim Personal  Law [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Shahul Hameed K.S. And Ors. Vs. Medical Council Of India And Anr.- W.P.-(C)- 8091 of 2018, C.M. APPL.-30989-30991 of 2018- Judgment on MCI [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Shaikh Farooq Vs. Shaikh Rafiq - Criminal Appeal No.172 Of 2014-BomHC-19.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Shakil Ahmad Jalaluddin Shaikh Versus Vahida Shakil Shaikh & Anr., Criminal Writ Petition No. 2201 OF 2007, Judgment Dated: 20.01.2016, Bench: M. S. SONAK, J., Bombay High Court- S-125 Cr.P.C- Legality & Validity of Tripple Talaq Under Muslim Law- Legality & Validity of Talaqnama- Talaqnama alone not sufficient to prove Muslim Talaq [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Shakti Trading Co. V. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 871 (SC) Partnership Firm- Held, on the dissolution of a firm, where the business of firm is not discontinued and is taken over by other partners, the stock-in-trade of the firm can be valued at cost or market value, whichever is lower [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Shalini Soni Vs. Union of India- Writ Petition Nos. 4344, 1899 and 4500 of 1980.-24.10.1980- (1980) 4 SCC 544- Preventive Detention Act, 1952- Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 21,22(5)- Writ Petition in the nature of habeas corpus- Detenu’s right- Observed, the accused must have proper opportunity of making an effective representation [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Shamar Rimpoche [Holiness] V. Lea Terhune And Others- AIR 2005 Del 167- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2- Grant Of Ex Parte Injunction [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Shamim Ara  Versus State of U.P. & Anr.- Appeal (Crl.) 465 of 1996, Judgment Dated: 10.10.2002, Bench: R.C. Lahoti & P.Venkatarama Reddi, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, AIR 2002 SC 3551: Talaq Under Muslim Law- In This Case the Court held that for an effective and valid talaq, it must be actually pronounced and declared by the husband [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan- Criminal Appeal Nos.564-565 OF 2015-SC-06.04.2015, Bench: Dipak Mishra & Prafulla C Pant, JJ, Supreme Court Of India: Maintenance Of Wife & Children- Wife’s right to receive maintenance under section-125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is an absolute right, irrespective of religion: Muslim women are equally entitled for maintenance under Section-125 Cr.P.C.- Upholding a wife’s right to receive maintenance, the division bench of Dipak Misra and P.C. Pant, JJ., held that a wife’s right to receive maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973, is an absolute right, unless disqualified. The Court reiterated that grant of maintenance to a wife is a measure of social justice and a husband is under obligation to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead his inability to do the same due to financial constraint, as long as he is able- bodied and capable of earning [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Shankarlal Aggarwal And Ors. Vs. Shankarlal Poddar And Ors.- SC-24.01.1963- AIR 1965 SC 507- Company Law- Sale Confirmed by Company Judge- Set aside by Division   Bench- Administrative and judicial orders- Distinction- Whether the order of the Company judge confirming the sale was merely an administrative order passed in the course of the administration of the assets of the company under liquidation, and therefore not a judicial order subject to appeal under cl. 15 of the Letters Patent of the Calcutta High Court [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Shanta Kumar Vs. Council Of Scientific And Industrial Research (CSIR) & Ors - W.P.-C- 8149 Of 2010-DelHC-31.10.2017 [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Shantidevi P. Gaikwad, Her Highness Maharani Vs. Savijbhai Haribhai Patel- Appeal-Civil-3530  of  1998-SC-21.03.2001- (AIR 2001 SC 1462) - Corporate, Business & Commercial Law-  Commercial Contracts- Determinable Clauses- Termination Clause- Principle of “just, fair and devoid of arbitrariness” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Shanti v. State of Haryana- (1991) 1 SCC 371- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA)- Held, unnatural death whether homicidal or suicidal would attract S-304B IPC [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Shashi Tharoor (Dr. ) Vs. Arnab Goswami- DelDC- 01.10.2017-CS(OS) 253/2017- CPC- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2- Publications- Print & Electronic Media- Hampering Course of investigation/inquiry [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Shaurya Gulati Versus Central Board of Secondary Education, W.P.(C) 6170/2015 & CM No.11211/2015, Judgment Dated: 06.07.2015, Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J, Delhi  High Court -Issue, quashing of Administrative Order/Govt. Policy- Held, “There is no rationale behind prohibiting the revaluation of the theory paper of Physical Education.” [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Shayara Bano V. Union Of India-SC- 22.08.2017- WP-C-No.118 Of 2016- Tripple Talaq [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Sheela Joshi Vs. Air India (Formly Known as National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL)- LPA No. 806/2012, Judgment: 19/02/2013, Bench: D. Murugesan, C.J. & V.K. Jain, J., Delhi High Court, Citation: 2013(4) AD(Delhi) 196- Aviation Involving The ID Act, 1947- Constitution of India- Article 226- Writ petition- Availability of efficacious alternative remedy, Maintainability of- Petitioners are working as Cabin Crew with the respondent Air India and duty time limitation and rest period for the Cabin Crew of Air India are regulated as per Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the parties- By office order, respondent communicated that FDTL/FTL applicable in case of officers shall be as per the latest DGCA requirements with immediate effect for all cabin crew/attendant for aircrafts of all types- Challenged by the appellants on the ground that it was in violation of CAR issued by Director General of Civil Aviation and without taking into consideration the Memorandum of Settlements- Held, no reason as to why the petitioners should not invoke the mechanism provided in the Industrial Disputes Act, for redressal of their grievance- Considering the availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioners under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, this is not an appropriate case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution- Writ petition as well as the appeal arising therefrom are hereby dismissed.- Food Corporation of India And Another versus Seil Ltd. And Others, (2008) 3 SCC 440, Distinguished (Para 17)- HELD: We see no reason as to why the petitioners should not invoke the mechanism provided in the Industrial Disputes Act, for redressal of their grievance. In the event of an industrial dispute being raised by them which could be referred for adjudication under Section 10 of the said Act or Central Government making a reference under Section 36A as to the interpretation of the provisions of the Settlement in question, the matter would be adjudicated by the Tribunal/Labour Court, as the case may be, and the party aggrieved from the order of the Tribunal/Labour Court may, if so advised, take the matter further to the High Court by way of a writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of this case, considering the availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioners under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, we are of the view that this is not an appropriate case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution (Para 17) [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar- Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 1982-SC-20.12.1986- AIR 1987 SC 877- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC.