(1)
MICHAEL MACHADO AND ANOTHER ........ Vs.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER ........Respondent D.D
17/02/2000
Facts: The trial against four accused had progressed substantially with the examination of 54 witnesses. The Metropolitan Magistrate ordered the addition of two more accused at a later stage, leading to the potential re-commencement of the entire trial. The appellants challenged this decision.Issues:The validity of invoking Section 319 after the cross-examination of a significant number of witness...
(2)
MONOTOSH KUMAR MITRA (DEAD) BY LRS. ........ Vs.
AMARENDRANATH SHAW (DEAD) AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
17/02/2000
Facts:The appellant obtained a preliminary decree in a mortgage suit.The decree specified payment terms, including four equal installments.Defendants failed to make any payments, including the first installment due on March 31, 1969.The appellant, invoking relevant provisions, sought a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property.The application for a final decree was dismissed on grounds o...
(3)
RAMJI PATEL AND OTHERS ........ Vs.
NAGRIK UPBHOKTA MARG DARSHAK MANCH AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
17/02/2000
Facts: The Madhya Pradesh Cattle (Control) Act, 1978, was enforced within the municipal limits of Jabalpur. In an earlier Public Interest Litigation (PIL), dairy owners were directed to shift their dairies to villages 'L' and 'G,' exempted from the Act. A subsequent PIL raised concerns about contamination of drinking water due to cow dung and waste. The Central Pollution Contro...
(4)
SRI K.V SHIVAKUMAR AND ANOTHER ........ Vs.
APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND OTHERS ......Respondent D.D
17/02/2000
Facts:Property: Double storied building at Old Taluk Cutchery Road, Bangalore.Agreement: Between M/s Vidyavati Kapoor Trust and M/s Rajatha Trust on 28-11-1990 for Rs. 1,55,00,000.Pre-emptive Purchase: Initiated by the Appropriate Authority due to alleged undervaluation with an intent to evade tax.Judicial History: Writ petitions filed, dismissed by Karnataka High Court, appealed to Supreme Court....
(5)
CONSUMER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY ........ Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
16/02/2000
Facts:In 1981, the Government of Gujarat declared a part of the forest area as a "Wild Life Sanctuary," covering 765.79 Sq. K.M.The notification was cancelled in 1993, and a reduced area of 94.87 Sq. K.M. was declared as the "Chinkara Wild Life Sanctuary."Petitioner challenged both notifications, and the High Court quashed them, reviving the 1981 notification.State Government p...
(6)
INDIA THERMAL POWER LTD. ........ Vs.
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
16/02/2000
Facts: Pursuant to the liberalization of the electricity sector in India, MOUs and Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) were entered into between the State Government, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (MPEB), and independent power producers (IPPs). The agreements aimed at establishing power projects and selling generated electricity to MPEB.Issues: MPEB's decision to prioritize projects offering ...
(7)
MAHMOOD AND OTHERS ........ Vs.
THE STATE OF BIHAR ........Respondent D.D
16/02/2000
Facts:Dacoity and murder occurred in the house of the informant, Bhupendra Mohan Singh, on 9th June 1985.The informant witnessed the incident from a neighbor's house and identified several accused.Villagers arrived at the scene, leading to a shootout with some dacoits. One villager died, and another was injured.The police recorded the informant's statement, leading to the registration of...
(8)
RESHMU AND OTHERS ........ Vs.
RAJINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
16/02/2000
Facts:Original plaintiff Suram Singh, a co-owner, filed a pre-emption suit in 1941 against the sale of an undivided share by another co-owner, Bassia.The suit was decreed in 1942, with a specified pre-emption amount, duly deposited by Suram Singh.A subsequent suit was filed by Suram Singh against successors of the vendees, seeking a declaration of ownership and an injunction against interference.I...
(9)
SARITA SHARMA ........ Vs.
SUSHIL SHARMA ........Respondent D.D
16/02/2000
Facts:Sushil Sharma filed a writ petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for the custody of his two minor children, Neil and Monica, alleging that they were in the illegal custody of Sarita Sharma, his estranged wife.Sarita Sharma, in response, claimed that she had lawful custody of the children and had brought them to India with the knowledge of Sushil.The divorce proceedings had been initiated ...