(1)
KEDAR MISHRA ..... Vs.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. .....Respondent D.D
12/04/2016
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
FACTS:The appeals arise from a common judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna.The appellant, Kedar Mishra, claimed the right of pre-emption under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act.The High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the grounds of non-compliance with Rule 19 and Form L.C. 13, affirming the order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue.ISSUES:Whether there was suff...
(2)
KUSUM HARILAL SONI ..... Vs.
CHANDRIKA NANDLAL MEHTA AND ANR. .....Respondent D.D
12/04/2016
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Facts:The appellant filed a suit for eviction against respondent no. 1 due to the expiration of a license agreement in 1994.The competent authority ordered the respondent to hand over possession and pay compensation from November 1, 1994.Despite possession being handed over in 2001, the compensation was not paid, and the respondent allegedly transferred the property to respondent no. 2.Issues:Whet...
(3)
V. SEJAPPA ... Vs.
STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR LOKAYUKTA, CHITRADURGA. ..Respondent D.D
12/04/2016
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Facts:Complainant, N. Ramakrishnappa, accused the appellant, V. Sejappa, of demanding a bribe of Rs. 5,000 for processing pension papers and other retiral benefits.A trap was laid by the Lokayukta police, resulting in the appellant's arrest with tainted currency notes.The trial court acquitted the appellant, citing reasons such as absence of proof of demand, doubts about document submissions,...
(4)
K.S. JOSEPH ..... Vs.
PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD. AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D
11/04/2016
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Facts: The appellant, K.S. Joseph, appealed against the rejection of his plea to quash the order of cognizance and issuance of summons in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case involved bounced cheques and issues related to delay, jurisdiction, and compliance with procedural requirements.Issues: The delay in filing the complaint, non-compliance with Section 200 ...
(5)
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA ..... Vs.
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. .....Respondent D.D
11/04/2016
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Facts:Review petitions filed against the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 18th July 2013.Initially placed before a Three-Judge Bench but later ordered to be heard by a Five-Judge Bench.Notice served through substituted service, and matters heard after necessary publication.Various judgments on the scope of review considered.Issues:Whether the judgment in Christian Medical College case needs rec...
(6)
CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION ..... Vs.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondent D.D
08/04/2016
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Facts: The case involves the migration of EWA spectrum to UL, allowing existing BWA spectrum to transition to UL. TRAI initiated the process in 2012, leading to the issuance of the National Telecom Policy-2012 by the Government of India. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) made a policy decision allowing migration to UL from UASL and ISP to UL regime.Issues: The validity of the migration de...
(7)
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ..... Vs.
M/S KERALA RARE EARTH & MINERALS LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondent D.D
08/04/2016
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Facts: The State Government initially stayed further action on granting mining leases for non-scheduled minerals, citing the need for a detailed environmental impact study. Subsequently, the State informed the lessee-company of its intention not to grant leases for mineral sand to private parties. Revision applications were filed, and the Central Government directed the State Government to reconsi...
(8)
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK ..... Vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ETC. D.D
06/04/2016
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Facts: The case involves a complaint filed under sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against a company and its executive director and directors. The High Court, using its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, quashed the summons issued in the case.Issues: The interpretation of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and whether the accused compa...
(9)
COMMISSIONER, DELHI VALUE ADDED TAX ..... Vs.
M/S. ABB LTD. .....Respondent D.D
05/04/2016
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Facts:The respondent, ABB Ltd., a Public Limited Company, was engaged in the manufacture and sale of engineering goods.The Delhi Metro Railway Corporation Ltd. (DMRC) invited tenders for the supply, installation, testing, and commissioning of various electrical equipment for a specific project.The respondent entered into a contract with DMRC to provide transformers, switch-gears, High Voltage Cabl...