- Held, "It is a well-established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justifiable and based upon adequate evidence does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant." [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sherish Hardenia Vs. State of M.P. - Criminal Appeal No. 2087 OF 2013- Framing of Charge- Discharge-S-498-A &  306 IPC [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Shibu Soren Vs. Dayanand Sahay- Appeal(Civil) 3538 of 2000- SC-19.07.2001- (2001) 7 SCC 425- Art.- 32, 102, 103, 102 of constitution of India- Challenge to the order of the Hon'ble President of India, as also to the opinion rendered by the Election Commission [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Shiva Kr. Pradhan Versus Meena Rawat & Anr., RP (Family Court) No.03/2015, Judgment Dated-01.12.10215, Bench: Sunil Kumar Sinha, CJ., Sikkim High Court- Petition under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, 1984- A Major Son not entitled to get maintenance from father [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi- Civil Appeal No. 3013 of 1987 -SC-12.11.1987- (1988) 1 SCC 105- Divorce-HMA- S- 13(1)(a)- Held, “the word ‘cruelty' has not been defined”- Observed,  “It has been used in relation to human conduct or human behavior. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other.”- Further held, “cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional‟.- Further observed, where cruelty meted out is mental, firstly, an enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and its impact on the mind of the spouse is required to be ascertained on the basis of the behavior of the parties so to decide as to whether it had caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious for the wronged spouse to live with the other.- Further Held, “Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Shiv Kumar Yadav [State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav]- CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1187-1188 OF 2015 - SC-10.09.2015-(2016) 2 SCC 402- Held, lack of knowledge, maturity or experience on the part of counsel in cross-examining the prosecution witness cannot be a sufficient ground for invoking the provision of S-311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of the same witness [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 167 of 2012, Order Dated: 24.03.2015, Bench: J Chelameswar & R F Nariman, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Information Technology Act of 2000- AIR 2015 SC 1523- Quashing of FIR- Fundamental rights- Free speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a)- Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 [IT Act]- Section-66A- Fundamental right of Free Speech & Expression- Guaranteed under Article- 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, 1950- Rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950- Impugning therein that the Section 66A was violative of the Article 19(1)(a) of  the Constitution, and was thus unconstitutional & and void- Observed, vague laws offend several important values- Discussed in detail as to what  is  the  content  of  the expression of "freedom of speech and expression"- What is - defamation, incitement to an offence, decency or morality- Which information is  directed  to  incite  or produce  imminent lawlessness and which one constitutes credible threats of violence- Which information stirs the public to anger, invites  violent  disputes, brings about condition of violent unrest and disturbances- Which information advocates  or  teaches  the  duty,   necessity   or proprietary of violence as a means of  accomplishing  political,  social  or religious reform and/or justifies commissioning  of  violent  acts  with  an intent to exemplify glorify such  violent  means  to  accomplish  political, social, economical or religious reforms- Which information contains fighting or abusive material & which one promotes hate speech,  which one propagates hatred towards individual or a groups,  on  the basis of race, religion, religion, casteism, ethnicity- Which information is intended  to  show  the  supremacy  of  one  particular religion/race/caste   by   making disparaging,   abusive   and/or   highly inflammatory remarks against religion/race/caste.- Information depicting religious deities, holy persons,  holy  symbols,  holy books which are created to insult or to show contempt or lack  of  reverence for such religious deities,  holy  persons,  holy  symbols,  holy  books  or towards something which is considered sacred or inviolable- Satirical or iconoclastic cartoon  and  caricature  which  fails  the test laid down in Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell 485 U.S. 46 (1988)- Information which glorifies terrorism and use of drugs- Information which infringes right of privacy of the others and  includes acts of cyber bullying, harassment or stalking- Information which is obscene and has the tendency to arouse feeling  or revealing an overt sexual desire and should be suggestive  of  deprave  mind and designed to excite sexual passion in persons who are likely to see it.- Procedural Unreasonableness- A District Court Judge’s observations in some other case referred to, which read as follows: It is  no exaggeration to conclude that the  Internet  has  achieved,  and continues to achieve, the most  participatory  marketplace  of  mass  speech that this country- and indeed the world - as yet seen.- Cases Referred to & Relied upon: Romesh Thappar  Vs.  State  of Madras, [1950] S.C.R. 594 at 602; Sakal Papers  (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India, [1962] 3 S.C.R. 842 at  866;  Kameshwar Prasad & Ors. v. The  State  of Bihar & Anr., 1962 Supp. (3) S.C.R. 369, Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., [1973] 2 S.C.R. 757  at  829,; S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniamal & Anr., (2010)  5  SCC  600; Whitney  Vs. California, 71 L. Ed. 1095; Chaplinsky Vs. New  Hampshire,  86 L. Ed. 1031;   Cantwell Vs. Connecticut, 310  U.S. 296, 309, 310, 60 S.Ct. 900, 906, 84  L. Ed. 1213,  128  A.L.R.  1352."   Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited &  Ors.  Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1985) 2 SCR 287;  The  Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh Vs. Ram Manohar Lohia, [1960] 2  S.C.R.  821; Chintaman Rao Vs. The  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh,  [1950] S.C.R. 759; State of Madras v. V.G. Row, [1952] S.C.R. 597;  Mohd. Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., [1970]  1 S.C.R. 156; Dr.  N.  B.  Khare  v.  State  of  Delhi,  [1950]  S.C.R.  519;  Secretary  Ministry  of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India v.  Cricket  Association  of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161 in  para  37;  Brij Bhushan & Anr. v. State  of  Delhi,  [1950]  S.C.R. 605; Dr. Ram Manohar  Lohia  Vs.  State  of Bihar & Ors., [1966] 1 S.C.R. 709; Arun Ghosh Vs. State of  West  Bengal,  [1970]  3  S.C.R.  288;  Schenck  Vs.  United States, 63 L. Ed. 470; Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co.,  221  U.  S.  418, 439, 31 Sup. Ct. 492, 55 L. ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874. Abrams  v.  Unites  States  250  U.S.  616 (1919); Terminiello v. City of Chicago 93 L. Ed. 1131 (1949) at page 1134-1135;   Brandenburg  v. Ohio 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 (1969) at 434-435 & 436; Virginia v. Black 155 L.  Ed. 2d 535 (2003) at page 551, 552 and 553[4]; S. Rangarajan v.  P.  Jagjivan & Ors., (1989) 2 SCC 574; State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi,  [1952]  S.C.R.  654; Ramji Lal Modi v. The State of U.P.,  [1957]  S.C.R.  860  at  page 867,  Kedar Nath Singh  v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp. (2) S.C.R. 769, Dr.  Ramesh  Yeshwant  Prabhoo  v.  Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte &  Ors.,  1996  (1)  SCC   130; Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra  [1965]  1  S.C.R. 65; Director  General,  Directorate General of Doordarshan  v. Anand Patwardhan, 2006 (8) SCC  433; Aveek  Sarkar  v.  State  of  West Bengal, 2014 (4) SCC 257;  Director of Public Prosecutions v. Collins - (2006) 1 WLR 2223 @ para 9  and 21; Connolly v. Director of Public Prosecutions  reported  in  [2008]  1  W.L.R. 276/2007 [1] All ER 1012, House  of  Lords  Select  Committee  1st  Report  of  Session  2014-2015  on Communications titled as "Social Media And Criminal Offences" @  pg  260  of compilation of judgments Vol I Part B; Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969); Terminiello v. Chicago 337 US 1 (1949); Whitney vs. California 274 US 357]; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942); City of Chicago v. Morales et al, 527 U.S.  41  (1999); United States v. Reese 92 U.S. 214 (1875) at 221; Grayned v. City of  Rockford,  33  L.Ed.  2d.  222; State  of  Madhya  Pradesh  v. Baldeo Prasad, [1961] 1 S.C.R. 970; K.A.  Abbas  v.  The  Union  of  India  & Another, [1971] 2 S.C.R. 446; State of Madhya  Pradesh  and  Anr. v. Baldeo Prasad, 1961 (1) SCR 970; Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia & Ors. v. Union  of  India & Ors., 1969 (2) SCC 166; A.K. Roy & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1982] 2  S.C.R.  272; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994)  3  SCC  569  at para 130-131; Madan Singh v. State of Bihar, (2004) 4 SCC  622; Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman  Sheikh  v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2010) 5 SCC 246; State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Limited,  (2003) 7 SCC 389;  State of Karnataka  v.  Appa  Balu  Ingale, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 469; R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC  63; Attorney   General v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd. (No. 2)[(1990) 1 AC 109 : (1988) 3 All ER  545  :  (1988)  3 WLR 776, HL] popularly known as "Spycatcher case"; The  Secretary,  Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v.  Cricket  Association  of  Bengal  &  Anr., (1995) SCC 2 161 at Para 78 already referred to; Kameshwar Prasad & Ors.  v. The  State  of  Bihar  &  Anr.,  [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 369; Romesh Thappar v. The  State  of  Madras,  [1950]  S.C.R.  594; R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. The Union of  India,  [1957]  S.C.R.  930; State  of  Bombay v.  F.N. Balsara [(1951) SCR 682] and State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd. [(1953) SCR 1069 at 1098-99] [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Shrikant Jain [CBI Vs. Shrikant Jain & Ors.]- W.P. (CRL.) 2865 of 2017- DelHC- 29.01.2018- Judge- The qualities which a Judicial Officer would possess delineated in this Case.- A Judicial Officer must, apart from academic knowledge, have the capacity to communicate his thoughts, he must be tactful, he must be diplomatic, he must have a sense of humour, he must have the ability to defuse situations, to control the examination of witnesses and also lengthy irrelevant arguments and the like.-Cases cited: Delhi Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 159- K. H. Siraj Vs. High Court of Kerala & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 2339 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Shrikant Madhav Karve Versus The Secretary (Parivahan IV), Public Interest Litigation No.28 Of 2013,  Judgment Dated: 18.02.2016, Bench: A.S. Oka & V.L. Achliya, JJ, Bombay High Court- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [MV Act]- Issue, mainly about the “transport vehicles” as defined under Sub­section (47) of Section 2 of the MV Act.- The main issue raised in this Public Interest Litigation is as regards the manner in which the transport vehicles are checked for the purposes of issuing fitness certificates under Sub­section (47) of Section 2.- The Court passed multiple directions.- Directed the Central Government to consider amending of Section 192 of the MV Act, providing for stringent penalty   which   will   be   deterrent [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Shrikant Tamrakar and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, Criminal Case No.2112/2015, Judgment Dated- 10.12.2015, Bench: C.V. Sirpurkar, J, MP High Court- Jabalpur Bench- Sought Quashing of FIR U/S-226 of the Constitution & S-482 of CrPC.- The FIR U/S- 498-A/34 IPC & Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Held, if there are no specific and credible allegations against the relatives of the husband, and there only omnibus allegations shorn of even basic details, they should not be made to suffer the ignominy of a criminal trial [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Shri Vithal Waman Shelke Vs. High Court of Bombay- Writ Petition No.1277 OF 2015- BomHC- 14.102.2016-Quashing-Recommendations For Judicial Appointment [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Shumita Didi Sandhu  Vs. Sanjay Singh Sandhu- DelHC-26.10.2010-FAO- (OS)- 341 Of 2007- Matrimonial Home- Shared-Household [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Shweta Gupta-AllHC-04.10.2017-Adoption- By Second Husband- Of Child of second wife from her first marriage [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Shyam Sharama Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another- Criminal Appeal No.1799 Of 2010- SC- 04.10.2017- (2017) 9 SCC, 362- Bail [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Shyam Singh @ Bhima Vs. State Of M.P.- Criminal Appeal No. 864 Of 2013 - SC- 01.09.2016- Death Sentence-Commuted to life [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Shyni Varghese vs State 147-2008-DLT 691- False Implication Becomes Fabrication Of False Evidence.- Chapter-XI IPC- S-191, 192, 193 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Sidharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra- SC-02.12.2010- Criminal Appeal No.2271 of 2010- 2011-1 SCC 694= AIR-2011-SC 312- Bail/ Anticipatory Bail- Bail Laws Internationally-Factors And Parameters [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Criminal Appeal No.-179 Of 2007, Judgment Dated: 19.04.2010, Bench: P. Sathasivam, Swatanter Kumar, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Criminal Appeals- Conviction Upheld [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sidharth Vashisth alias Manu Sharma v. State of Delhi, 2004 Cri LJ 684 at p. 688 (Del) [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Criminal Appeal No.-179 Of 2007, Judgment Dated: 12.05.2008, Bench: P. Sathasivam, Swatanter Kumar, JJ, Supreme Court Of India– Post Conviction Bail U/S-389 Cr.P.C.- “34. The mere fact that during the period of trial, the accused was on bail and there was no misuse of liberty, does not per se warrant suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail. What really necessary is to consider whether reasons exist to suspend execution of the sentence and grant of bail”.- “35. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, this is not a fit case to exercise power under Section 389 of the Code. Though the trial Court has acquitted the applicant-accused for the  offences with which he was charged, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted him under Section 302, IPC and ordered him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved by the said order, he has filed an appeal which has been admitted, is already on board and awaits final hearing. Hence, within ‘measurable distance of time’ the appeal is likely to be heard. Keeping in view the seriousness of offence, the manner in which the crime was said to have been committed and the gravity of offence, we are of the view that no case has been made out by the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Sita Ram Vs. Balbir (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 489- Cancellation Of Bail [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Skipper [Delhi Development Authority V. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd.]- SC-06.05.19996- 1996 AIR 2005-1996 SCC  (4) 622- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2-Warning-Mechanical Grant Of Injunction [Full PDF Judgment].
    • S.N.Sahu Vs. Chairman, Rajya Sabha & Ors.-W.P.-C-No. 11146 of 2016-DelHC-05.12.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • S.N.R. Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh- Service Matter-A Government servant cannot hold two substantive posts at the same time [Full PDF Judgment].
    • SN Shukla  Versus Department of Justice,  Government of India, New Delhi, File No.CIC/SA/A/2014/000478 (Video­ Conference), Judgment Dated: 07.01.2014, M. S. ACHARYULU, IC, Central Information Commission- The  Appellant  had sought a copy of the National Judicial Appointments Commissions Bill as cleared by the cabinet & a copy of the note and order in the concerned file relating to the cabinet note about the settng up of the National Judicial Appointments Commissions [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar Vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Law And Justice- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 73 Of 2015 [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Someshwar Dayal Versus Anupama Dayal, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 99/2014, Judgment Dated: 17.08.2016, Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog & Pratibha Rani, JJ, Delhi  High Court/ Supreme Court Of India: Child Custody- Issue, “whether a spouse who seeks custody of the children by moving a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act and obtains interim orders can one day withdraw the proceedings and continue to take benefit of the interim orders ?- Held, No [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Sonia-Gandhi-SC-12.02.2016-Exemption-from-Personal-Appearance [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta- 3JBSC-11.02.2015- Criminal Appeal Nos. 285-287 OF 2015- Quashing- Summoning Order [Full PDF Judgments].
    • South Eastern Coalfields Ltd Vs Prabhat Kumar Mishra- Appointment & Employment In Accordance With The Rehabilitation Policy-In Lieu Of Acquisition Of His Land [Full PDF Judgment].
    • S. Panneer Selvam  Vs. State of Tamil Nadu- CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  6631-6632 of 2015-SC-17.08.2015- (2015) 10 SCC 292- A request for a revisit of Order cannot be entertained ad nauseam [Full PDF Judgments].  
    • S. Patil- 2001 (1) Scc 416: “Having Regard To Certain Sporadic Instances Of Lack Of Probity And Integrity Among Some Of The Personnel Who Man This High Office, It Is High Time That Specific Standards Are Set With Regard To Value System To Be Adopted And Followed By The Members Serving In The Temple Of Justice. No Doubt, They Are More Self Imposed Than Imposed. While Dispensing Justice, The Messenger Is Also Important As The Message Itself. A Judge Is Judged Not Only By The Quality Of His Judgments, But Also By The Quality And Purity Of His Character And The Measurable Standard Of That Character Is Impeccable Integrity Reflected Transparently In His Personal Life As Well. One Who Corrects Corruption Should Be Incorruptible. That Is The High Standard, The Public Has Set In Such High Offices Of Institutional Integrity. Therefore, Any Departure From The Pristine Codes And Values Of Discipline And Disciplined Conduct On The Part Of The Judicial Officers Will Have To Be Viewed Very Seriously Lest The Very Foundation Of The System Would Be Shaken And, If So, That Will Be The Death Knell Of Democracy......... .........Honesty And Integrity Are The Hallmarks Of Judicial Probity. Dishonesty And Lack Of Integrity Are Hence The Basic Elements Of Misconduct As Far As A Judicial Officer Is Concerned. ........We May End Up This Epilogue Quoting From The Decision Of The Supreme Court Regarding The Role Of The High Court In Such Situations, Reported In High Court Of Judicature Vrs. Shashikant Patel (Supra): “Dishonesty Is The Stark Antithesis Of Judicial Probity. Any Instance Of A High Court Condoning Or Compromising Within A Dishonest Deed Of One Of Its Officers Would Only Be Contributing To Erosion Of The Judicial Foundation. Every Hour We Must Remind Ourselves That The Judiciary Floats Only Over The Confidence Of The People In Its Probity. Such Confidence Is The Foundation On Which The Pillars Of The Judiciary Are Built.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Special Reference No.1 Of 2012- Civil Appeal No. 406 of 1976 - SC-15.02.1991- Re- Advisory Jurisdiction- Under Article 143-1- of the Constitution of India- Opinion-27.09.2012 [Full PDF Judgments]. 
    • Spences Hotel P. Limited Vs. State of West Bengal (1991) 2 SCC 154- Taxation Laws [Full PDF Judgment].
    • S.P. Gupta vs President Of India-7JB-SC-30.12.1981- AIR 1982 SC 149= 1981 Supp (1) SCC 87= 1982 2 SCR 365- Several issues of great constitutional importance affecting the independence of the judiciary- constitutional validity of a govt. circular, and many more [Full PDF Judgments].
    • SPS-rathore-IPC-S-354-509 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • S. Rajaseekaran (II) (Dr.) Vs. Union of India & Ors.- SC-30.11.2017- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 OF 2012- Road Safety Norms- Accident Victims [Full PDF Judgment].
    • S. Rangarajan Vs. P.Jagjivan Ram- Civil Appeal Nos. 1668 and 1669 of 1988-SC-30.03.1989- [(1989)2 SCC 574]- Constitution- Rights under Art.-19(1)(a)- Restrictions on the exercise of the said right under Art.-19(2)- Disturbance of law and order no ground [Full PDF Judgment].
    • S.R. Batra and Anr. Vs. Tarun Batra, Appeal (Civil)  5837 of 2006, Judgment dated: 15.06.2006- AIR 2007 SC 1118, Supreme Court of India- Shared Household, as defined under section-2(s) of D V Act- In laws’ property not covered under Shared Household. Held, the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a `shared household' would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member [Full PDF Judgments].
    • S.R. Bommai Vs. Union of India-SC-11.03.1994- 1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1- Centre-State Relations- Art-356 of Constitution of India [Full PDF Judgments].
    • S.R. Chaudhari Vs. St. of Punjab- (2001) 7 SCC 126- Observed, Governors must remain conscious of their constitutional obligations and not sacrifice either political responsibility or parliamentary conventions on the altar of “political expediency [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Star Sports India Private Limited Versus  Prasar Bharati & Ors., Civil Appeal No.5252 Of 2016, Judgment Dated: 27.05.2016, Bench: A.K. Sikri & Prafulla .C. Pant, JJ, Delhi  High Court- Issue, writ of certiorari sought seeking to quash and set-aside the communication dated 06th April, 2013 issued by Prasar Bharti- Outcome- Declined [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Students Federation Of India And Ors. Vs. Union Of India & Ors.- W.P.(C) 3032 Of 2017-DelHC-01.10.2018- Quashing-UGC Regulations- Weightage To Viva VoceStudents Federation Of India And Ors. Vs. Union Of India & Ors.- W.P.(C) 3032 Of 2017-DelHC-01.10.2018- Quashing-UGC Regulations- Weightage To Viva Voce [Full PDF Judgment].
    • St. Xaviers College Society,Ahmedabad Vs State Of Gujrat-SC-26.04.1974- Quashing- Legislation-Gujarat  University Act [Full PDF Judgment].   
    • Subhan Tours & Travel Services Versus Union of India, Writ Petition No. 239 OF 2016, Judgment Dated: 18.05.2016, Bench: Abhay Manohar Sapre & Ashok Bhushan, JJ, Delhi  High Court/ Supreme Court Of India- (a) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to accept application for registration and issue Registration Certificate as PTO under Category II for conducting Haj Tour, 2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Subhash Chandra Agrawal Versus S.N. Murthy Vaddadi, Senior Additional Director, Construction Industry Development Council, F.No.CIC/SS/C/2013/000275, Judgment Dated-25.06.2015, Sharat Sabharwal, IC, Yashovardhan Azad, IC, & Vijai Sharma, CIC Issue pertaining the Construction Industry Development Council (the CIDC)- CIC held the CIDC to be a ‘public authority’ under section 2 (h) of the Act. The CIDC directed to appoint a Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) and a First Appellate Authority under the relevant provisions of the Act [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Subhash Chandra Agrawal Versus Delhi & District Cricket Association [DDCA], File No. CIC/LS/C/2012/000714, Date of Decision : 13.04.2015, M.Sridhar Acharyulu, IC- IC held the Delhi & District Cricket Association [DDCA] to be a ‘public authority’. The DDCA directed to appoint PIO and create necessary infrastructure to receive and respond the RTI applications, in compliance of legal duties under RTI Act as public authority [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Subhash Chandra Agrawal & Others Versus Indian National Congress (INC)/ All India Congress Committee (AICC); 2. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP); 3. Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM); 4. Communist Party of India (CPI); 5. Nationalist Congress Party (NCP); 6. Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), F.No.CIC/CC/C/2015/000182, Date of Decision-16.03. 2015, Manjula Prasher, IC, Sharat Sabharwal, IC, Vijai Sharma, IC- Backdrop of the Case is as follows: Mr. Agrawal in application dated 16.05.2011 had asked the Presidents/ General Secretaries of the INC/AICC and the BJP to supply information, inter alia, relating to election manifestos, fulfilment of promises, receipts and payments, proposals to Government and Election Commission about electoral reforms, etc.; Mr. Bairwal, in his application dated 29.10.2010, had asked the six national political parties, i.e., INC/AICC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP, to provide information about the sources, for a certain period, of the ten largest voluntary contributions; CIC has  already held the aforementioned national political parties as public authorities vide the order dated 03.06.2013; All the parties were directed by the CIC to comply with the provisions of section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act- No Compliance till date.- CIC held, the respondents are not in compliance with the Commission’s order of 03.06.2013 and the RTI Act. The respondents, as public authorities, have not implemented the directions contained in the Commission’s order and there is no evidence of any intention to do so [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Dr. Vs. State Of Maharashtra- Criminal Appeal No.416 Of 2018- SC-20.03.2018- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Subhash Photographics Vs. Union of India- 1993 Suppl (3) SCC 323- Held, a distinction had to be drawn between taxing statutes and other statutes [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State Of Maharashtra-SC-17.09.2004- Appeal (Crl.) 1253 of 2002- AIR 2004 SC 4711- Quashing-Summoning Order-138 NI Act- In this case, while upholding the ratio of Adalat Prasad’s case (supra), the Court held, “As observed by us in Adalat Prasad’s case the only remedy available to an aggrieved accused to challenge an order in an interlocutory stage is the extraordinary remedy under Section 482 of the Code and not by way of an application to recall the summons or to seek discharge which is not contemplated in the trial of a summons case.” [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Subramanian Swamy Versus Union Of India, Ministry Of Law & Ors.,- SC- 13.05.2016- Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 184 Of 2014-(2016) 7 SCC 221- Constitutionality of S-499 & 500 IPC-Upheld [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Subrata Chattoraj Vs. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 768- Bail in PMLA, ED, and Analogous Crimes [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Subrata-Roy-Sahara-SC-06.05.2014-Challanging-SC-Order-by-way-of-a-Writ-Petition [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Sucha Singh Vs. Ajmer Singh and another- CR 182-2017 (O&M)-P&HHC-17.05.2018- Evidence & Witnesses- Issue, Recording of statement of the Petitioner through Video Conferencing like Facetime, Whatsapp, Skype and other similar applications- In this Case, the Petitioner happen to be a resident of USA- The Court had confronted with the similar situation in CR 6571 of 2014 where it had allowed the parties to do the needful vide its order dated 16.10.2015 by observing as follows: (i) witness can be confronted with the documents with close proximity to the camera-  (ii) the Petitioner to choose a place which shall be a public authority where  such facility is available, (iii) the Petitioner to identify the Indian Consulate in the nearest place from his residence, (iv) the Petitioner to produce before the Indian consulate the Court order to secure the permission for hearing, (v) the Petitioner to make himself available during the Court working hours in India, the Petitioner to give a date which is mutually convenient to the Court and the Consulate or the Public Office. The Court however modified its order passed in CR 6571 of 2014 by observing as follows: The Petitioner is allowed to examine himself by way of Video Conferencing through Mobile or Computer on an application, which shall be intimated to the trial Court and which shall be installed on the Computer, Laptop or I Pad.  [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sucha Singh Sodhi (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Baldev Raj Walia & Anr. - Civil Appeal No.3777 Of 2018-Arising Out Of Slp (C) No.13256 Of 2014- Sc-13.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Sudama Pandey Vs. State of Bihar- Appeal -crl.-654-655  of  2000-SC-05.12.2001- (2002) 1 SCC 679- Circumstantial Evidence [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sudha Mishra Vs. Surya Chandra Mishra, RFA No.299 of 2014, Order Dated: 25.07.2014, passed by A K Pathak,J, Delhi High Court- Shared Household U/S-2(s) of D V Act [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sudha Mishra Vs. Surya Chandra Mishra- Special Leave Appeal No. 23519 of 2014, Order dated: 25.02.2015, passed by Madan B Lokur & Uday Umesh Lalit,JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Shared Household U/S-2(s) of D V Act [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sudhansu Sekhar Misra [State Of Orissa Vs. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra]- Civil Appeals No. 625-630 of 1967- SC-17.11.1967- 1968 AIR 647-  1968 SCR (2) 154- Interpretation of statutes- Referred: Earl of Halsbury L.C. in the celebrated pronouncement of the House of Lords in the decision reported as [1901] A.C. 495 Quinn v. Leathem- Quotation is as follows: "Now, before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood [1898] A.C. 1 and what decided therein, there are two observation of a general character which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have very often said before, that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expression which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all." [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sudhir Vohra Vs. The Union Of India- W.P. (C)- 3319 of 2017- DelHC-05.01.2018- Interpretation Of Statutes- General Clauses Act- Held, “13. A juxtaposed reading of the various Clauses of Section 13(2) of the Act reveals that the words “from” and “of” have selectively and, apparently, deliberately-been used in different clauses thereof. Clauses (c), (d), (e) and (h) used the word “from” whereas Clauses (b), (f) and (k) used the word “of”. Where different words are used by the legislature in the same statutory provision, the use of such different words have necessarily to be regarded as deliberate, and it would be interpretative folly, on our part, to attribute, to such different words, the same meaning. (Ref: CIT v. East West Import & Export (P). Ltd, Jaipur, AIR 1989 1 SC 836, Shri Ishal Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswalas Neco Ltd, (2001) 3 SCC 609, Kailash Nath Agarwal v. Pradeshiya Indust and Inv Corp. of U.P. (2003) 4 SCC 305, D.L.F.”- Further held, “14. Venkatarama Aiyar, J. speaking for the Bench in Member, Board of Revenue v. Arthur Paul Benthall ,1955 (2) SCR 842, ruled that “when two words of different import are used in a statute in two consecutive provisions, it would be difficult to maintain that they are used in the same sense”.  [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Sujata Mukherjee vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee, (1997) 5 SCC 30 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Sujatha Etc. Etc.  Versus State Of Kerala And Ors., Appeal (Crl.) 652 of 1989, Date Of Judgment: 19/09/1994 Bench: Madan Mohan Punchhi & K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 1994 SUPPL. (3) SCR 646- Held, “A judge should take special care in making disparaging remarks against a judge of a subordinate court or against a person or authority whose conduct comes in for con-sideration before him in cases to be decided by him. Making uncalled for remarks against the said persons or authorities would be violation of judicial discipline," [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar [State Of Maharashtra Vs  Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar]- SC- 19.09.2008-Criminal Appeal No. 1492 OF 2008- CrPC- Section-378. Appeal in case of acquittal.- Section-378(3)- Leave of the High Court to Appeal- Held, “22. In our opinion, however, in deciding the question whether requisite leave should or should not be granted, the High Court must apply its mind, consider whether “prima facie” case has been made out or arguable points have been raised and not whether the order of acquittal would or would not be set aside [Full PDF Judgments]. 
    • Sujit Kumar Rana: State of W.B. Vs. Sujit Kumar Rana – (2004) 4 SCC 129 = AIR 2004 SC 1851- Paras 33 and 46- - Extent & Scope of Section 482 Cr.PC & Section 482 Cr.PC discussed [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Suman Singh Vs. Sanjay Singh- Civil Appeal- 7114 of 2014- 08.03.2017- (2017) 4SCC 85- Family & personal Laws- Divorce- HMA,1955- Mental Cruelty- S-13(1)(i-a)- Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 Cited- Isolated Incident Theory- Subsisting Cause of action of recurring and continuing nature in near proximity of filing of Petition, is the requirement of law [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Sunil Vs State of Maharashtra- Criminal Appeal No.212 of 2013- BomHC- 25.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sunil Alias Dev Vs. State (NCT Of Delhi)- CRL. Appeal 404 of 2011- DelHC-08.01.2018- Criminal Law- Test Identification Parade [TIP]-Held, “11. This court is of the view that the trial court coming to the conclusion that the accused were duly identified is a wrong finding. The admission of PW3 and PW4 that they had seen the appellant /accused in the police station and their identification pursuant thereto in the court is no identification in the eye of law [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sunny Paul & Anr v State NCT of Delhi & Ors- DelHC-15.03.2017- S-4- Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007- Tribunal does have jurisdiction to evict son and daughter-in-law from the house of a senior citizen [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Supriya Subhash Bhatmare Vs. Shivanand Babaso Swami - Second Appeal No. 851 Of 2015-BomHC-27.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Sushil Kumar V. Ram Parkash- (1988) 2 SCC 77-S-41(H) Of The Specific Relief Act, 1963- O-XXXIX, R-1,2- Injunction When Refused [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sunil Kumar  Vs. Union Of India And Ors- W.P.(C) 3810 of 2016- DelHC-05.01.2018- Disciplinary Authority had already made up its mind to hold the petitioner guilty- the procedure adopted by the Disciplinary Authority is contrary to the procedure elucidated by the Supreme court in the cases of Punjab National Bank and Others v. Kunj Behari Mishra reported as (1998) 7 SCC 84 and Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and Anrs reported as (1999) 7 SCC 739. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Rajpal Singh v. UoI & Ors. bearing W.P.(C) No.19696/2005. [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Sunil Kumar v. Vipin Kumar, Criminal Appeal No. 1664/2014 , Judgment Dated- 07/08/2014),  Citations- 2014 AIR(SC) 3400= 2014(8) SCC 868= 2014(9) JT 1= 2014(9) SCALE 234= 2014(6) Supreme 446=  2014(6) SLT 743=  2014 CrLJ 4171=  2014(4) Crimes 17(SC) Bench- Dipak Misra & V. Gopala Gowda, JJ [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sunil Kumar [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar]-3JBSC-24.11.2017- Civil Appeal No. 9694 Of 2013- MV Act [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988]-S-163-A- Negligence- Insurer cannot raise plea of negligence as defence [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sunita Chopra Vs. Dte of Education (North), GNCTD, CIC/SA/A/2015/001934, Judgment Dated: 25.02.2014, Bench: Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), Information Commissioner, Information Commissioner, Central Information COmmission- RTI application with respect to inadequate maintenance amount paid to her by her husband who has deserted her and her two sons. She sought latest salary slip of Shri Naresh Kumar Chopra, his residential address, copy of service book, latest GPF statement, details of assets owned by him. She also sought name of nominee appointed by her husband in GPF & Family Pension, group insurance schemes, CGHS, death & retirement gratuity etc.- Held, “9. The Commission thus holds that a. The husband in this case, has no duty to provide the personal information listed above to the appellant, and the appellant­ wife has no right to his private information as there is no longer any marital relationship nor any dispute over  maintenance  which forms basis for disclosure of personal information under Section 8(1)(j) and larger public interest cannot be invoked. b. Thus, deductions from  salalry are private information  and it cannot  be  disclosed. Details  of   nominee,   residential   address  is  also private information and not to be disclosed. The appellant is however entitled to have access to the salary related information. The Commission finds that the information that can be given under Section 4(1)(b) was provided to the appellant. The CPIO is directed to provide to the appellant, salary related details of Shri Naresh Kumar Chopra without deductions and annual status of assets and liabilities if held by the public authority. The other information relating to the service book, GPF and other details which fall under the exceptions laid down under Section 8(1)(j) need not be disclosed [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. Vs. Anil Kachwaha, Criminal Appeal No. 2310 of 2014 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 2659/2012, Order Dated: October 28, 2014, Bench: T S Thakur & R. Banumathi, JJ- The proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature. In a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary for the court to ascertain as to who was in wrong and the minute details of the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife need not be gone into. While so, the High Court was not right in going into the intricacies of dispute between the appellant-wife and the respondent.- Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of maintenance to the wife.- The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her.- Merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 917 OF 2011- SC-11.04.11- (2011) 11 SCC 301 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Suo Moto Vs.  Outrage As Parents End Life After Child's Dengue Death- SMW (C) No(s). 1/2015- Pending- Environment Law- management of solid waste- sites for setting up of solid waste processing facilities- door collection of segregated waste- Swachh Bharat Mission- Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016- Central Pollution Control Board- State Level Advisory Body (SLAB)- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986[Full PDF Judgment-SC-12.12.2007].
    • Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Vs. Union of India-9JBSC-06.10.1993- (1993) 4 SCC 441- Issue, Appointment and Transfer of the Judges- Recommendation Consultations- Consultation is to be effective and primacy has to be given to the views of the persons consulted [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association And Another Versus Union Of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 Of 2015, Judgment Dated: 16.10.2015, Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, J, J. Chelameswar, J Madan B. Lokur, J, Kurian Joseph, J, Adarsh Kumar Goel, Supreme Court Of India- The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, as also the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 declared unconstitutional and void; the system of appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court, and Chief Justices and Judges to the High Courts; and transfer of Chief Justices and Judges of High Courts from one High Court, to another, as existing prior to the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 (called the “collegium system”), is declared to be operative. The Petition was however, kept pending to consider introduction of appropriate measures, if any, for an improved working of the “collegium system” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association And Another Versus Union Of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 Of 2015, Judgment Dated: 07.04.2015, Jagdish Singh Khehar, J, J. Chelameswar, J Madan B. Lokur, J, Kurian Joseph, J, Adarsh Kumar Goel, Supreme Court Of India- Vide this judgment matter was referred to Constitution Bench to examine the legality and validity of the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association And Another Versus Union Of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 Of 2015, Judgment Dated: 16.12.2015, Jagdish Singh Khehar, J, J. Chelameswar, J Madan B. Lokur, J, Kurian Joseph, J, Adarsh Kumar Goel, Supreme Court Of India [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Suraj Bhan Meena and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan- SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.6385 OF 2010-SC-07.12.2010- (2011) 1 SCC 467- A request for a revisit of Order cannot be entertained ad nauseam [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Suresh Chand Gautam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh- (2016) 11 SCC 113- A request for a revisit of Order cannot be entertained ad nauseam [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Suresh Kalmadi Vs. CBI- Crl.M.C. No.2143/2015-DelHC-22.05.2015- Bail Appln. 1692/2011(19/01/2012)- 2012(1) JCC 734= 2012(187) DLT 575= 2012(1) AD(Delhi) 889= 2012(127) DRJ 588: [Mukta Gupta, J.] [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Suresh Kaushal: State of M.P. Vs. Suresh Kaushal and Anr., (2003) 11 SCC 126 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Suresh Singh Versus State, W.P. (Crl.) 494/2010, Judgment Dated: 27.04.2012, Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed & V.K. Jain, JJ, Delhi High Court, Comparative Citations: 2012(189) DLT 460: 2012(5) AD(Delhi) 173- Child Custody- NRI & Foreigner-Guardianship- Visitation Rights [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Surinder Kaur Sandhu v. Harbax Singh Sandhu, (1984) 3 SCC 698- Child Custody- NRI & Foreigner-Guardianship- Visitation Rights [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Surjeet Singh Vs. State & Anr., W.P. (Crl.) 494 of 2010, Order Dated-27.04.2012, Bench: Badar Durej Ahmed & V K Jain, JJ, Delhi High Court- Child Custody- NRI & Foreigner-Guardianship- Visitation Rights [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Surya Kirti Thapar Vs. State Of NCT Of Delhi- BAIL APPLN. 334/2014, Judgments Dated-24/11/2014, Bench- Ved Prakash Vaish, J, Citations- 2015(1) AD(Delhi) 37 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Surya Vadanan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Appeal No.395 of 2015-SC-27.02.2015. Bench- Child Custody- NRI & Foreigner-Guardianship- Visitation Rights- Jurisdiction- Observed, it is in accord with the “principle of comity” as well as the welfare of the child– who is a foreign citizen, that the child returns back to his/her native land from where the child has been removed [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. State Of  NCT Of  Delhi & Anr.- Special Leave Petition- Criminal Nos.-7281-7282 Of 2017-SC-15.05.2018- Bail/ Anticipatory Bail- Duration of Anticipatory Bail [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Sushil Ansal [Association Of Victims Of Uphaar Tragedy Vs. Sushil Ansal]- Review Petition - Criminal - Nos. 712-714 Of 2015 In Criminal Appeals Nos. 600-602 Of 2010 - SC- 09.02.2017 [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India- SC-19.07.2005-Writ Petition (Civil)  141 of 2005- (2005) 6 SCC 281- Quashing- Legislation- Section 498-A- rampant misuse- S-498A is not unconstitutional and ultra vires- Guidelines issued so that the innocent persons are not victimized at the hands of unscrupulous persons [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Swapan Kumar Guha [State Of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors.]- Civil Appeal No. 1129 of 1981- SC-02.02.1982- 1982 AIR 949- 1982 SCC (1) 561-Condition precedent to commencement of investigation- Police have no unfettered discretion to commence investigation- Power to investigate- quashing of investigation- quashing of proceedings- quashing of FIR [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Swaraj Abhiyan–(I) Versus Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 857 OF 2015 , Judgment Dated: 11.05.2016, Bench: Madan B. Lokur & N.V. Ramana, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- PIL on drought issue- SC issued several directions to the States and UOI [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Swaraj Abhiyan–(II) Versus Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 857 OF 2015 , Judgment Dated: 13.05.2016, Bench: Madan B. Lokur & N.V. Ramana, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- PIL on drought issue- SC issued several directions to the States and UOI [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Swaraj Abhiyan–(III) Versus Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 857 OF 2015 , Judgment Dated: 13.05.2016, Bench: Madan B. Lokur & N.V. Ramana, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- PIL on drought issue- SC issued several directions to the States and UOI [Full PDF Judgments- 11.05.2016 | 13.05.2016-I | 13.05.16-II .
    • Swatanter Kumar V. Indian Express Ltd.- O-XXXIX, R-1,2- Grant Of Ex Parte Injunction [Full PDF Judgments- 15.01.2014 | 16.01.2014].
    • Syed Shahid Yousuf  Vs. National Investigation Agency - Crl-A-426 Of 2018 & Crl - M.A. 7469 Of 2018 - DelHC- 31.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Versus Hasan Raza Khan & 6 Ors, Consolidation No. - 534 of 2002,  Judgment Dated: 22.01.2016, Bench: Dr Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice & Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya & Rajan Roy, JJ, Allahabad High Court- The matter fell for consideration of the full bench on a reference from the same Court- Question of law, “Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be filed by a power of attorney holder.”- Held, “For the reasons which we have indicated earlier, we hold that we cannot subscribe to the broad principle of law which has been enunciated in the following decisions: (1) Dr Prabhu Nath Prasad Gupta Vs State of U P, 2003 (52) ALR 520; (2) Rustam Khusro Shapoor Ji Gandhi Vs State of U P, 2010 (80) ALR 25; and (3) Gurmeet Kaur Kwatra Vs Vice Chairman, Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi, CMWP No 44007 of 1998 (decided on 14 December 2009). When a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is instituted through a power of attorney holder, the holder of the power of attorney does not espouse a right or claim personal to him but acts as an agent of the donor of the instrument. The petition which is instituted, is always instituted in the name of the principal who is the donor of the power of attorney and through whom the donee acts as his agent. In other words, the petition which is instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution is not by the power of attorney holder independently for himself but as an agent acting for and on behalf of the principal in whose name the writ proceedings are instituted before the Court. Having held so, we must, at the same time, emphasize the necessity of observing adequate safeguards where a writ petition is filed through the holder of a power of attorney. These safeguards should necessarily include the following: (1) The power of attorney by which the donor authorises the donee, must be brought on the record and must be filed together with the petition/application; (2) The affidavit which is executed by the holder of a power of attorney must contain a statement that the donor is alive and specify the reasons for the inability of the donor to remain present before the Court to swear the affidavit; and (3) The donee must be confined to those acts which he is authorised by the power of attorney to discharge. For these reasons, we hold and have come to the conclusion that the question referred for adjudication before the Full Bench must be answered in the affirmative and is accordingly answered, subject to due observance of the safeguards which we have indicated above. The question of law is answered accordingly [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